A Pedagogical Move Analysis of Literature Reviews in ELT Research Articles and Ph.D. Dissertations
Subject Areas : Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies
Azadeh Karam Pourchangi
1
,
Hossein Saadabadi Motlagh
2
*
,
Seyed Foad Ebrahimi
3
1 - Department of English Language, Bushehr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran
2 - Department of English, Bushehr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran
3 - English Department, Shadegan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shadegan, Iran
Keywords: Academic writing, Genre analysis, Schematic structure ,
Abstract :
This study scrutinizes the rhetorical moves and sub-moves in corpora of literature review sections of 20 research articles published in prestigious journals and 20 literature review chapters of Iranian Ph.D. dissertations from English language teaching (ELT) discipline aiming to compare expert and novice writers’ practices and products. The move analysis approach was applied to fulfill the aims of this corpus-based discourse study. To this end, Kwan’s (2006) literature review move model was employed for the move analysis. The results indicate discrepancies in the length and frequency of use in several rhetorical sub-moves. Yet, both novice and expert writers almost followed a holistic schematic structure, including a novel strategy identified in both sets of corpora. In addition, the findings shed light on the significance of the disciplinary realization of the schematic structure and explicit writing practices for student writers. The pedagogical implications of the findings are also discussed for designers and instructors to produce more appropriate academic materials for inexperienced and novice writers in terms of communicative purposes.
Ahn, C. Y., & Oh, S. Y. (2024). Citation practices in applied linguistics: A comparative study of Korean master's theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 69, 101369.
Akbaş, E., & Farnia, M. (2021). Exploring rhetorical moves in a digital academic genre: A cross-disciplinary study of the highlights section. Ibérica, (42), 85-114.
Alek, A., Marzuki, A. G., Hidayat, D. N., & Fauzji, F. (2022). The discourse structure and linguistic features of research articles and thesis abstracts in English by Indonesian academics. JELITA: Journal of Education, Language Innovation, and Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 37-44.
Amnuai, W., Wimuttisuksuntorn, W., & Wuttikanokkarn, T. (2023). Rhetorical Moves and Metadiscourse in English Abstracts of Research Articles and Masters’ Theses. JEL Vol. 4 No. 2 ((July-December) 2023, 4(2), 29.
Bastola, M. N., & Ho, V. (2023). Rhetorical structure of literature review chapters in Nepalese PhD dissertations: Students’ engagement with previous scholarship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 101271.
Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134-144.
Basturkmen, H., & Von Randow, J. (2014). Guiding the reader (or not) to re-create coherence: Observations on postgraduate student writing in an academic argumentative writing task. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 14-22.
Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.
Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of Ph.D. conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.004
Bunton, D. (2014). Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis introductions. In Academic discourse (pp. 67-85). Routledge.
Calle-Arango, L., & Ávila Reyes, N. (2023). Obstacles, facilitators, and needs in doctoral writing: A systematic review. Studies in
Continuing Education, 45(2), 133-151.).
Can, T., & Cangır, H. (2019). A corpus-assisted comparative analysis of self-mention markers in doctoral dissertations of literary studies written in Turkey and the UK. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 100796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100796
Casal, J. E., Lu, X., Qiu, X., Wang, Y., & Zhang, G. (2021). Syntactic complexity across academic research article part-genres: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 52, 100996.
Cho, S. (2004). Challenges of entering discourse communities through publishing in English: Perspectives of nonnative-speaking doctoral students in the United States of America. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(1), 47-72.
Cotos, E. (2012). Move analysis. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1-8). Retrieved from Wiley Online Library database.
Deng, L., Cheng, Y., & Gao, X. (2024). Engagement patterns in research article introductions: A cross-disciplinary study. System, 120, 103204.
Dong, J., & Lu, X. (2020). Promoting discipline-specific genre competence with corpus-based genre analysis activities. English for Specific Purposes, 58, 138-154.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1999). The dissertation: A case of neglect. Issues in EAP writing research and instruction, 28-36.
Ferguson, G., Pérez‐Llantada, C., & Plo, R. (2011). English as an international language of scientific publication: A study of attitudes. World Englishes, 30(1), 41-59.
El-Dakhs, D. A. S. (2018). Why are abstracts in PhD theses and research articles different? A genre-specific perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 48-60.
Fryer, D. L. (2012). Analysis of the generic discourse features of the English-language medical research article: A systemic-functional approach. Functions of Language, 19(1), 5-37.
Gosden, H. (1992). Discourse functions of marked theme in scientific research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 11(3), 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80010-9
Hao, J. (2024). Titles in research articles and doctoral dissertations: cross-disciplinary and cross-generic perspectives. Scientometrics, 129(4), 2285-2307.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 113-121.
Hsiao, C. H., & Yu, H. Y. (2012). Knowledge Presentation in Thesis Writing—Examining Move Use in Reviewing Literature. English Teaching & Learning, 36(3).
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of second language writing, 12(1), 17-29.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses, Michigan classics ed.: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.05.002
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy, and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. A&C Black.
Hyland, K. (2009). Corpus Informed Discourse Analysis: The Case of Academic Engagement. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari, & S.
Hunston (Eds.), Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse (pp. 110–128). Bloomsbury.
Işık Taş, E. E. (2008). A corpus-based analysis of genre-specific discourse of research: the Ph.D. thesis and the research article in elt [Ph.D. - Doctoral Program]. Middle East Technical University.
Jian, H. (2010). The schematic structure of literature review in research articles of applied linguistics. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press), 33(5).
Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2020). Prescription and reality in advanced academic writing. Ibérica, (39), 14-42. Retrieved from http://www.revistaiberica.org/index.php/iberica/article/view/74
Johns, A. M. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing quest. Language Teaching, 41(2), 237-252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004892
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003
Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124.
Kawase, T. (2018). Rhetorical structure of the introductions of applied linguistics Ph.D. theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 18-27.
Kwan, B. S. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 30-55.
Kwan, B.S.C. (2010). An investigation of instruction in research publishing in doctoral programs: the Hong Kong case. Higher Education, 59, 55-68. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9233-x
Langum, V., & Sullivan, K. P. (2017). Writing academic English as a doctoral student in Sweden: Narrative perspectives. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 20-25.
Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Ali, F. (2022). Advancing knowledge through literature reviews:‘what’,‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’. The Service Industries Journal, 42(7-8), 481-513.
Lu, X., Casal, J. E., & Liu, Y. (2020). The rhetorical functions of syntactically complex sentences in social science research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 44, 100832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100832
Lu, X., Casal, J. E., & Liu, Y. (2021). Towards the synergy of genre-and corpus-based approaches to academic writing research and pedagogy. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 11(1), 59-71.
McAlpine, L. (2012). Shining a light on doctoral reading: Implications for doctoral identities and pedagogies. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(4), 351-361.
Morgan, E. M. (2022). An investigation into genre-based content and collaborative pedagogy in a Japanese tertiary teaching context (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania).
Mousavi, H. S., & Kashefian-Naeeini, S. (2011). An investigation into the role of EFL learners’ attitudes, motivation, and proficiency in learning among Iranian students of National University in Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 23(4), 593-603.
