Exploring the writing styles of UNIMAS (T)ESL undergraduates in the Discussion section of FYP: A textual analysis

Sim, Adeline Chai Ling. (2007) Exploring the writing styles of UNIMAS (T)ESL undergraduates in the Discussion section of FYP: A textual analysis. [Final Year Project Report] (Unpublished)

PDF (Please get the password by email to repository@unimas.my , or call ext: 3914 / 3942 / 3933) ADELINE SIM.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (6MB)

Abstract

This study sought to examine the ways the (T)ESL undergraduates in UNIMAS wrote the Discussion section of their Final Year Projects (FYPs). The objectives were to find out the move structures and language features employed when writing this section as well as to determine the extent to which these writing styles were similar to the criteria in the adapted checklists by Yang and Allison (2003) and Weissburg and Buker (1990). 40 (T)ESL Discussion sections of empirical research were selected using the stratified random sampling method and analysed using the above mentioned checklists. Analysis was carried out at sentence level. Results of analysis showed that there were two ways of structuring the Discussion section - either to coalesce it with the Findings section or write it separately. It was noted that Move 2 (M2) Reporting results and Move 3 (M3) Commenting on results were the obligatory moves in the Discussion sections, with both moves exhibiting a high average occurrence per section in both ways of structuring. All the sample texts reflected the cyclical nature of a Discussion with the presence of recurring patterns. The structures employed reflected the criteria in Yang and Allison's (2003) checklist to a large extent, with the only marked difference being the low occurrence of Move 6 (M6) Evaluating the study in all the Discussion sections. As for language features, majority of the undergraduates (38 out of 40) used complex structures when expressing their positions towards the findings. Apart from employing the language features as listed in the checklist, the undergraduates also resorted to other language features to achieve the same rhetorical functions. This has led to diverse writing styles in realising the same communicative purpose of a Discussion section. As a whole, the language features adopted by the (T)ESL undergraduates were quite similar to those outlined by Weissburg and Buker (1990), with each of the criterion appearing in different degrees of frequency.

Actions (For repository members only: login required)

View Item