1

Rhetorical Analysis of Discussion and Conclusion Sections in English Specialisation

Undergraduate Research Papers in Selected Universities

Abstract
This small-scale research investigates rhetorical moves in the Discussion and Conclusion
(DC) sections of English Specialisation undergraduate research papers from selected
Myanmar universities. Using Swales and Feak’s (2012) five-move framework, this study
analyses the structure and frequency of rhetorical moves in three sample papers (RP1–
RP3) from the University of Mandalay. Results show that Move 3 (Commenting on key
results) and Move 2 (Summarising key results) are the most frequently used, while Move
1 (Background) and Move 5 (Recommendations) are less common. These findings
provide insight into the rhetorical competence of Myanmar EFL learners in academic
writing.

1. Introduction
Academic writing represents a cornerstone of scholarly communication,
particularly for undergraduate students learning to express complex ideas and findings
within disciplinary conventions. The Discussion and Conclusion sections of research
project papers are crucial, as they present interpretations, contextualization of results,
implications, and suggestions for future research. Despite the importance of these
sections, limited attention has been given to analysing their rhetorical structures in the
Myanmar EFL context.
This research focuses on analysing rhetorical moves in the DC sections written by
English Specialisation students at selected Myanmar universities. The study addresses the
gap by providing empirical evidence of rhetorical structuring through the lens of Swales
and Feak’s (2012) framework.
The aim of this study is to explore the rhetorical move structures in the Discussion
and Conclusion Sections of undergraduate research project papers written by English
Specialisation students in selected universities. The objectives of this study are –
1. To identify which moves are present in the Discussion and Conclusion sections in
Undergraduate Research Project Papers written by English Specialisation students
in Myanmar
2. To identify the frequency of occurrence of the moves across Undergraduate
Research Project Papers
 2

3. To analyse whether moves follow linear (1 → 5) or cyclical patterns (repeating

moves, e.g., Results + Commentary cycles)

2. Literature Review
2.1. Rhetorical Moves in Academic Writing
Academic writing, particularly at the undergraduate level, requires not only
linguistic proficiency but also rhetorical awareness of disciplinary conventions. Swales
(1990) introduced the concept of “move structure,” which has become central to genre
analysis, particularly in understanding how writers organize their discourse to fulfill
communicative purposes. This theoretical framework was later expanded with Feak
(Swales & Feak, 2012) into the five-move structure for Discussion and Conclusion (DC)
sections, which includes: (1) Background information, (2) Summary of key findings, (3)
Commenting on results, (4) Limitations of the study, and (5) Recommendations and
implications.
2.1.1. Move 1: Establishing a Research Territory
Academic writing is essential in facilitating knowledge communication and the
intellectual development of students, particularly in English for Academic Purposes
(EAP) contexts. One primary focus of genre-based studies has been the rhetorical
organisation of academic texts, such as the Discussion and Conclusion (DC) sections,
which serve as a critical platform for interpreting results, discussing implications, and
establishing relevance in scholarly discourse (Swales, 1990; Hyland, 2004).
Previous research has extensively applied genre analysis to explore rhetorical
structures in abstracts, introductions, and methodology sections (Basturkmen, 2012;
Samraj, 2014). However, rhetorical move structures in the DC sections of undergraduate
research papers—especially within EFL settings—remain underexplored.
2.1.2. Move 2: Establishing a Niche
Despite an increasing number of genre-based studies, much of the current
literature focuses on postgraduate or published journal articles, often neglecting
undergraduate writing in less-researched contexts such as Myanmar. Suhadi (2022) and
Karimah et al. (2023) observed significant rhetorical gaps in undergraduate texts,
particularly in crafting evaluative and forward-looking statements typical of DC sections.
These gaps may be attributed to low rhetorical awareness or cultural and pedagogical
factors limiting students’ academic discourse competencies.
 3