Negretti, R. (2021). Searching for metacognitive generalities: Areas of convergence in learning to write for publication across doctoral students in science and engineering. Written Communication, 38(2), 167-207.
Nwogu, K. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4
Oj, S., & Siyyari, M. (2024). A Comparison of Moves in Discussion Sections of PhD Dissertations and MA Theses in TEFL and their Relevant Journal Articles.
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. University of Michigan Press.
Paltridge, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: An examination of published advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes, 21(2), 125-143.
Pecorari, D. (2006). Visible and occluded citation features in postgraduate second-language writing. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 4-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.04.004
Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607087010
Rajagopalan, U. M., Griffin, L., & Trimarco, P. (2021). Action Research for Exploring Genre Approaches to Writing in Real-World ESP Classrooms. International Journal of Education, 13(2).
Ren, H., & Li, Y. (2011). A comparison study on the rhetorical moves of abstracts in published research articles and Master's foreign-language theses. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 162-166.
Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1
Sadeghi, K., & Shirzad Khajepasha, A. (2015). Thesis writing challenges for non-native M.A. students. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 20(3), 357-373.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1992). A text-type and move analysis study of verb tense and modality distribution in medical English abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 11(2), 93-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80002-X
Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master's theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 55-67.
Samraj, B. (2013). Form and function of citations in discussion sections of master's theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(4), 299-310.
Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. (2013). Second language research methods. Oxford Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Shahsavar, Z., & Kourepaz, H. (2020). Postgraduate students’ difficulties in writing their theses literature review. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1784620.
Singh, A. A., & Lukkarila, L. (2017). Successful academic writing: A complete guide for social and behavioral scientists. Guilford Publications.
Skelton, J. (1994). Analysis of the structure of original research papers: an aid to writing original papers for publication. British Journal of General Practice, 44(387), 455-459.
Swales, J. (1984). Research into the structure of introductions to journal articles and its application to the teaching of academic writing. Common Ground: Shared Interests in ESP and Communication Studies, 77-86.
Swales, J., & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written communication, 4(2), 175-191.
Swales, J. M., & Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge university press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Thongchalerm, S., & Jarunthawatchai, W. (2020). The Impact of Genre Based Instruction on EFL Learners' Writing Development. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 1-16.
Walter, L., & Stouck, J. (2020). Writing the literature review: Graduate student experiences. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(1).
Wang, G., & Hu, G. (2022). Citations and the nature of cited sources: a cross-disciplinary and cross-linguistic study. Sage Open, 12(2), 21582440221093350.
Xie, J., Xie, J., & Bui, G. (2024). A diachronic study of authorial stance in the discussion of Chinese MA theses and published research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 67, 101320.
Yongyan, L. I. (2002). Writing for international publication: The perception of Chinese doctoral researchers. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 179-193.
Yoon, J., & Casal, J. E. (2020). Rhetorical structure, sequence, and variation: A step‐driven move analysis of applied linguistics conference abstracts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 462-478.
You, Y. L., & Li, M. C. (2021). Move analysis of the literature review chapters in Taiwanese graduate students’ TESOL theses and dissertations. English teaching and learning, 45(2), 119-143.
Zhou, H., & Jiang, F. K. (2023). ‘The study has clear limitations’: Presentation of limitations in conclusion sections of PhD dissertations and research articles in applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 71, 34-47.
Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2024: 117-139
ISSN: 2820-9974
A Pedagogical Move Analysis of Literature Reviews in ELT Research Articles and Ph.D. Dissertations
Azadeh Karam Pourchangi1, Hossein Saadabadi Motlagh*1, Seyed Foad Ebrahimi2
1Department of English Language, Bushehr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran
Email: azade.krp@gmail.com
2Department of English Language, Shadegan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shadegan, Iran
Email: seyedfoade@gmail.com
*Corresponding Author’s Email: saadabadimh@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This study scrutinized the rhetorical moves and sub-moves in corpora of literature review sections of 20 research articles published in prestigious journals and 20 literature review chaFpters of Iranian Ph.D. dissertations from English language teaching (ELT) discipline aiming to compare expert and novice writers’ practices and products. The move analysis approach was applied to fulfill the aims of this corpus-based discourse study. To this end, Kwan’s (2006) literature review move model was employed for the move analysis. The results indicate discrepancies in the length and frequency of use in several rhetorical sub-moves. Yet, both novice and expert writers almost followed a holistic schematic structure, including a novel strategy identified in both sets of corpora. In addition, the findings shed light on the significance of the disciplinary realization of the schematic structure and explicit writing practices for student writers. The pedagogical implications of the findings are also discussed for designers and instructors to produce more appropriate academic materials for inexperienced and novice writers in terms of communicative purposes.
KEYWORDS: Academic writing; Genre analysis; Schematic structure
INTRODUCTION
Writing theses, dissertations, and research articles (RAs) is challenging for inexperienced researchers and non-native writers, especially Ph.D. candidates whose final projects’ accomplishment is the most daunting aspect of their post-graduation process (Sadeghi & Shirzad Khajepasha, 2015). Although they participate in relevant preparatory writing courses during their Ph.D. program, many candidates need help to write their dissertations autonomously (Mousavi & Kashefian-Naeeini, 2011). Not only has the nature of writing skills perplexed candidates, but being an expert writer in a foreign language, namely English, has always been a hurdle. Numerous studies confirm foreign language writers’ obstacles, especially in higher education, where Ph.D. candidates need to gain acceptance from international journals with a high impact factor in publishing their articles. This acceptance validates their research and enhances their academic reputation and standing within their discourse community. However, achieving this acceptance can be particularly challenging for non-native English speakers (Cho, 2004; Ferguson et al., 2011; Kwan, 2010; Langum & Sullivan, 2017; Yongyan, 2002).
Ph.D. candidates’ weak dissertation writing performance can also illuminate the lack of genre-based materials in their academic writing courses. Furthermore, the significance of disciplinary integration with genre-based approaches to teaching academic writing in Ph.D. programs is another crucial factor contributing to their failure. Subsequently, the complexity of genre and part-genre realization in different disciplinary discourse communities and its significance in enhancing the quality of communication among members of a particular community are essential issues worth considering. A plethora of investigations have been conducted on practical approaches to dealing with the problems, primarily disciplinary and genre-based challenges. Explicit instruction of specific disciplinary genres is a highlighted approach to facilitating the academic writing process for novice writers, researchers, or Ph.D. candidates.
