Worksheet 3.2 – Analyzing the Structure of Scientific Articles (Based on Swales’ Move Analysis)

By gunadi.rustian@upi.edu /

This topic has 52 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 4 months, 3 weeks ago by kannaarda.

Viewing 25 reply threads

Author

Posts

September 14, 2025 at 12:55 pm #2939

gunadi.rustian@upi.edu

Keymaster

Instructions:

1. Read the two assigned journal articles carefully:

Article 1Article 2

2. For each section of the article (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion), identify the rhetorical moves and steps following Swales’ genre analysis framework (e.g., CARS model for Introductions, common moves in Abstracts, Results, and Discussion).

3. Note the communicative purpose of each move and how it is realized in the text (e.g., through linguistic features, discourse markers, or citation practices).

4. Compare the two articles by highlighting similarities and differences in terms of structure, rhetorical organization, and style.

5. Create a Google Document, and summarize your analysis in the table provided below. Then share the link in the discusion forum below using the following format

Section	Moves Identified	Article 1	Article 2	Similarities and Differences
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results and Discussion
Conclusions

6. If needed, you may use the following sample of analysis.

Section	Moves Identified (Swales)	Article 1: Realization in Text	Article 2: Realization in Text	Similarities / Differences
Abstract	Moves 1–5	Move 1: “This study examines students’ writing difficulties…” Move 2: “Despite increasing use of digital media, limited attention has been given to multimodal writing…” Move 3: “The present study investigates…” Move 4: “Data were collected from 50 students…” Move 5: “Findings suggest QuiryThink model improved engagement.”	Move 1: “Writing skills remain a key issue in higher education…” Move 2: “Few studies have addressed the integration of inquiry-based models with digital tools…” Move 3: “This article explores the use of…” Move 4: “Using surveys and interviews…” Move 5: “Results highlight positive effects on collaboration.”	Both abstracts include all moves. Article 1 emphasizes engagement, while Article 2 focuses more on collaboration.
Introduction	Moves 1–3 (CARS)	Move 1: Establishing territory – “Writing for publication is essential for academic success.” Move 2: Establishing a niche – “However, few studies focus on Indonesian EFL learners’ challenges.” Move 3: Occupying the niche – “This paper investigates the rhetorical moves…”	Move 1: “Academic writing is a crucial skill in higher education worldwide.” Move 2: “Research rarely examines the role of interactive media in writing instruction.” Move 3: “Therefore, this study develops and evaluates the QuiryThink model.”	Both follow CARS structure, but Article 1 focuses on Indonesian learners while Article 2 highlights interactive media.
Methods	Moves 1–8	Move 1 (Participants): “50 undergraduates from a private university…” Move 2 (Instruments): “A questionnaire and rubric were used…” Move 3 (Procedure): “The study followed the ADDIE model…”	Move 1: “The study involved 2 classes of English majors…” Move 2: “Data collection instruments included surveys and interviews…” Move 3: “The intervention lasted 14 weeks…”	Both articles present participants, instruments, and procedure. Article 1 provides more detail about the rubric, Article 2 about the duration.
Results	Moves 1–2	Move 1: “Students reported higher motivation and improved writing skills…” Move 2: “Table 2 shows significant improvement in cohesion scores.”	Move 1: “Survey data indicated stronger collaboration…” Move 2: “Figure 1 presents the increase in peer feedback activities.”	Article 1 emphasizes skills, Article 2 emphasizes collaboration.
Discussion	Moves 1–4	Move 1: “These findings confirm prior research on inquiry-based learning…” Move 2: “The use of QuiryThink differs from previous digital writing studies…” Move 3: “Pedagogically, this suggests…” Move 4: “Nevertheless, the small sample size is a limitation.”	Move 1: “This study aligns with theories of transformative learning…” Move 2: “Unlike earlier models, QuiryThink integrates design thinking explicitly…” Move 3: “This provides teachers with a new pathway…” Move 4: “Further studies with larger samples are needed.”	Both contain all four moves. Article 1 makes connections to inquiry learning, Article 2 to transformative learning.
Conclusion	Moves 1–3	Move 1: Summarizing results – “The study showed that QuiryThink enhanced student engagement and writing outcomes.” Move 2: Pedagogical implications – “This model may serve as a reference for EFL academic writing courses.” Move 3: Future research – “Further studies should test its effectiveness across institutions.”	Move 1: “Results confirmed positive impact on collaboration and motivation.” Move 2: “Integrating inquiry and design thinking can enrich EFL pedagogy.” Move 3: “Longitudinal studies are recommended to explore sustainability.”	Both articles include all moves. Article 1 emphasizes writing outcomes, while Article 2 focuses on collaboration and sustainability.

Attachments: