DISERTASI dan TESIS Program Pascasarjana UM, 2016

Ukuran Huruf:  Kecil  Sedang  Besar

Discussion Sections of English and Indonesian Research Articles Written by Indonesian Authors

Lulus . Irawati

Abstrak


ABSTRAK

 

Irawati, Lulus. 2015. The Discussion Sections of English and Indonesian Research Articles Written by Indonesian Authors. Dissertation. English Language Education. Graduate Program, State University of Malang. Advisors: (1) Prof. Bambang Yudi Cahyono, M.Pd.,M.A.,Ph. D, (2) Prof. Ali Saukah, M.A., Ph.D., (3) Dr. Suharmanto, M.Pd.

 

Keywords: Indonesian authors, research articles, discussion sections, rhetorical pattern

 

The present study aimed to investigate the discussion sections of English and Indonesian research articles written by Indonesian authors. Accordingly, it was to answer three research questions: (1) What are the rhetorical patterns of the discussion section of English and Indonesian RAs written by the same Indonesian authors?  (2) What similarities and differences exist in rhetorical patterns of discussion sections both in English and Indonesian RAs written by Indonesian authors (3) Why the rhetorical patterns of discussion sections of English and Indonesian RAs are similar or different. The RA discussion sections were taken from RAs (research articles) that were published in accredited Indonesian journals.

The study was conducted by utilizing moves analysis and qualitative content analysis. In the first question, the researcher investigated the rhetoric patterns of 7 English and 7 Indonesian RA discussion sections written by 7 Indonesian authors by using Swales’ Model (1990). In the second question, the researcher continued to display in detail the move analysis of English and Indonesian RA discussion sections. Accordingly, the data got here were subjectively produced by the research subjects and then also interpreted subjectively by the researcher, in the purpose of describing the data naturally. Later, the researcher also needed the data elicited from in-depth interviews to answer the third question that required her act as the instrument of the study. There were only 5 out of 7 Indonesian authors willing to have interviewed.

Based on the findings of the first and the second questions, the differences or similarities existing in both English and Indonesian discussion sections of RA showed that the move structure or rhetorical pattern of English RA discussion sections written by Indonesian authors consisted of 5 Moves: II (Statement of results), III ((Un) expected outcome, IV (Reference to previous research), V (Explanation) and VII (Deduction and Hypothesis). As a matter of fact, Moves I (Background information), VI (Exemplification), and VIII (Recommendation) only appeared the least in the English discussion sections written by 2 or 3 authors out of 7 authors. Meanwhile, the move structure or rhetorical pattern of Indonesian RA discussion sections written by Indonesian authors consisted of 6 moves, namely Moves II (Statement of results), III ((Un) expected outcome, IV (Reference to previous research), V (Explanation), VI (Exemplification), and VII (Deduction and hypothesis). There was no Move VIII (Recommendation) appearing and Move I (Background information) appeared only three times in Indonesian RA discussion sections and used only by 2 authors out of 7 authors. The move structures or the rhetorical patterns of discussion sections in both English and Indonesian RAs written by the same Indonesian authors were slightly different. However, the third question showed that the authors’ choice of move structure could be as a result of learning from other people’s rhetorical patterns, believing themselves, having high self-confidence, having high writing frequency, and having high awareness in micro and macro structure of writing discussion sections. The Indonesian authors had open their minds to learn and read other researchers’ articles and determined whether the patterns were suitable with them or not. The authors’ starting point of experiencing to have their RA published could be also something that made them believe in themselves and feel self-confident. As a result, they would write RA more and it made them more experienced and have high writing frequency. The more they wrote RA, the higher they had awareness in micro and macro structure of writing discussion section. Thus, consciously or unconsciously, they had shaped their rhetorical patterns on writing RAs.

In relation to the findings and discussion sections, first, the researcher, then, recommends future researchers to investigate more than one RA written by the same authors. Second, the future researchers, therefore, should investigate more authors who write both English and Indonesian RAs. Third, it recommends to interview the journals’ reviewer/ editors in order to know how far they helped the RA authors. Fourth, it is worth trying that the future researcher can conduct a case study on Indonesian authors who have high writing frequency of RAs. It is hoped that the future researcher can analyze holistically one author’s RAs to get his/her particular rhetorical pattern. Fifth, the future researcher can conduct specifically an investigation of the rhetorical patterns viewed from the move cycles of texts. Sixth, the future researchers are suggested to investigate RAs from more various field of study, like social sciences, humanities, natural sciences, and etcetera and also suggested to get RAs not only from those accredited journals, but also non-accredited journals. Finally, in the area of ELT, it is suggested the teachers or lecturers for using the findings as a reference to teach Academic Writing, while the students can use the findings as a guidance to write a research article.