As writing academic projects, such as dissertations and research articles, is the prerequisite for triumph in achieving postgraduate success, analyzing the characteristics of both genres is of utmost importance. The generic investigations have attracted extensive interest due to the lack of Ph.D. candidates’ discipline-specific genre competence (Dong & Lu, 2020) and time! Scholars and researchers assert that the explicit illustration and instruction of discursive and generic knowledge can be beneficial (Hyland, 2005, 2007; McAlpine, 2012) in that candidates may be fully informed of the necessities of discursive and generic communication among members of their specific community. Therefore, not only does it save energy and time, but it also decreases the candidates’ stress in confronting problems arising from unfamiliarity with the characteristics of their discipline (Shahsavar & Kourepaz, 2020). Many researchers have been exploring the rhetorical features or structures of different sections of academic writing, especially at the postgraduate level (e.g., Bunton, 2005, 2014; Can & Cangir, 2019; Kawase, 2018; Kwan, 2006; Lu et al., 2020; Pecorari, 2006; Samraj, 2008, 2013). Among all the studies on dissertation writing at the postgraduate level, there has been little investigation into the literature review chapter writing. According to Hsiao and Yu (2012), reading and writing the literature review is a convoluted process, burdening students with its complexity. As the literature review is considered the foundation of a thesis or dissertation exploring previous studies, students need to read a considerable number of valuable and reliable resources before commencing not only the literature review chapter but also the whole thesis or dissertation. It is undeniable that literature review plays a crucial role in Ph.D. students' academic achievements, including their ability to complete projects and convince examiners. One of the essential literature review resources for Ph.D. candidates as novices is the published research articles in their disciplinary area (Pecorari, 2006). Despite some differences between the literature review chapters of dissertations and the literature review sections of research articles, the rhetorical similarities in employing moves and sub-moves can benefit Ph.D. candidates in the same disciplinary domain with the same communicative purposes. As a consequence, this research aims to gain a deeper comprehension of rhetorical moves in literature review chapters of ELT dissertations written in English by comparing them with the literature review schematic structure of RAs in ELT to shed light on the practical pedagogical benefits of ESP resources for Iranian Ph.D. candidates facing writing problems.
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
In the last two decades, many scholars and researchers have strived to scrutinize the peculiar linguistic building blocks of different kinds of genres with specific and unique characteristics. Consequently, a torrent of research has been conducted to illustrate the differences between various genres, especially across disciplines (e.g., Akbaş & Farnia, 2021; Casal et al., 2021; Deng et al., 2024; Wang & Hu, 2022). For instance, cross-disciplinary genre analysis of research articles was an appropriate starting point, as many researchers have been studying research articles as a whole or separate sections of them to fathom how other researchers write (Hyland, 2009).
Initially, the schematic structure of genres had been studied before the importance of rhetorical-functional investigations was highlighted. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, "Move Analysis" gained popularity as an approach. Researchers have been intrigued by this contentious approach to genre analysis. Hence, the research community has proposed, adopted, and adapted various models appropriate for schematic structure analysis to conduct generic studies.
As a pioneer in this field, John Swales, the creator of the first-generated move model, focused on the communicative feature of language among discourse community members with convergent aims. Swales highlighted the significance of conventional constituents of genre-specific contexts (Cotos, 2012). He quite delicately chose "move" as a generic discursive jargon fulfilling the communicative purpose of the genre to illustrate the coherent movement and flow of genre in discourse. Swales proposed his genre analysis move model (1984) and CARS (Create a Research Space) model for introductory sections (Swales & Swales, 1990; Swales, 2004).
Inspired by Swales and due to the beneficial function of move models, numerous academics and authors have endeavored to provide diverse models suitable for analyzing a wide range of genres and part-genres, whether in written or spoken form. Based on the various models proposed by researchers, a significant proportion of them pertain to separate areas of written part-genres such as abstract, introduction, literature review, methods, results and discussion, and conclusions mainly in RAs, theses, and dissertations (e.g., Basturkmen, 2012; Bunton, 2005, 2014; Hopkins & Dudley-Evans, 1988; Hsiao & Yu, 2012; Jian, 2010; Kanoksilapatham, 2005; Kwan, 2006; Pho, 2008; Salager-Meyer, 1992; Swales 1984; Swales & Swales, 1990; Swales, 2004; Samraj, 2008; Ruiying & Allison, 2003). On the contrary, several scholars have suggested holistic models to analyze the rhetorical structure (e.g., Gosden, 1992; Fryer, 2012; Nwogu, 1997; Skelton, 1994).
Several scholars and researchers have been promulgating the prominence of literature review as a parcel of research (Lim et al., 2022) since it is crystal clear that "a thorough, sophisticated literature review is the foundation and inspiration for substantial, useful research" (Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3). However, based on a systematic review of the evolutionary continuum of move model creation, the literature review part-genre has not been valued enough owing to the dearth of literature review move models amid the numerous created models. Compared to other academic part-genres, fewer researchers develop models to illustrate the schematic structure of literature reviews. Nevertheless, Kwan (2006) and Jian (2010) have proposed move models for literature review chapters and sections in theses and research articles. Furthermore, the structure of this significant part-genre as a constituent part of whole academic writing has been explored by other researchers such as Nwogu (1997) and Fryer (2012). Notably, even in recent studies, researchers have continued using the CARS model to analyze LRs. For example, Bastola and Ho (2023) adopted the CARS model to examine the rhetorical structure of 60 LR chapters from PhD dissertations in several disciplines at a university in Nepal to determine student involvement in prior academic work. The LR chapters mainly demonstrated a simple structure consisting of a single move (i.e., establishing a territory), integrated with Move 2 (i.e., establishing a niche) and Move 3 (i.e., occupying the niche) being far less prevalent. In several literature review chapters, the current literature was presented as informative rather than used to identify the research niche and promote the research agenda.
As literature reviews are not isolated chapters or sections, and since the corpus of the present study is meaningfully embedded in dissertations and research articles, the illustration of similarities and differences between the two mentioned part-genres is as significant as the move analysis elaboration. Several comparative and contrastive studies (e.g., Ahn & Oh, 2024; Alek et al., 2022; Amnuai et al., 2023; Hao, 2024; Işık Taş, 2008; Kawase, 2015; Oj & Siyyari, 2023; Ren & Li, 2011; Xie et al., 2024; Zhou & Jiang, 2023) with different approaches have been conducted to show the generic characteristics of research articles, dissertations, and theses.
Based on the complex nature of inter-generic research, a few studies consider the discrepancies and similarities between different genres or part-genres. However, most of them examined metadiscoursal characteristics. Some focused on metadiscourse and rhetorical moves simultaneously. For instance, while You and Li (2021) attempted to compare two similar part-genres (i.e., MA theses and Ph.D. dissertation literature review chapters), Amnuai et al. (2023) and El-Dakhs (2018) concentrated on the abstracts schematically and metadiscoursally. You and Li (2021) analyzed Taiwanese EFL students' master's theses and doctoral dissertations' literature review chapters' rhetoric. Their study examined how authors construct literature review chapters employing moves and steps. They reported a similar schematic development of 20 master's thesis and 20 Ph.D. dissertation literature review chapters in TESOL. Amnuai et al. (2023) compared metadiscourse and rhetorical moves in abstracts of RAs and masters' theses, while El-Dakhs (2018) focused on abstracts in RAs and Ph.D. dissertations.
Işık Taş (2008) also conducted a comparative investigation focusing on the introduction chapters of Turkish Ph.D. dissertations in ELT and the introduction sections of ELT research articles in highly ranked journals. The findings of her study illuminated the resemblance between research article introductions. Further differences, like unreasonable production of lengthy moves and unnecessary repetitions in theses, indicated the novices' incomplete appropriation of disciplinary practices. and Swales' CARS model (Swales, 2004), with more academic and lexically dense content; subsequently, she suggested that the novices as "outsiders" can benefit from an expert as "insiders" by reading and following their academic research articles to access their genuine disciplinary community (Jiang & Hyland, 2020).