Furthermore, while Swales & Feak’s (2012) five-move model—(1) Background,

(2) Summarizing key results, (3) Commenting on results, (4) Limitations, and (5)
Recommendations—has proven effective in analyzing advanced-level writing, it is
unclear how frequently or consistently these moves appear in EFL undergraduate
research.
2.1.3. Move 3: Reviewing Items of Previous Research
Karimah, Munir, and Anam (2023) compared rhetorical moves in abstracts by
American and Indonesian authors and found that Indonesian undergraduate students tend
to omit evaluative commentary, suggesting a weak grasp of Moves 3 and 4. Likewise,
Suhadi (2022) analyzed thesis abstracts and revealed that students performed well in
summarizing results (Move 2) but struggled with commentary and implications (Moves 3
and 5).
Ali (2023) examined research article writing by Iraqi EFL learners and found
limited use of reflective or critical moves, with a preference for descriptive summaries.
This resonates with Arsyad et al. (2021), who found that non-native speakers often
neglect recommendations and limitations, resulting in incomplete DC sections. Moreover,
cultural studies (e.g., Madrunio, 2012; Obeng, 2019) indicate that cultural academic
traditions and expectations shape the tendency to omit certain rhetorical moves.
In contrast, expert writers—especially native English speakers—often employ
cyclical rhetorical structures, using multiple cycles of Moves 2 and 3 to discuss different
findings in detail (Swales & Feak, 2012). Jasrial et al. (2021) emphasize the importance
of this approach in creating interpretive depth.
2.1.4. Move 4: Indicating a Gap
Despite these valuable insights, few studies have explored the rhetorical structure
of DC sections in the Myanmar EFL undergraduate context. This is particularly surprising
given that these sections are crucial for displaying critical thinking, synthesis, and
academic voice. As such, a focused study on how English Specialisation students in
Myanmar construct their DC sections using Swales & Feak’s framework is both timely
and necessary.
2.1.5. Move 5: Occupying the Niche
This study contributes to the existing literature by applying Swales and Feak’s
(2012) five-move framework to undergraduate research papers written by English
Specialisation students in selected Myanmar universities. By examining the presence,
frequency, and sequence of rhetorical moves in the DC sections, the study aims to provide
 4

deeper insights into the academic writing competencies of Myanmar’s EFL learners and
offer pedagogical implications for writing instruction.
2.2. Genre-Based Analysis and the EFL Context
Genre analysis, as conceptualised by Swales and others, emphasises how
rhetorical structures are socially situated and vary across disciplines and educational
contexts. In EFL settings such as Myanmar, genre awareness is often underdeveloped due
to limited exposure to academic conventions. According to Zuhri (2022), EFL learners
often struggle to balance formal structure and disciplinary expectations in their thesis
proposals, especially in the DC sections where personal voice and evaluative commentary
are expected.

2.3. Studies on Undergraduate Research Papers

Recent studies have applied Swales' model to analyse rhetorical moves in
undergraduate theses across various contexts. For example, Arsyad et al. (2021)
investigated rhetorical moves in abstracts and found that non-native English writers often
omit Move 5 (Recommendations), a trend echoed in Iraqi (Ali, 2023) and Indonesian
(Karimah et al., 2023) undergraduate writing. This aligns with findings from Suhadi
(2022), who noted that while students frequently summarise findings (Move 2), they
struggle with commentary and reflective moves (Moves 3–5), possibly due to
unfamiliarity with disciplinary expectations or lack of confidence in evaluating their
results.

2.4. DC Sections: Linear vs Cyclical Patterns

Swales and Feak (2012) acknowledged that the DC sections can be either linear
— following a 1→5 progression — or cyclical, where Moves 2 and 3 (summary and
commentary) recur to emphasize multiple results. Jasrial et al. (2021) emphasized the
importance of cyclical structuring in scientific writing, suggesting it reflects deeper
engagement with data. However, Marefat (2020) cautioned that such structuring is rarely
seen in novice EFL writers’ texts, where rigid structures dominate.

2.5. Comparative and Cultural Insights

Madrunio (2012) compared DC moves in graduate writing across Filipino and
Western academic texts and concluded that the absence of Move 4 (Limitations) is more
cultural than rhetorical. Similarly, Obeng (2019) found that West African undergraduates
often skipped evaluative moves entirely, opting instead for factual summary and
 5

conclusion. This supports Samraj’s (2014) conclusion that rhetorical realisation is

influenced not only by academic literacy but also by cultural academic practices.

2.6. Myanmar Context and Gap in Literature

Despite global insights, few studies have focused on rhetorical move structures in
Myanmar’s undergraduate writing, particularly within English Specialisation programs.
Your study addresses this lacuna by providing empirical evidence of how students
structure their Discussion and Conclusion sections, and by analyzing both the presence
and sequencing of rhetorical moves. This is essential for understanding EFL learners'
development of academic literacy in Southeast Asian contexts.

