Move structures found in the final project abstracts written by Indonesians and Filipinos

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate the move structures of the final project report abstracts produced by the undergraduate students of the English Education Department (EED-UMK) Indonesia and by the Secondary Education undergraduate students of Central Bicol State University of Agriculture (CBSUA) Philippine. This study employed the content analysis method. Sample final project reports from EED-UMK and CBSUA were gathered and analyzed. The findings of this research revealed that the abstracts of EED-UMK and CBSUA used different move structures patterns. The majority of EED-UMK abstracts (80%) referred to Hyland's five move structures, which consisted of introduction, purpose, method, product, and conclusion (I-P-M-Pr-C). Meanwhile, one of the CBSUA abstracts (20%) applied Bathia�s four move structures consisting of purpose, method, result, and conclusion (P-M-R-C). The remaining of the EED UMK and CBSUA abstracts did not address either Bathia's or Hyland's styles. This study concludes that the two Universities have different style structures in writing the final report abstracts. This study suggests that students use the move structure style consistently in their abstracts.

The Rhetorical Structure of Review Article Abstracts in Applied Linguistics Published in High-Impact International Journals

“…Although the article in this study is one type of non-research article, the presence of the number of moves (five moves) in the abstracts is the same as the criteria of other five-move theories of the abstracts of the research article proposed by Santos (1996), Paltridge &Starfield (1997), Hyland andSwales andFeak (2004) (see in Tamela, 2020;Utomo et al, 2022). Despite the same move number, some moves in the abstracts of both kinds of articles are different in terms of function, content, and structure, especially the linguistic features employed.…”

“…It shares the same functions or linguistic properties to some extent, but it just appears in different terms. For instance, in Santos's (1996) Tamela, 2020;Utomo et al, 2022), M1 is the introduction to the study; M2 is the research objective; M3 is the rationale behind the research; M4 is the study design, and M5 is the findings. Despite different genres, the outcomes of this study are in line with a study by Doró (2013) in which Move 2 appeared most frequently, whereas Move 5 presented least frequently.…”