In a similar vein, in a study performed by Ren and Li (2011), the schematic structure of abstracts in Chinese English theses was compared with research articles published in highly-ranked journals in the area of applied linguistics. It was found that thesis authors included all the basic rhetorical moves in their abstracts; however, expert writers were more selective to maximize the quality of their articles. Further differences like unreasonable production of some lengthy moves and unnecessary repetitions in theses indicated the novices' incomplete appropriation of disciplinary practices. Consequently, Ren and Li (2011) highlighted the significance of appropriate materials such as experts' RAs and their leading role in novices' disciplinary adaptation to be accepted as legitimate members of their discourse community. Such studies show the equal importance of reading and writing skills during the thesis or dissertation writing process, especially in doctoral education. Instructing how to read and review reliable sources critically to comprehend and then write an academically acceptable literature review is an essential concern among supervisors (Basturkmen & Von Randow, 2014; Calle-Arango & Ávila Reyes, 2023). Research published in high-rank journals depicts a standard structure in which the niche, research questions, or problems are addressed, the related literature is reviewed, the methodology and data collection and analysis procedures are elucidated, and finally, the findings, conclusions, and implications are covered (Seliger & Shohamy, 2013). Holistically, dissertations and research articles follow the same standard structure; however, the disciplinary generic constituents of each genre need to be meticulously analyzed to extract similarities and differences (Hyland, 2009; Swales & Najjar,1987). These types of details can be helpful for novice writers when they need to read and have access to numerous research-based scholarly documents to conduct their study. Research articles from other sources (e.g., indices, bibliographies, professional conferences, underground press, edited collections, reviews, books, dissertations, and theses) are akin to theses and dissertations, although they are not identical (Dudley-Evans, 1999; Paltridge, 2002). Moreover, they are more accessible to students than dissertations or theses. Therefore, a comparative analysis focusing on commonalities and distinctions between research articles and theses or dissertations can be helpful for student writers who strive to join the expert communities of their discipline.
Among all the studies on Ph.D. academic writing, a comparative study on the schematic structure of literature reviews in dissertations and research articles has not been sufficiently touched upon. One reason for this neglect might be related to the length of this significant part-genre since it is the bulkiest section of both dissertations and research articles. To clear up the ambiguities, it seems that scrutinizing the differences and similarities between the schematic structure of literature reviews in research articles and dissertations is indispensable since the RAs are reliable academic published sources available to Ph.D. candidates and novice writers who need to deeply comprehend the reality and nature of genres in an appropriate context. As many frameworks and models are explicating the schematic structure of different genres, it can be highly expedient to analyze both structures to extract the potential differences and similarities to create an accessible context to benefit the novice community. That is, when accessing suitable materials to read and analyze based on proposed available schematic structures is harder, an alternative approach is to read RAs instead of full-text dissertations to comprehend the usage of models. The miniature and reliable samples of literature review chapters in dissertations can be those LR sections in prestigious journals published research articles, which can save time and simplify the discernment of unstimulating pure schematic structures without genuine comprehensive realization and meaningful soul beyond them! To be specific, even a precise, well-organized schematic structure can be meaningless and useless for a novice researcher or writer when it is not examined, analyzed, and evaluated in an authentic context. Since the addressees of such prescriptive models are novice writers, reconsidering and evaluating those models is an inevitable need. As mentioned, the quality of RAs literature review section and its schematic structure can be determinative and reliable since they are not local materials. They are observed, reviewed, and evaluated by knowledgeable reviewers and referees. Therefore, relying on such valuable materials compared with dissertations seems more reasonable. Suppose the structure of the literature reviews in dissertations is similar to that of research articles. In that case, it can be logical to focus on reading and analyzing the most relevant studies to the dissertation topic to enhance the topical and generic knowledge simultaneously. This wisdom can be advantageous, especially to novice researchers, since the overwhelming realization process of literature review and, later, dissertation writing will be pleasant and less demanding, and the graduate degree completion will not be procrastinated (Walter & Stouck, 2020).
Nevertheless, this gap can be worthy of mention to illustrate the probably hidden variations between the schematic structure of the two mentioned academic writings to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the commonalities and distinctions between the schematic structures of the literature review section in ELT research articles and the literature review chapter in ELT dissertations?
2. What are the probable differences in the schematic structure of the current literature reviews in research articles and dissertations compared with the previous decade?
METHODOLOGY
This comparative study was conducted using two sets of data. In one set, 20 completed Ph.D. dissertations in ELT were selected and downloaded from a reliable Iranian academic website (https://ganj.irandoc.ac.ir). The Ph.D. dissertations chosen for this study were written in English. They were randomly selected from five different universities to enhance the validity of the research and decrease the limitations related to the regulations of universities.
The second set of data was related to 20 research articles in ELT. Research articles were randomly selected from 10 prestigious journals with a high impact factor, which refers to the high citation percentage and illustrates the credibility of a journal (See Table 1). Two research articles written by experts were selected from each journal. Furthermore, the time range of both Ph.D. dissertations and published research articles was another significant factor that was controlled; the corpora in both data sets were written and published between 2018 and 2022.
Table 1.
The ELT Journals from which the Articles Were Selected in the Present Study
Journals | Impact factor / SJR (2021) | |
1 | 2.845 0.92 (SJR) | |
2 | 3.782 1.95 (SJR) | |
3 | 3.776 0.55 (SJR) | |
4 | 0.72 0.342 (SJR) | |
5 | 4.155 2.72 (SJR) | |
6 | 4.518 1.72 (SJR) | |
7 | 4.769 2.073 (SJR) | |
8 |
| 2.417 1.363 (SJR) |
9 | 3.164 1.336 (SJR) | |
10 | 2.481 1.304 (SJR) |
All the literature review sections and chapters in research articles and dissertations were transferred to Word files to facilitate subsequent analysis. The word count of each part in the corpus is essential in this study since it increases the validity of the research. Kwan's (2006) move model (Kwan, 2006) for literature review chapters in Ph.D. dissertations was applied for move analysis of the data (See Figure 1). The reason behind choosing this model is related to the objectives of the study, namely illustrating the similarities and differences between literature review chapters and sections in dissertations and research articles, respectively, and extracting the probable violated or added moves or sub-moves to analyze the rationale basis for such distinctions. The literature review chapters and literature review sections in dissertations and research articles were manually coded and analyzed; the moves and strategies were identified. Based on the distribution of move structure found in literature review sections of research articles (See Appendix A) and literature review chapters of Ph.D. dissertations (See Appendix B), the use and length percentages related to each move and strategy were estimated (See Tables 2 and 3). Afterward, an expert researcher was asked to code the corpus based on Kwan’s (2006) model for inter-rater reliability. Upon comparing the results, two disagreements were identified in analysis, which we reanalyzed and discussed; ultimately, we reached a consensus.
Figure 1.