2.7. Related Research

A number of relevant studies have previously explored the rhetorical organisation
of the Discussion and Conclusion (DC) sections in academic writing across various
cultural and disciplinary contexts. These works offer comparative insights and
methodological precedents that help frame the current study.
Sithlaothavorn and Trakulkasemsuk (2016) examined 20 research articles from
Thai and international journals to compare the use of rhetorical moves in the discussion
sections. They found no significant differences in move presence, suggesting a growing
alignment with international rhetorical standards. This study mirrors the current
research’s focus on move frequency and structure but differs in scope and participant
expertise. While their dataset comprised expert-authored journal articles, the current study
investigates undergraduate-level writing in Myanmar, offering a pedagogical rather than
comparative orientation.
Rhetorical Differences in Iranian vs. Non-Iranian RAs
This study analysed 30 research articles in applied linguistics written by Iranian
scholars, comparing them with Pho’s (2008b) corpus of non-Iranian RAs. Although the
macro-structure (IMRD) was consistent across both groups, significant differences
emerged in the communicative functions of rhetorical moves. The findings emphasise the
need for explicit instruction on rhetorical conventions in EFL contexts, a need that also
motivates the current analysis of Myanmar undergraduate writing.
Boonyuen (2017) – Rhetorical Moves in Second Language Writing
Boonyuen’s PhD research analysed 103 RA discussion sections in second
language writing. It identified eight rhetorical moves, with Moves 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 being
 6

most prevalent. The sequencing of these moves often followed flexible patterns such as
Move 4 → Move 5 or Move 7 → Move 8, indicating cyclical structuring. This supports
Swales and Feak’s (2012) notion of cyclical rhetorical progression and directly relates to
your objective of exploring whether Myanmar undergraduate DC sections follow linear or
cyclical patterns.
Al-Shujairi (2021) – 36-Year Review of RA Discussion Sections
Conducting a meta-analysis of RA discussions across various disciplines and
journal types, Al-Shujairi (2021) highlighted emerging rhetorical moves (e.g.,
Implications, Research Limitations) and disciplinary variation in move realisation.
Although comprehensive, the study primarily reviewed postgraduate-level and published
works, reinforcing the gap your study addresses in examining undergraduate, EFL-
specific writing contexts in Myanmar.
Oj & Siyyari (2023) – Comparison of PhD, MA, and Journal Discussions
Focusing on applied linguistics, this study identified eight major moves,
reaffirming "Commenting on results" as the central communicative function. It also
introduced Move 2 (Managing the Section), which had not been previously reported.
These findings underscore the evolving nature of rhetorical expectations and inform your
study’s focus on both the presence and ordering of moves within undergraduate writing.

3. Research Methodology
3.1. Choosing Material
The materials for this research were sourced from the Discussion and Conclusion
(DC) sections of undergraduate research project (RP) papers written by English
Specialisation students in Myanmar between the academic years 2023–2024. The
selection was purposive, focusing on institutions across diverse geographic regions to
ensure representativeness and inclusion of different academic writing styles. The research
project papers were obtained with formal permission from the respective Heads of the
Departments of English at the chosen universities. Headings (5.Discussion and
Conclusion) were excluded during data collection, and texts were segmented sentence by
sentence for granular analysis. Moreover, the research project papers were collected from
different universities, and there is a lot of material in my research. Therefore, the coding
scheme of the material needed to be defined (see Table 2)
A total of 11 universities were included, representing three States and five Regions
across Myanmar:
 7

States: Kachin, Mon, Shan

Regions: Mandalay, Sagaing, Magway, Tanintharyi, Yangon
Universities sampled:
1. Myitkyina University (Kachin State)
2. Monywa University (Sagaing Region)
3. Kyaing Tong University (Shan State)
4. Taunggyi University (Shan State)
5. University of Mandalay (Mandalay Region)
6. Yadanabon University (Mandalay Region)
7. Kyaukse University (Mandalay Region)
8. Magway University (Magway Region)
9. Dagon University (Yangon Region)
10. Mawlamyine University (Mon State)
11. Dawei University (Tanintharyi Region)
While this study employs Swales & Feak’s (2012) five-move framework to
analyze rhetorical structures, it is important to acknowledge that this model primarily
captures structural organization and does not include Meta discursive or evaluative
features such as stance or hedging. Future research could incorporate models such as
Hyland’s (2005) stance and engagement framework to explore writer presence, certainty,
and evaluative language more comprehensively.
Given the study's small-scale and qualitative nature, the coding was performed by
a single researcher. To reduce subjectivity, the analysis closely followed Swales and
Feak’s coding definitions, and potential ambiguities were reviewed multiple times for
consistency. Although no second coder was involved, this reflexive approach aimed to
improve reliability.

