Rhetorical Moves and Steps in the Findings and Discussion Sections of EFL Undergraduates’ Theses: An Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37134/ajelp.vol13.1.8.2025Keywords:
EFL undergraduates’ theses, genre analysis, rhetorical moves and stepsAbstract
The Findings and Discussion (F&D) sections in undergraduate theses play a crucial role in academic writing, as they present and interpret research results. However, EFL students often face challenges in organising their F&D sections effectively. This study examines the rhetorical moves and steps employed in the F&D sections of five EFL undergraduates' theses to identify common patterns and deviations from established academic writing conventions. Adopting a genre analysis approach, a corpus of undergraduate theses was analysed using Ruiying & Allison (2003) move-step framework. The findings reveal that while the students generally follow conventional rhetorical structures, variations exist in the sequencing and realisation of moves, particularly in the interpretation and evaluation of findings. Some students seemed to struggle with establishing clear connections between results and previous research, leading to less cohesive discussions. The study underscores the need for explicit instruction on rhetorical structuring in academic writing courses. These findings contribute to EAP pedagogy by offering insights into students’ rhetorical challenges and suggesting targeted interventions to enhance their academic writing proficiency.
Downloads
References
Al-Shujairi, Y. (2021). Review of the discussion section of research articles: Rhetorical structure and move. LSP International Journal, 8(2), 9–25.
Annesley, T. M. (2010). The discussion section: your closing argument. Clinical Chemistry, 56(11), 1671–1674.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Longman.
Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., & Hewings, A. (2003). Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher Education. Routledge.
Efendi, A., Rosiah, S. K., Susilawati, M. P., et al. (2021). Dasar-Dasar Menulis Karya Tulis Ilmiah. Deepublish.
Ferry, V. (2022). What is discussion in research? Retrieved from Movie Cultists Web Site: https://moviecultists.com/What-Is-Discussion-in-Research
Gani, F. G., Kurniawan, E., Gunawan, W., & Lubis, A. H. (2021). Rhetorical moves analysis in soft and hard science lecturers’ master’s thesis and dissertation abstracts. Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2020), 156–161.
Husin, M. S., & Nurbayani, E. (2017). The ability of Indonesian EFL learners in writing academic papers. Dinamika Ilmu, 17(2), 227-250.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. Continuum.
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 8(3), 243–281.
McCombes, S. (2019, March 21). How to Write a Discussion Section | Checklist and Examples. Retrieved from Scribbr Web Site: https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/discussion/
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives. Pearson Education.
Ono, K., Sumita, K., Research, S. M., et al. (1994). Abstract generation based on rhetorical structure extraction. ArXiv Preprint Cmp-Lg/9411023.
Pratiwi, D., Hermawan, B., & Muniroh, R. D. (2021). Rhetorical move analysis in humanities and hard science students’ undergraduate thesis abstracts. Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2020), 121–126.
Putri, N. A. A., & Astutik, Y. P. (2023). An analysis of rhetorical moves and steps of Findings and Discussions of “Cyberbullying in the Name of God: Critical Discourse Analysis of Online Responses to the Act of De-hijabbing in Malaysia.” Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature, 17(2), 379–385.
Quayson, E. (2021, November 18). What is the major difference between findings and conclusion? Is there a difference in writing findings and conclusion? Retrieved from Research Gate Web Site: https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_major_difference_between _findings_and_conclusion_Is_there_a_difference_in_writing_findings_an d_conclusion
Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365–385.
Suhadi, A. (2023). Analysis of Students’ Understanding in Using Rhetorical Moves on Thesis Abstract. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 10(2), 1756–1767.
Suherdi, D., Kurniawan, E., & Lubis, A. H. (2020, May). A genre analysis of research article ‘findings and discussion’ sections written byIndonesian undergraduate EFL students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 59-72. doi:10.17509/ijal.v10i1.24989
Sujiyani, E. (2022). The rhetorical moves in Indonesian EFL graduate students’ thesis abstracts. EBONY: Journal of English Language Teaching, Linguistics, and Literature, 2(1), 55–71.
Suryani, F. B., & Rismiyanto, R. (2019). Move analysis of the English bachelor thesis abstracts written by Indonesians. Prominent, 2(2), 192-199.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.
Tse, H. F. (2011). The role of literature review in undergraduate thesis writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(2), 75-84.
Ulya, S. (2022). Rhetorical Moves Variations of Research Article Discussion Section Published in Reputable Journals. Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 632–645.
Vieira, R. F., Lima, R. C., & Mizubuti, E. S. (2019). How to write the discussion section of a scientific article. Acta Scientiarum, 41(1), 1. doi:10.4025/actasciagron.v41i1.42621
Wilkinson, D., & Birmingham, P. (2003). Using Research Instrument: A Guide for Researchers. Routledge.
Zubir, F, Suryani, I., & Abdullah, S. (2023). The rhetorical moves of abstracts in thesis. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2544(1).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Nur Heni, Surono Surono, Kamisah Ariffin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