Kwan's (2006) Move Model for the Thematic Units in Literature Review Chapter
Note. Adapted from “The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics” by B. S. Kwan. 2006, English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 51. Copyright 2005 by The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. ** = Illustration of moves and their strategies in the present study. a Sub-strategy = justifying or claiming contributions. b Strategy 1B tends to precede Strategy 1A when the two co-occur.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This study aimed to investigate the commonalities and differences between the schematic structures of the literature review sections in ELT research articles and the literature review chapters in ELT dissertations. To conduct move analysis, we adopted Kwan's move model (Kwan, 2006) to examine the schematic structure of both Ph.D. dissertation literature review chapters and literature review sections of research articles. Although three strategies illustrate the same use percentage, this study shows striking contrasts. As can be seen in Table 2, both dissertations and RAs contain the same percentage of M1 SA, M1 SB, and M2 SC in LRs (See Appendix C)1. However, there are noticeable differences between RAs and Ph.D. dissertations literature review using some moves and sub-moves such as M1 SC, M2 SA, M2 SB, M2 SD, and M2 SE. The analysis depicts that 90% of LR chapters in Ph.D. dissertations include M1 SC, which refers to the research-based claims as indicated in the italic parts in example 1. However, the frequency of use decreases to 25% in RA literature review sections. It shows the relationship between the value of space in academic writing and the nature of such a strategy, namely M1 SC. The reason can be due to the fact that expert writers are aware of the significant vital constituents to be covered in restricted space in published RAs. Though M1 SC is surveying research-related phenomena (Kwan, 2006), introducing knowledge claims and claiming centrality is more significant to be illuminated in the inadequate space of RAs literature review sections with the average length of 1648 words in comparison with 11850 words in Ph.D. dissertations literature review chapters. Consequently, there is sufficient space to survey research-based knowledge claims in the first move in literature review chapters, and 90 percent of dissertations include such an effective strategy.
(1) Rao (2002) investigated thirty Chinese EFL undergraduates' perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities using mixed-method research. Results showed participants' openness to both communicative … and non-communicative tenets. As a result, ... (PhDD-M1 SC)
In the second move, three more strategies, namely M2 SA, M2 SB (example 2), and M2 SE illustrate a higher percentage of use in literature review chapters than RA literature review sections. Unlike the previously discussed strategies in the 2nd move, M2 SD (example 3), which refers to the relevancy assertion of the studied claims to one's research, shows a higher percentage of research articles. It illustrates the vitality of embedding researchers' studies in the most reliable relevant studies to increase the validity of their research since such a sub-move cannot be employed in other sections of RAs. In contrast, different strategies such as M2 SB can be implied from other moves and sub-moves (e.g., M3 SA). Hence, to be concise and to the point, researchers may need to truncate, skip, or violate some strategies for several reasons.
(2) The review of the theories in the field of CALL and learning conditions points to the scarcity of research in this area … to date, there has been no study to explore the degree of vocabulary gain and reading comprehension in incidental, intentional, and explicit instruction conditions … Moreover, there is no research into the relationship between reading comprehension and acquisition … Moreover, there is a very rare and insufficient number of studies on the effects of audio glosses on vocabulary acquisition or reading comprehension. (PhDD-M2 SB)
(3) Relevant research has also documented language teachers’ first attempts at online teaching … In addition to the above-mentioned studies … it is not pointless to refer to studies conducted by Chubbuck (2007, 2010), Whipp (2013), and Fraser (2009) because of their close relation to the present study. (RA-M2 SD)
On the other hand, published research articles show a higher percentage of third-move strategies. As illustrated in Table 2, research articles with 10 percent higher M3 SA (example 4) enlighten the significance of research focuses, aims, questions, and hypotheses. Furthermore, M3 SB and M3 SC, which are doubled in percentage, show the value of coherence and its essential influence on assisting the readers in continuing to read. That is, based on the variety of separate scattered thematic units in literature review chapters of dissertations and the integrated nature of amalgamated thematic units in the limited space of the literature review section in research articles, the rise in the 3rd move use can be reasonable. However, the lower percentage of these strategies is compensated in the methodology chapters of dissertations written by Iranian Ph.D. candidates.
(4) In a similar vein, the present study focused on socially just teaching. We probed Iranian higher education English language professors' conceptualization of socially just teaching. …. In fact, the following meta-questions guided us:
1. How do Iranian higher education English language professors conceptualize socially just teaching?
2. How can the Iranian higher education English language professors' conceptualizations be interpreted based on the existing literature around socially just teaching?
We aim to answer the following research question: What is the impact on teachers and students of the explicit teaching of language for curriculum learning in the PE classroom? (RA-M3 SA)
Table 2.
Percentage of Research Article Literature Reviews and Ph.D. Dissertation Literature Reviews Containing Different Rhetorical Moves
Moves and Strategies
| M1 SA (%) | M1 SB (%) | M1 SC (%) | M2 SA (%) | M2 SB (%) | M2 SC (%) | M2 SD (%) | M2 SE (%) | M3 SA (%) | M3 SB (%) | M3 SC (%) | M3 SD (%) | ⃰ implication (%) |
RAs | 100 | 50 | 25 | 0 | 75 | 5 | 20 | 5 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 5
| 5 |
Dissertations | 100 | 50 | 90 | 20 | 95 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 60 | 5 | 5 | 0
| 10 |
Note. ⃰ implication = newly identified strategy.
Another issue that is a less traveled path in relevant research and worthy of concern refers to the significance of the length of each move and strategy (Ren & Li, 2011). The weight of moves and sub-moves the writers attach to can indicate their value in research article literature reviews and dissertation literature reviews. As seen in Table 3, both experts and Ph.D. candidates devote considerable space to the first move for establishing the research territory (75.06 and 89.82 percent for move 1 in literature reviews of research articles and dissertations, respectively). The second move to create a research niche is the next more significant move, with 15.80% in literature reviews of research articles and 8.58% in dissertations. Finally, the least length percentage belongs to the third move, where the target is "occupying the research niche." Consequently, the holistic proportion of the moves is in line with the order of the moves. However, the length of the sub-moves must be discussed in detail since the literature review sections and chapters are not brief enough to extract helpful information from a holistic analysis to assist novice writers.
Table 3.
Length Percentage of Each Move and Sub-move in Research Articles Literature Reviews and Ph.D. Dissertation Literature Reviews
Moves and strategies of LR
| M1 SA (%) | M1 SB (%) | M1 SC (%) | M2 SA (%) | M2 SB (%) | M2 SC (%) | M2 SD (%) | M2 SE (%) | M3 SA (%) | M3 SB (%) | M3 SC (%) | M3 SD (%) | ⃰ implication (%) |
RAs | 58.83 | 5.92 | 10.31 | 0 | 6.68 | 0.65 | 6.11 | 2.36 | 5.25 | 1.28 | 1.80 | 0.51
| 0.27 |
Dissertations | 67.56 | 1.92 | 20.34 | 0.03 | 2.90 | 0.32 | 0.86 | 4.47 | 0.38 | 0.65 | 0.36 | 0
| 0.14 |
Total length of each move in RAs | 75.06 | 15.80 | 9.11 | ||||||||||
Total length of each move in Dissertations | 89.82 | 8.58 | 1.53 | ||||||||||
Note. ⃰ implication = newly identified strategy.
Under an agreement, the weight of strategies in move 1 is the same in both literature review chapters and sections of dissertations and research articles; to be precise, M1 SA, M1 SC, and M1 SB illustrate 58.83%, 10.31%, and 5.92% in literature reviews of research articles and 67.56%, 20.34%, and 1.92% in literature reviews of dissertations, respectively.