3.2. Method
This study adopts the five-move analytical framework proposed by Swales and
Feak (2012) for analyzing rhetorical structure in Discussion and Conclusion sections. The
moves are:

 Move 1 – Background Information (optional but contextually significant)

 Step 1: Research purpose
 Step 2: Theoretical background
 8

 Step 3: Methodological reminder

 Move 2 – Summarising and Reporting Key Results (obligatory)
 Move 3 – Commenting on the Key Results (obligatory)
 Step 1: Making claims
 Step 2: Explaining the result
 Step 3: Comparing with previous studies
 Step 4: Offering alternative explanations
 Move 4 – Stating the Limitations (optional but pedagogically significant)
 Move 5 – Making Recommendations (optional)

This model allows for identification of both linear and cyclical rhetorical patterns
across student texts, providing insight into the depth of interpretation and academic
literacy among EFL learners.
 9

3.3. Research Methodology

Each sentence was coded according to the five-move model, using a pre-defined
coding scheme (see Table 1). The analysis was performed manually by close reading to
ensure a nuanced interpretation of rhetorical intent.
The number of sentences per move type was recorded and tabulated to identify
prevalent rhetorical patterns and the relative frequency of each move across the sample
papers. Patterns were categorised as: Linear: Moves progress sequentially from 1 to 5 and
Cyclical: Recurrence of Moves 2 and 3 in alternating or repeated sequences (e.g., 2 → 3
→ 2).

Table 1: Coding Scheme for Methods

Move Description Code
Move 1 Background Information M1
Move 2 Summarising key results M2
Move 3 Commenting on key results M3
Move 4 Stating limitations of the study M4
Move 5 Making recommendations for M5
implementation/research

Table 2: Coding Scheme for Material

Types Descriptions Code
Discussion and Discussion and Conclusion from the DC 1
Conclusion research project 1 of the University
Discussion and Discussion and Conclusion from the DC 2
Conclusion research project 2 of the University
Discussion and Discussion and Conclusion from the DC 2
Conclusion research project 2 of the University

3.4 Data Collection and Data Interpretation

In Table 3, Move found in DC of the Research Project Paper 1 at the University of
Mandalay were collected.
 10

Table 1: Moves found in the Discussion and Conclusions Sections of Undergraduate Research Project Paper at the University of
Mandalay

No. of Sentence
Conclusion No.
Discussion and
Sr
Sentence No. M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Explanation
No.

In the present study, Alice Munro’s short story √ Introduces the theoretical
“Silence” is analyzed through10 modes of lens and the text under study
1. DC-1 1 speech and thought presentation framework — setting the research
proposed by Leech & Short (2007). context.

This research aims to investigate how the speech States the purpose of the
2. DC-1 2 and thought of the main character Juliet are √ research — typical of Move
presented by the author Alice Munro. 1's function to outline focus.
Additionally, it also explores how these modes Extends the aim by
reveal the author’s characterization techniques indicating interpretive goals
3. DC-1 3 and affect readers’ view of Juliet. √ — still contextualizing the
study.
 11

No. of Sentence
Conclusion No.
Discussion and
Sr
Sentence No. M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Explanation
No.

These findings state that speech presentations are Quantitatively presents

found 113 times while thought presentations are findings and interprets
4. DC-1 4 found 209 times, indicating that Alice Munro √ relative emphasis on
places greater emphasis on Juliet’s inner thought thought.
process.
Munro allows the readers to explore Juliet’s √ Interprets results — how
5. DC-1 5 mind and makes them understand her struggles, narrative choices influence
feelings, and emotions. reader perception.
Consequently, Munro’s use of thought √ Subjective evaluation of the
6. DC-1 6 presentation not only enhances the story but also technique’s impact — a
brings the readers closer to Juliet. clear commentary.
It helps the readers to understand and interpret √ Evaluates the narrative
events through Juliet’s perspective, making the technique's effect on reader
7. DC-1 7
connection between readers and Juliet more empathy — interpretation of
relatable and stronger. findings.
8. DC-1 8 In Juliet’s speech presentations, Free Direct √ Presents quantitative data
 12

No. of Sentence
Conclusion No.
Discussion and
Sr
Sentence No. M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Explanation
No.

Speech (FDS) is the most used mode with 68 about speech mode use —
occurrences, representing 60% of Juliet’s speech factual summary.
in the story.
In this mode, Juliet speaks to the readers more √ Explains the interpretive
immediately without the narrator, the quotation effect of FDS — part of
9. DC-1 9 mark, or the reporting clause. The following evaluation.
sentences are some Free Direct Speech (FDS)
modes found in the short story.
The above sentences are Juliet’s dialogues with √ Analyzes the emotional
Christa. In her conversation with Christa, Juliet meaning of dialogue — a
10. DC-1 10
expresses her deep sadness and guilt about the typical commentary.
disappearance of her daughter, Penelope.
She wonders if she has burdened Penelope too √ Interprets Juliet’s inner
11. DC-1 11 much, not only with Eric’s death but also with conflict and emotion —
other men she later has dated. evaluative commentary.
12. DC-1 12 Juliet bitterly admits that she has allowed √ "Bitterly admits" reflects a
 13

No. of Sentence
Conclusion No.
Discussion and
Sr
Sentence No. M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Explanation
No.

