Kaplan’s traditional contrastive rhetoric has been criticized for many reasons. Thus, it has paved the way for new directions on contrastive rhetoric. This new directions cover five domains which include genre analysis. Many have examined a variety of genres such as journal articles, abstracts, undergraduate thesis, dissertations, research proposals, conference proposals, business letters, research articles, etc. However, although there is a substantial literature in English on a variety of academic genres, Holmes (1997) points out that it is the Research Article that has received the most attention. Many researchers have devoted their attention to examine the Move of the Introduction part of research article. Meanwhile, only few studies were conducted to examine Discussion part. Therefore, this study investigates the Move of the Discussion section of research articles written by English Department students.
This study is textual. The data were obtained from Scientific Writing written by English Department students. Five data were gathered and analyzed using the theoretical framework proposed by Ruiying & Allison (2003). The framework included seven Moves for Discussion section of research article. This study found out that students did not apply the same Moves with the framework, and the Move orders were also differently applied. This is due to the fact that these students were not familiar with the structure of Discussion section. The researcher concludes that students’ perception on how to write a Discussion part differed from one another resulting from unfamiliarity of how Discussion section should be and what kinds of structure that English readers expected to find. |