As opposed to the simple demonstration of the first move, the second move is subject to fluctuation. This move and its sub-moves ought to be discussed from two angles. In spite of the fact that 95% of literature review chapters in dissertations include M2 SB, which is more significant than what has been devoted to the same strategy in the research article literature reviews, the length of the mentioned strategy elucidates that experts devote more space to this strategy in comparison to Ph.D. candidates. The reason may refer to the importance of highlighting the gaps to present the novelty of the research, which can be commonly expanded in the introduction chapter of dissertations. As a consequence, the more the focus is on niche presentation, the greater the chance an expert will have to convince the journal referees and achieve success in journal acceptance.
Moreover, the strategy in question also creates an opportunity for the published articles to receive a larger readership, scholarly citations, recommendations, and promotions. The order of strategies considering their weight in this move indicates more variations, and they are not akin to the percentage of first move strategies agreement in both research articles and dissertations. Other strategies show different preponderance, excluding M2 SA and M2 SC by 0 and 65% in the literature review of research articles and 0.03% and 0.32% in dissertations, respectively. Expert-written articles include more words in M2 SB, M2 SD, and M2 SE (6.68%, 6.11%, and 2.36, respectively), whereas the Ph.D. candidates have paid more attention to M2 SE, M2 SB, and M2 SD, including 4.47%, 2.90%, and 0.86%, respectively. The mentioned fluctuations display distinctive tendentious priorities among the writers. It might suggest that while M2 SE in dissertations plays a significant transmissive role in abstracting or synthesizing knowledge claims to show a theoretical position or framework and also to protect the coherence in bulky dissertations; this strategy is less important in comparison to M2 SB or M2 SD in RAs since novelty and gap demonstration or reference to the most reliable relevant previous studies are of utmost importance to increase the validity of RAs in concise space.
Finally, the overall capacity of move 3 shows the most minuscule proportion among moves. Nevertheless, a meaningful difference between literature reviews in articles and dissertations (9.11% and only 1.53%, respectively) can be seen. The portion seems to be logical due to the same reason explained about the strategies of move 2, but contrariwise in RAs and dissertations; that is, the more significant portion in the expert-written literature review is devoted to all strategies of the 3rd move in comparison to the same strategies in literature review chapters in dissertations. Based on the restriction of space in RAs, it can be implied that experts tend to focus on the flow of their writing and link the literature review section to the methodology section skillfully; consequently, the importance of the last move of the literature review to reach the mentioned target in RAs is undeniable.
Given the scarcity of research on the comparative analysis of the LR schematic structure in RAs and dissertations regarding their similarities, differences, and decade-long variations, Işık Taş (2008), Ren and Li (2011), and Kwan (2006) are the most appropriate studies to which the present study can make a valuable contribution. However, the one-dimensional contribution of LRs in RAs and dissertations to the recent research can be discussed independently.
The results of this study are partially consistent with those of You and Li (2021), who found a similar move pattern employed in LR chapters of dissertations. Move 1 had the highest frequency; Move 2 was the second, while Move 3 was the least frequent move with the lowest occurrence rate. The alignment with You and Li’s (2021) study supports the significance of the moves in thematic sections of dissertation LRs. However, some nuances are observed regarding Move 2. While the percentage use of Move 1 strategies in You and Li’s (2021) illustrates the same order in line with the present study, the strategies of Move 2 are sequenced differently. In this study, the order shows M2(SB-SE-SA) followed by equal percentages of M2(SC-SD). On the contrary, You and Li’s (2021) results indicate a different order, namely M2(SC-SE-SB-SA-SD). The mentioned differences can be appropriate suggestions for further inter-cultural and inter-disciplinary (i.e., TESOL vs. ELT) research.
In contrast to Bastola and Ho (2023), who found that the LR chapters typically demonstrated a simple structure encompassing a single move, this study did not exhibit such simple rhetorical characteristic! The discrepancies between these results and those reported by Bastola and Ho (2023) highlight a need for further cross-disciplinary investigation, considering the interrelationship between the nature of different sciences, including various disciplines, and the primary purpose of LR chapters.
The findings of this study to answer the first question are in line with the ones reported by Johns (2008), who asserts that genre analysis increases students' motivation and confidence to produce their writing autonomously. Furthermore, we agree with Ren & Li (2011) and Işık Taş (2008), who have highlighted the importance of genre awareness and shed light on the meaningfulness of moves and sub-moves by contextualizing, analyzing, comparing, and contrasting the schematic structures related to the same sub-genre written by experts and novices. By clarifying the meaningful similarities and differences between literature review chapters and sections in dissertations and research articles written by novices and experts respectively, instructors and students can profoundly comprehend the nature of each move and sub-move. Consequently, students can be more motivated, confident, and competent when they have a crystal-clear mindset, including a generic schematic structure in their minds. As both dissertation and research articles are the necessity and prerequisite for the Ph.D. program accomplishment, the simultaneous deep comprehension of move structures of both academic writings, as bidimensional generic competence, can be beneficial for Ph.D. candidates who need to save time since they are generically aware while writing their dissertation and RA, simultaneously.
The further investigation focused on the probable differences in the schematic structure of the current literature reviews in research articles and dissertations compared with the previous decade. Thus, another essential matter worth mentioning is a new unidentified strategy in Kwan's model (Kwan, 2006). In the present study, literature review writers in research articles and dissertations devote 0.27% and 0.14% to "Implications", respectively (See Appendix C). Implications were not embedded in summaries and conclusions of research articles; therefore, by examining a larger corpus, implications can be identified as a new strategy.
Furthermore, contrary to Kwan (2006), no trace of the segments codified as M1 SD in her study was discovered. According to (Kwan, 2006), "There remain a noticeable number of unidentifiable segments that feature elaborate discussions of research activities intertwined with knowledge claims cited from sources of unknown types. These segments were coded as Strategy 1D" (p. 43). Based on the present study's findings, it can be construed that the awareness of both experts and Ph.D. candidates has been boosted through accessible rhetorical models and explicit relevant instructions over time (around about one decade).
CONCLUSION
Numerous genre analysis studies on cross-disciplinary differences indicate that intra-disciplinary investigations are overlooked, and the uniqueness of each discipline in different science areas is of the essence. This study scrutinizes the differences between the rhetorical moves and the strategies employed by student writers and expert writers in fulfilling the rhetorical goal of literature reviews by comparing the rhetorical moves used in literature reviews of Iranian Ph.D. English dissertations and published research articles in ELT. The current study has reported nuanced similarities and differences between literature review sections in research articles and literature review chapters in dissertations. It has also demonstrated the effect of time passage on the experts' and novice writers' performances. Besides Kwan's fundamental moves and strategies in the literature review move model (Kwan, 2006), a new strategy (i.e., implication) has been identified in both expert- and student-written literature reviews.