Penelope to see too much of her misery. judgment — subjective

interpretation.
Her words express her regret, guilt, and motherly √ Summarizes emotional
13. DC-1 13 love, as well as her deep concern for Penelope. subtext — another layer of
evaluative commentary.
Using Free Direct Speech (FDS), Alice Munro √ Interprets Munro’s stylistic
14. DC-1 14 describes Juliet’s speech in exact words without technique — explaining
the narrator’s intervention. narrative form and effect.
By highlighting Juliet’s exact words, it gives the √ Evaluation of reader impact
impression that Juliet is talking directly to the and stylistic effect — classic
readers. This technique creates a sense of commentary.
15. DC-1 15
intimacy 25 and authenticity, which enables the
readers to be familiar with Juliet and gain trust in
her.
16. DC-1 16 In Juliet’s thought presentations, Free Indirect √ Quantitative summary of
Thought (FIT) is the most used mode with 147 findings on FIT mode —
 14

No. of Sentence
Conclusion No.
Discussion and
Sr
Sentence No. M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Explanation
No.

occurrences, which takes up 70% of Juliet’s factual data presentation.

thoughts in the story.
In this mode, Juliet’s inner thoughts are blended Explains how FIT functions
17 DC-1 17 with the narrator’s voice. √ stylistically — analysis of
technique.
The following sentences are some Free Indirect Transitional but introduces
18. DC-1 18 Thought (FIT) modes found in the short story √ example evidence of result
— fits under summary.
The sentences above are Juliet’s inner Offers interpretive
monologues upon meeting her daughter’s friend commentary about the
19. DC-1 19 Heather by chance and learning some √ narrative context —
information about her daughter. emotional and narrative
depth.
20. DC-1 20 After a conversation with Heather, Juliet thinks √ Continuation of
about Penelope’s current life. commentary — linking
narrative action to inner
 15

No. of Sentence
Conclusion No.
Discussion and
Sr
Sentence No. M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Explanation
No.

thought development.
She wonders if Penelope has aged and become Reflects Juliet’s inner
21. DC-1 21 out of shape after five pregnancies, or simply √ speculation — analysis of
neglected herself due to lack of time. character’s psyche via FIT.
Juliet imagines that Penelope is either pursuing Continues psychological
spiritual interests or living a simple life; perhaps interpretation through FIT
22. DC-1 22
she is fishing in the cold waters off the coast of
√ — speculation reveals
British Columbia with a husband and children. character depth.
In the above sentences, thought verbs are Meta-commentary on
typically used by Alice Munro to indicate the author’s technique —
23. DC-1 23 presence of thought acts although she sometimes √ interpretive analysis of
omits them for the readers to fully immerse in narrative style.
the story.
24. DC-1 24 However, Free Indirect Thought (FIT) can be √ Technical explanation of
demonstrated by the use of “question mark” and linguistic markers in FIT —
words such as “Or, Or else, and perhaps”, which evaluation of stylistic
 16

No. of Sentence
Conclusion No.
Discussion and
Sr
Sentence No. M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Explanation
No.

show the uncertainty of Juliet’s thought. devices.

In this mode, Munro presents Juliet’s thought in Interpretation of reader
her own words and makes the readers feel distant perspective via FIT —
25. DC-1 25
from Juliet’s exact monologues.
√ commentary on narrative
distance.
She also describes Juliet’s emotions and Reflects authorial technique
motivation behind those thoughts, allowing the that encourages reader
26. DC-1 26
readers to interpret them in their way.
√ inference — stylistic
evaluation.
This technique enables the readers to have a Final evaluative point
deeper understanding of Juliet and to develop linking narrative method
27. DC-1 27
sympathy for her.
√ with emotional engagement
— typical of Move 3.
These findings state that speech presentations are Presents raw frequency data
28. DC-1 28 found 113 times while thought presentations are √ — typical of a result
found 209 times. summary.
 17

No. of Sentence
Conclusion No.
Discussion and
Sr
Sentence No. M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Explanation
No.

