|
Move Analysis of the ‘Discussion Section’ of English Specialization Ph.D. Theses |
|---|---|
| รหัสดีโอไอ | |
| Creator | Ni Ni Hlaing |
| Title | Move Analysis of the ‘Discussion Section’ of English Specialization Ph.D. Theses |
| Publisher | Ph.D. Program in English Language Teaching (ELT), Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Buriram Rajabhat University |
| Publication Year | 2566 |
| Journal Title | BRU ELT JOURNAL |
| Journal Vol. | 1 |
| Journal No. | 1 |
| Page no. | 12-28 |
| Keyword | move analysis, discussion section, English specialization, Ph.D. theses |
| URL Website | https://so14.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/bru_elt_journal/index |
| Website title | https://so14.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/bru_elt_journal/article/view/9 |
| ISSN | 2822-1311 |
| Abstract | The present research aimed to conduct a move analysis on theses of English specialization students at Ph.D. level in Myanmar and to find significant differences in structures of their ‘Discussion sections’ according to the basic moves and steps in the theses of applied linguistics and English literature domains. Moreover, it also aimed to explore the distribution of ‘Obligatory’, ‘Conventional’, and ‘Optional’ moves and steps. To this aim, 48 theses were selected to be analysed in this research. The Move analysis model proposed by (Yang & Allison, 2003) which was specifically used in applied linguistics and English literature domain was employed in this research. Moreover, each move was justified and classified in terms of the distribution of ‘Obligatory’, ‘Conventional’, and ‘Optional’ moves and steps. According to the findings, statistically significant differences were found in the distribution of moves and steps between applied linguistics and English literature domains. The distribution of ‘Obligatory’, ‘Conventional’, and ‘Optional’ moves and steps was also found varied. It was indicated in phase 1 that Move 2 (Reporting results) was the most frequent as EFL thesis writers tend to report their results in ‘Discussion sections’ significantly. However, Move 5 (Summarizing the study) was found least frequently in both domains. Moreover, the English literature writers indicated background information in the ‘Discussion section’ significantly. This shows that literature writers are more maintained to discuss the background information than writers of applied linguistics. This may be due to the writers’ need to meet the cognitive claims of ‘Discussion sections’ and to have the accurate skills for academic writing styles. In phase 2, Move 2 (Reporting results) was classified as obligatory in both domains although the other six moves were less frequent and were conventional. It was noticed that authors used rhetoric to make claims about their findings which go beyond the data. These results can be used effectively in courses of EFL to increase students’ awareness and avoid them from overstating or understating certain basic parts of the ‘Discussion sections’ in theses. |