This intra-disciplinary study can pave the path for ELT students to become au fait with their discipline without being bewildered to find the differences among several disciplines by themselves. Consequently, analyzing the rhetorical functions of the most reliable academic disciplinary sources, such as research articles, plays an essential role in line with the goal of clarification, familiarization, and simplification. Rhetorical awareness and its internalization in students' or novice writers' schema can be a facilitator. Due to the fact that Ph.D. dissertations are lengthy, and plowing through the literature review chapters of dissertations is assuredly an overwhelming task. This cognition is like a shortcut for students and assists them in gaining the pinnacle of academic achievement. Reading the most relevant and valuable research articles and contextualizing the literature review move model in their corpus simultaneously will make the composition of the dissertation literature review chapter more pleasant and tangible. Nevertheless, in light of the limited data in this study, larger-scale studies are called for to validate the findings. Given the aims and findings of this comparative study, bidimensional instruction concentrating on LR of both research articles and dissertations can be implemented since both are necessary for students at the postgraduate level.
The pedagogical implications suggest material designers, educators, and supervisors must raise genre-specific disciplinary awareness. It is crucial to prioritize developing genre-specific resources that promote a deep comprehension of different genres and help students get acquainted with the nature of their disciplinary genre and part-genre rules of academic writing. This study highlights that a nuanced understanding of the rhetorical structures and communicative purposes of literature reviews can inform the design of instructional materials that better align with academic conventions. For material designers, this implies creating more convenient academic material for university students, especially Ph.D. candidates striving to surmount the challenges that hinder the effective attainment of a Ph.D. degree that explicitly teaches the conventions of genre-specific moves, which are critical for successful academic writing (Hyland, 2004).
Moreover, the genre-based pedagogy by Hyland (2003) has influenced many researchers and instructors. Based on the promising results of genre-based writing courses which have been illustrated in research (e.g., Lu et al., 2021; Negretti, 2021; Rajagopalan et al., 2021; Thongchalerm & Jarunthawatchai, 2020; Yoon & Casal, 2020), instructors can assist students in choosing the most appropriate rhetorical moves to achieve their rhetorical objectives and help them develop an impression of a writer with a legitimate place in a specific discourse community by enhancing their generic awareness. Teachers are encouraged to adopt a pedagogical approach incorporating explicit genre-oriented instruction on move structures, helping students develop a deeper grasp of constructing coherent and compelling literature reviews (Paltridge, 2001). By embedding move analysis into both materials and teaching strategies, educators can feel valued and integral to the academic development of their students, enhancing students’ ability to navigate complex academic genres and produce well-organized, genre-appropriate texts (Morgan, 2022; Singh & Lukkarila, 2017). Understanding the prototypical moves in literature reviews can lead students to structure their reviews effectively and reflectively. When instructors and educators provide rhetorical frameworks and templates that illustrate how to organize literature reviews emphasizing the importance of coherence and flow in academic writing, novice writers and students are encouraged to reflect on their writing processes by analyzing their literature reviews in light of those reliable proposed structures encompassing identified moves. This reflective practice can promote students’ metacognition and help them understand their strengths and areas for improvement; hence, they are more autonomous in accomplishing their writing tasks.
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Distribution of Move Structure Found in Literature Review Sections of Research Articles (RA)
|
| M1 SA | M1 SB | M1 SC | M2 SA | M2 SB | M2 SC | M2 SD | M2 SE | M3 SA | M3 SB | M3 SC | M3 SD | ⃰ implication |
RA1 | |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
RA2 | | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RA3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
RA4 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
RA5 | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
|
RA6 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
RA7 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
RA8 | | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RA9 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
RA10 | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | |
RA11 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
RA12 | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
RA13 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
RA14 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
RA15 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
RA16 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
RA17 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
RA18 | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
RA19 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
RA20 | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
|
Frequency | 100% | 50 % | 25 % | 0 | 75 % | 5 % | 20 % | 5 % | 70 % | 10 % | 10 % | 5 % | 5 % |
Note. The checkmarks indicate the number of occurrences of each strategy.
Appendix B
Distribution of Move Structure Found in Literature Review Chapters of Ph.D. Dissertations (PhDD)
Moves and Strategies | M1 SA | M1 SB | M1 SC | M2 SA | M2 SB | M2 SC | M2 SD | M2 SE | M3 SA | M3 SB | M3 SC | M3 SD | ⃰ implication |
PhDD1 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD2 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD3 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD4 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD5 | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD6 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
PhDD7 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD8 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD9 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD10 | | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD11 | |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD12 | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
|
PhDD13 | |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD14 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD15 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
PhDD16 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD17 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
PhDD18 | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | | |
|
PhDD19 | |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhDD20 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frequency | 100% | 50% | 90% | 20% | 95% | 5 % | 5 % | 25% | 60% | 5 % | 5 % | 0 | 10 % |
Note. The checkmarks indicate the number of occurrences of each strategy.
REFERENCES
Ahn, C. Y., & Oh, S. Y. (2024). Citation practices in applied linguistics: A comparative study of Korean master's theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.10 1369
Akbaş, E., & Farnia, M. (2021). Exploring rhetorical moves in a digital academic genre: A cross-disciplinary study of the highlights section. Ibérica, (42), 85-114. https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.42.85
Alek, A., Marzuki, A. G., Hidayat, D. N., & Fauzji, F. (2022). The discourse structure and linguistic features of research articles and thesis abstracts in English by Indonesian academics. JELITA: Journal of Education, Language Innovation, and Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.37058/jelita.v1i1.3940
Amnuai, W., Wimuttisuksuntorn, N. W., & Wuttikanokkarn, N. T. (2023). Rhetorical moves and metadiscourse in English abstracts of research articles and Masters’ theses. Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 4(2), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.62819/jel.2023.61
Bastola, M. N., & Ho, V. (2023). Rhetorical structure of literature review chapters in Nepalese PhD dissertations: Students’ engagement with previous scholarship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101271
Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap .2011.10.004
Basturkmen, H., & Von Randow, J. (2014). Guiding the reader (or not) to re-create coherence: Observations on postgraduate student writing in an academic argumentative writing task. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.07.005
Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x034006003
Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of Ph.D. conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.0044
Bunton, D. (2014). Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis introductions. In Academic discourse (pp. 67-85). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838069-11
Calle-Arango, L., & Ávila Reyes, N. (2023). Obstacles, facilitators, and needs in doctoral writing: A systematic review. Studies in Continuing Education, 45(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037x.2022.2026315
Can, T., & Cangır, H. (2019). A corpus-assisted comparative analysis of self-mention markers in doctoral dissertations of literary studies written in Turkey and the UK. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jeap.2019.100796
Casal, J. E., Lu, X., Qiu, X., Wang, Y., & Zhang, G. (2021). Syntactic complexity across academic research article part-genres: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 52. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jeap.2021.100996
Cho, S. (2004). Challenges of entering discourse communities through publishing in English: Perspectives of nonnative-speaking doctoral students in the United States of America. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(1), 47-72. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0301_3
Cotos, E. (2018). Move analysis. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/97814051984 31.wbeal1485
Deng, L., Cheng, Y., & Gao, X. (2024). Engagement patterns in research article introductions: A cross-disciplinary study. System, 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103204
Dong, J., & Lu, X. (2020). Promoting discipline-specific genre competence with corpus-based genre analysis activities. English for Specific Purposes, 58, 138-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.01.005
Dudley-Evans, T. (1999). The dissertation: A case of neglect. Issues in EAP writing research and instruction, 28-36.