In Juliet’s speech presentations, Free Direct Comparative observation of

29. DC-1 29 Speech 26 (FDS) is the most used mode and Free √ speech modes — factual
Indirect Speech (FIS) is the least used mode. result report.
In contrast, Free Indirect Thought (FIT) is the Continues quantitative
most used mode in Juliet’s thought presentations summary, comparing
30. DC-1 30
and there is no occurrence of Direct Thought
√ thought modes — result
(DT). statement.
Based on the findings, it can be concluded that Makes a concluding
Alice Munro frequently uses ‘free direct evaluative statement based
31. DC-1 31 narration’ in speech √ on findings —
presentation and ‘free indirect narration’ in interpretation.
thought presentation.
32. DC-1 32 Alice Munro employs thought presentations √ Explains narrative intention
significantly more frequent than speech and reader effect —
presentations for Juliet to show the readers what subjective interpretation.
is on Juliet’s mind and let them see things from
 18

No. of Sentence
Conclusion No.
Discussion and
Sr
Sentence No. M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Explanation
No.

her point of view.

She frequently uses free direct mode in speech Evaluates the effect of
presentation to let the readers hear Juliet’s word speech mode (FDS) on
33. DC-1 33
directly and become familiar with Juliet.
√ reader engagement —
commentary.
In contrast, she frequently uses free indirect Emphasizes emotional
mode in thought presentation to let the readers depth and reader connection
34. DC-1 34
know Juliet’s feelings, emotions and
√ — evaluative reflection.
motivations, and become sympathize with her.
There is a limitation of the present study Clearly identifies a
as it only focuses on the speech and limitation in scope —
35. DC-1 35
thought of the main character ‘Juliet’,
√ classic limitation move.
excluding other minor characters.
36. DC-1 36 Therefore, further studies can be done on √ Suggests future research
investigating the speech and thoughts of these direction — core
other characters using the same theory and recommendation feature.
 19

No. of Sentence
Conclusion No.
Discussion and
Sr
Sentence No. M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Explanation
No.

comparing them to those of Juliet.

Moreover, Leech & Short’s speech and thought Extends applicability of
presentation framework (2007) can be applied to theory to other texts —
37. DC-1 37
analyze other fiction or non-fiction works in
√ another common
literature. recommendation.
Additionally, the present study will be a Describes practical and
great help to other researchers, readers, academic usefulness —
and literature students in understanding a implication-based
38. DC-1 38 literary stylistic concept, which explores √ recommendation.
the authors’ narrative writing techniques
about the characters’ spoken words and
inner thoughts in literary texts.
39. DC-1 39 Especially, literature students can apply this √ Offers pedagogical
theory in reading other literary works, which applications — typical
improves their ability to recognize different recommendation for target
storytelling methods and their effects on audience.
 20

No. of Sentence
Conclusion No.
Discussion and
Sr
Sentence No. M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Explanation
No.

character development.
Furthermore, the students can recognize and Continues pedagogical
40. DC-1 40 identify various writing styles of characterization √ benefit discussion — still
through this study. Move 5
By understanding these characterization Final summary of
techniques and narrative writing styles, they can educational benefit —
41. DC-1 41
develop their writing skills and also improve
√ closes with broader learning
their skills in translating other literary works. impact.
Total 3 7 24 1 6
 21

In Table 4, the frequency of each rhetorical move based on Swales & Feak’s
(2012) five-move framework is used in the DC-1 of the Undergraduate Research Project
Paper of the University of Mandalay.

Table 4: the frequency of each rhetorical move used in the DC-1 of the
Undergraduate Research Project Paper
Rhetorical Move Frequency Percentage
Move 1 Background 3 7.3%
Move 2 Summary of Results 7 17.1%
Move 3 Commenting on Result 24 58.5%
Move 4 Limitation 1 2.4%
Move 5 6 14.6%
Recommendations/Implication
s
Total 41 100%

According to Table 4, it was found that all five rhetorical moves from Swales and
Feak’s (2012) framework were present: Move 1 (Background Information) was used in 3
sentences (7.3%), indicating an initial orientation of the research context and purpose.
Move 2 (Summary of Results) occurred in 7 instances (17.1%), showing that students
effectively reported key findings. Move 3 (Commentary on Results) was the most
frequent with 24 instances (58.5%), demonstrating a strong tendency to interpret, explain,
and evaluate results. Move 4 (Limitations) appeared only once (2.4%), which reflects an
underdeveloped awareness of research scope and reflexivity. Move 5 (Recommendations
and Implications) occurred 6 times (14.6%), suggesting a moderate attempt to project the
findings forward.
This distribution reveals that students are more confident in interpreting results
than in critically reflecting on limitations or formulating forward-looking insights. It also
suggests a solid grasp of rhetorical conventions for summarizing and commenting, with
room for improvement in self-critical and application-oriented moves.
The frequency data obtained from DC-1 clearly shows a non-uniform distribution
of rhetorical moves. Move 3 (Commentary) dominates the section with more than half the
content dedicated to interpretive discourse. This highlights the students' inclination
 22