Ferguson, G., Pérez‐Llantada, C., & Plo, R. (2011). English as an international language of scientific publication: A study of attitudes. World Englishes, 30(1), 41-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971x.2010.01656.x
El-Dakhs, D. A. S. (2018). Why are abstracts in PhD theses and research articles different? A genre-specific perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.005
Fryer, D. L. (2012). Analysis of the generic discourse features of the English-language medical research article: A systemic-functional approach. Functions of Language, 19(1), 5-37. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.19.1.01fry
Gosden, H. (1992). Discourse functions of marked theme in scientific research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 11(3), 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80010-9
Hao, J. (2024). Titles in research articles and doctoral dissertations: cross-disciplinary and cross-generic perspectives. Scientometrics, 129(4), 2285-2307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04941-4
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 113-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(88)90029-4
Hsiao, C. H., & Yu, H. Y. (2012). Knowledge Presentation in Thesis Writing—Examining Move Use in Reviewing Literature. English Teaching & Learning, 36(3), 133-179. https://doi.org/10.6330/ETL.2012.36.3.04
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of second language writing, 12(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(02)00124-8
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses, Michigan classics ed.: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.6719
Hyland, K. (2005). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.05.002
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy, and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. London: Bloomsbury Academic. http://dx.doi. org/10.5040/9781474211673
Hyland, K. (2009). Corpus Informed Discourse Analysis: The Case of Academic Engagement. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari & S. Hunston (Eds.). Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse (pp. 110–128). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved January 7, 2025, from http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/978147 4211703.ch0 06
Işık Taş, E. E. (2008). A corpus-based analysis of genre-specific discourse of research: the Ph.D. thesis and the research article in elt [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University]. https://hdl.handle.net/1151 1/17607
Jian, H. (2010). The schematic structure of literature review in research articles of applied linguistics. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press), 33(5).
Jiang, F. (Kevin), & Hyland, K. (2020). Prescription and reality in advanced academic writing. Ibérica, (39), 14–42. https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.39.14
Johns, A. M. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing quest. Language Teaching, 41(2), 237-252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004892
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003
Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006
Kawase, T. (2018). Rhetorical structure of the introductions of applied linguistics Ph.D. theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.12.005
Kwan, B. S. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 30-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.06.001
Kwan, B.S.C. (2010). An investigation of instruction in research publishing in doctoral programs: the Hong Kong case. Higher Education, 59, 55-68. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9233-x
Langum, V., & Sullivan, K. P. (2017). Writing academic English as a doctoral student in Sweden: Narrative perspectives. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 20-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.12.004
Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Ali, F. (2022). Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’. The Service Industries Journal, 42(7-8), 481-513. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2022.2047 941
Lu, X., Casal, J. E., & Liu, Y. (2020). The rhetorical functions of syntactically complex sentences in social science research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.1 00832
Lu, X., Casal, J. E., & Liu, Y. (2021). Towards the synergy of genre-and corpus-based approaches to academic writing research and pedagogy. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 11(1), 59-71. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2021010104
McAlpine, L. (2012). Shining a light on doctoral reading: Implications for doctoral identities and pedagogies. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(4), 351-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/1470 3297.2012.728875
Morgan, EM (2022). An investigation into genre-based content and collaborative pedagogy in a Japanese tertiary teaching context [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania]. https://doi.org/1 0.25959/23246984.v2
Mousavi, H. S., & Kashefian-Naeeini, S. (2011). An investigation into the role of EFL learners’ attitudes, motivation, and proficiency in learning among Iranian students of National University in Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 23(4), 593-603.
Negretti, R. (2021). Searching for metacognitive generalities: Areas of convergence in learning to write for publication across doctoral students in science and engineering. Written Communication, 38(2), 167-207. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0741088320984796
Nwogu, K. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4
Oj, S. and Siyyari, M. (2023). A Comparison of Moves in Discussion Sections of PhD Dissertations and MA Theses in TEFL and their Relevant Journal Articles. Teaching English Language, 1-41. https://doi: 10.22132/tel.2023.178 825
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.399 8/mpub.23749
Paltridge, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: An examination of published advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes, 21(2), 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(00)00025-9
Pecorari, D. (2006). Visible and occluded citation features in postgraduate second-language writing. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 4-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.04.004
Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461445607087010
Rajagopalan, U. M., Griffin, L., & Trimarco, P. (2021). Action Research for Exploring Genre Approaches to Writing in Real-World ESP Classrooms. International Journal of Education, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v13i2.1878 5
Ren, H., & Li, Y. (2011). A comparison study on the rhetorical moves of abstracts in published research articles and Master's foreign-language theses. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 162-166. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n1p62
Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1
Sadeghi, K., & Shirzad Khajepasha, A. (2015). Thesis writing challenges for non-native M.A. students. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 20(3), 357-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2015.1063808
Salager-Meyer, F. (1992). A text-type and move analysis study of verb tense and modality distribution in medical English abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 11(2), 93-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80002-X
Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master's theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.005
Samraj, B. (2013). Form and function of citations in discussion sections of master's theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(4), 299-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.09.00 1
Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. (2013). Second language research methods. Oxford Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Shahsavar, Z., & Kourepaz, H. (2020). Postgraduate students’ difficulties in writing their theses literature review. Cogent Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620
Singh, A. A., & Lukkarila, L. (2017). Successful academic writing: A complete guide for social and behavioral scientists. Guilford Publications.
Skelton, J. (1994). Analysis of the structure of original research papers: an aid to writing original papers for publication. British Journal of General Practice, 44(387), 455-459.
Swales, J. (1984). Research into the structure of introductions to journal articles and its application to the teaching of academic writing. Common Ground: Shared Interests in ESP and Communication Studies, 77-86.
Swales, J., & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written communication, 4(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088387004002004
Swales, J. M., & Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge university press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827
Thongchalerm, S., & Jarunthawatchai, W. (2020). The Impact of Genre Based Instruction on EFL Learners' Writing Development. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.1311a
Walter, L., & Stouck, J. (2020). Writing the literature review: Graduate student experiences. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2020.1.8295
Wang, G., & Hu, G. (2022). Citations and the nature of cited sources: a cross-disciplinary and cross-linguistic study. Sage Open, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221093350
Xie, J., Xie, J., & Bui, G. (2024). A diachronic study of authorial stance in the discussion of Chinese MA theses and published research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.202 3.101320
Yongyan, L. I. (2002). Writing for international publication: The perception of Chinese doctoral researchers. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 179-193.
Yoon, J., & Casal, J. E. (2020). Rhetorical structure, sequence, and variation: A step‐driven move analysis of applied linguistics conference abstracts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 462-478. https://doi.org/10. 1111/ijal.12300
You, Y. L., & Li, M. C. (2021). Move analysis of the literature review chapters in Taiwanese graduate students’ TESOL theses and dissertations. English teaching and learning, 45(2), 119-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321 -020-00069-9
Zhou, H., & Jiang, F. K. (2023). ‘The study has clear limitations’: Presentation of limitations in conclusion sections of PhD dissertations and research articles in applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 71, 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.001