towards elaborating on meaning, implications, and stylistic effects — especially within

literary texts.
On the other hand, Move 1 (Background) and Move 4 (Limitation) were
significantly less frequent. The limited use of Move 1 indicates a tendency to jump
directly into findings without adequately contextualising the research. Similarly, the
infrequent appearance of Move 4 suggests that students may lack the rhetorical training or
confidence to critique their own work openly.
The relatively modest presence of Move 5 (Recommendations) reveals that while
students occasionally propose implications or future studies, such projections are not yet a
consistent feature of their academic discourse. Therefore, teaching strategies that
emphasise reflective and forward-looking writing could enhance rhetorical balance in
future student writing.
The patterning of rhetorical moves in DC-1 follows a cyclical structure rather than
a strictly linear one. Although the section begins with Move 1 (Background), the most
dominant structure observed was the alternating use of Move 2 (Summary) and Move 3
(Commentary). This is characteristic of a cyclical rhetorical pattern where findings are
sequentially introduced and immediately interpreted. For example: Sentence 4 presents
data (Move 2), followed by interpretive commentary in Sentences 5–7 (Move 3). This
cycle is repeated multiple times, especially in the middle segments of the text.
Such patterns reflect a developing rhetorical maturity in student writing, where
results are not just listed but woven into analytical discourse. However, the sequence does
not always follow a consistent 1–5 flow, and some moves (especially Move 4) appear late
or not at all. The dominance of cyclicality also suggests a narrative-based structuring
style, typical in literature-based disciplines.
This study identified that the rhetorical structure of the Discussion and Conclusion
sections follows a cyclical pattern, particularly with recurring sequences of Move 2
(Summary) and Move 3 (Commentary). A simplified flowchart of the dominant structure
in DC-1 is presented below:

M2 → M3 → M2 → M3 → M5
│ ↑
└─────── ┘
 23

This visual representation supports the observation that students often introduce a
result and immediately interpret it, a pattern that reflects emerging academic maturity in
cyclical rhetorical organisation.
4. Discussion
This study aimed to analyse the rhetorical structure of the Discussion and
Conclusion (DC) sections in undergraduate research project papers by English
Specialisation students in Myanmar. Using Swales & Feak’s (2012) five-move
framework, the analysis revealed several insights concerning the rhetorical competence,
structural preferences, and pedagogical implications for EAP instruction.
The analysis demonstrated that all five rhetorical moves — Background (Move 1),
Summary of Results (Move 2), Commenting on Results (Move 3), Stating Limitations
(Move 4), and Making Recommendations (Move 5) — were present in the DC section
analysed. Notably, Move 3 (Commentary) was the most dominant, with 24 out of 41
sentences (58.5%) dedicated to interpreting and explaining results. This strong presence
of commentary reflects students’ growing ability to engage critically with textual
evidence and to offer stylistic interpretations, especially in literature-focused writing.
Conversely, Move 1 (Background) and Move 4 (Limitations) were sparsely used,
occurring in only 3 (7.3%) and 1 (2.4%) instances, respectively. The infrequent
appearance of these moves indicates a rhetorical gap in students’ awareness of how to
frame and critique their studies. While the presence of all moves demonstrates
foundational competence, the imbalance suggests areas needing targeted pedagogical
support in EAP contexts.
From the frequency data, it was evident that students relied heavily on Move 3,
using it to analyze narrative techniques such as Free Direct Speech (FDS) and Free
Indirect Thought (FIT) in Alice Munro’s “Silence.” These commentaries were well-
aligned with the study’s interpretive nature, providing a solid example of how rhetorical
moves can be tailored to literary stylistics.
Move 2 (Summary of Results) appeared seven times (17.1%), supporting
commentary with relevant data. Students reported quantitative occurrences of FDS (68)
and FIT (147), reinforcing their interpretive claims. This move pairing shows that
students were learning to combine empirical evidence with reflective analysis — a
hallmark of academic literacy.
However, the low frequency of Move 4 (Limitations) suggests that students may
lack confidence or instruction in reflecting on the scope, generalizability, or weaknesses
 24

of their work a pattern also seen in similar EFL studies (e.g., Karimah et al., 2023;
Suhadi, 2022).
Move 5 (Recommendations) appeared six times (14.6%), often focusing on
pedagogical implications or future research. While modest, its presence shows promise
and reflects growing awareness of how findings extend beyond the immediate study.
The sequencing analysis revealed a cyclical pattern in the rhetorical organization
of the DC section. Students frequently alternated between Move 2 (Summary) and Move
3 (Commentary), particularly in the central part of the section. For instance, data about
speech and thought modes was followed immediately by reflective commentary on
character development, emotional depth, and narrative effect.
This recursive pattern aligns with findings by Jasrial et al. (2021), who argue that
cyclical structuring reflects more nuanced academic thinking and greater rhetorical
sophistication. For undergraduate EFL students, adopting this strategy represents a
significant development in genre competence. However, the overall structure remained
somewhat unbalanced, with Moves 1 and 4 underrepresented — indicating an incomplete
mastery of rhetorical expectations.

5. Conclusion
This research provides important insights into the rhetorical strategies employed
by English Specialisation students in Myanmar when composing the Discussion and
Conclusion sections of their undergraduate research papers. The results indicate that
students show strength in interpretive and analytical commentary (Move 3) and an
emerging ability to structure cyclical rhetorical sequences. These strengths are
particularly valuable in literary analysis and suggest an engagement with EAP objectives
such as audience awareness, coherence, and depth of analysis.
However, the limited use of Background (Move 1), Limitations (Move 4), and
Recommendations (Move 5) highlights areas for pedagogical attention. EAP instruction
should include explicit training in rhetorical moves, with special emphasis on reflective
and forward-looking writing. Scaffolded writing activities that model limitations,
implications, and background framing could help students achieve more complete and
academically robust DC sections.

6. Implication
 25

Based on the findings of this research, several implications emerge for English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) writing instruction. First, raising rhetorical awareness through
genre-based teaching should be prioritised, particularly by integrating Swales and Feak’s
(2012) five-move model into writing curricula. This will help students recognise the
communicative purpose of each rhetorical move in constructing coherent and
academically sound Discussion and Conclusion sections. Secondly, EAP instructors
should incorporate reflective writing tasks that specifically require students to identify
study limitations and formulate implications, thereby fostering both critical thinking and
academic humility. Additionally, instruction should emphasise cyclical structuring,
encouraging students to alternate between summarising results and commenting on them
—an approach that supports deeper engagement with data and enhances coherence.
Finally, discipline-specific writing support is essential, as rhetorical expectations vary
between fields; for example, literary analysis may lean more on interpretive commentary,
while scientific writing demands stronger emphasis on limitations and future research.
Tailoring instruction accordingly will equip students with the flexibility to meet the
demands of varied academic genres.
 26

References

Ali, A. (2023). Rhetorical structure and writing strategies in Iraqi EFL learners’ research
articles. International Journal of English Linguistics, 13(1), 55–68.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v13n1p55
Arsyad, S., Zaim, M., & Susilo, A. (2021). The rhetorical structure of research article
abstracts written by non-native English writers. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 49, 100935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100935
Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research
articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes,
31(3), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.09.002
Boonyuen, N. (2017). A genre-based study of rhetorical moves in RA discussion sections
written by Thai and international writers. (Doctoral dissertation). University of
Melbourne.
Fazilatfar, A. M., & Naseri, M. (2016). Rhetorical differences between Iranian and non-
Iranian research articles in applied linguistics. Journal of Research in Applied
Linguistics, 7(2), 99–117.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social interactions in academic writing.
University of Michigan Press.
Jasrial, D., Santosa, R., Djatmika, & Sumarlam. (2021). Rhetorical move analysis of
discussion sections in applied linguistics research articles. Indonesian Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i1.34633
Karimah, A., Munir, A., & Anam, S. (2023). A cross-cultural study on the rhetorical
moves of English abstracts by American and Indonesian authors. Studies in
English Language and Education, 10(1), 102–118.
https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i1.26629
Madrunio, M. R. (2012). A contrastive analysis of Filipino and American academic texts:
Cultural and linguistic implications. Philippine ESL Journal, 9, 28–47.
Marefat, H. (2020). A genre-based approach to teaching the discussion section in
academic writing. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(1), 64–76.
Obeng, S. (2019). Undergraduate academic writing practices in Ghanaian universities.
International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 5(1), 12–24.
Samraj, B. (2014). Move structure in writing research article introductions in two
disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 33, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.07.001
Sithlaothavorn, N., & Trakulkasemsuk, W. (2016). Rhetorical moves in discussion
sections of research articles written by Thai and international authors. LEARN
Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 9(2), 12–29.
 27

Suhadi, S. (2022). Rhetorical moves in English thesis abstracts: An analysis of

Indonesian EFL students’ academic writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 12(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v12i1.40662
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential
tasks and skills (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
Zuhri, M. (2022). Rhetorical move analysis of thesis proposals written by Indonesian
undergraduate students. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics,
7(1), 48–65.