Genre-Based Approach to Science Writing: A Discourse

Analysis of Laboratory Reports

R.A.Gayani Sanjeewa Ranawake

A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Philosophy

School of Humanities and Social Sciences

UNSW, Canberra

December 2016
The University of New South Wales
Thesis/Dissertation Sheet
Surname or Family name: Ranawake

First name: Gayani Other name/s: Sanjeewa

Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: MPhil

School: Humanities and Social Sciences Faculty: UNSW,Canberra

Title: Genre-Based Approach to Science Writing: Discourse Analysis of laboratory Reports

Abstract
Students’ skills in effective written communication are an essential and integral part of
university education in both native and non-native speaker context. Focus of this study is
on science writing in native speaker context. However, there is limited research on
undergraduate writing in science. Research shows that such studies directly impact on
student performance since they contribute to enhance pedagogies for academic literacy.
The need for such studies has been highlighted by reports such as National Association
Physics Teachers and National Science Foundation. Writing a laboratory report is an activity
that models the writing of a scientific paper. Hence, this study focused on examining
laboratory report writing (specifically introduction sections and discussion sections) and
aimed to provide insights and implications for teaching and learning of laboratory report
writing.
A diverse sample of laboratory reports including different year levels and different subjects
were chosen from two prestigious universities in Australia. The Swales CARS (Create-A-
Research-Space) model (2004), which has been used extensively to analyse Research
Articles (RA) in science was used as one analytical tool in this study to identify commonly
used “Moves” by the students. Further, Hyland’s (2004), metadiscourse model for academic
writing was used to identify common linguistic features used in undergraduate laboratory
reports.
The study found that novice writers follow most of the practices of expert writing, with only
minor differences in laboratory reports between different year levels and different subject
areas. The main difference is that laboratory reports lack some of the “Moves” of research
articles. Research placement reports were found to be more consistent with the CARS
model. The difference between laboratory reports and research placement reports can be
attributed to the different learning outcomes of the two activities. This study contributes to
the development of pedagogy of academic literacy practice and teaching laboratory report
writing by suggesting two new models, based on the CARS model, for teaching report
writing. These are presented as flowcharts in simple English, making them accessible to
students. Further, this study highlights the importance of effective collaboration between
science academics and literacy practitioners. A common understanding between
disciplinary academics and EAP practitioners regarding the writing conventions, disciplinary
differences and expected learning outcomes would be beneficial for student learning and
their performance.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Date of completion of requirements for Award:
2
 Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation
I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my
thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known,
subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the
right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.
I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts
International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only).

……………………………………………………………

Signature

……………………………………..………………
Witness

14/06/2017
……….……………………...…….…
Date
The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use.
Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may
be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Date of completion of requirements for Award:

THIS SHEET IS TO BE GLUED TO THE INSIDE FRONT COVER OF THE THESIS

AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT
‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final
officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred
and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the
conversion to digital format.’

Signed ……………………………………………...........................

Date ……14/06/2017………………………………………...........................

3
Originality Statement

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge
it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial
proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or
diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due
acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others,
with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the
thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own
work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and
conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

Signed ……………………………………………..............

Date ………14/06/2017……………………………………..............

4
Acknowledgements

First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Dr Maya

Gunawardena and Dr Kate Wilson for their continuous support, their patience and
motivation throughout my study. Their guidance and immense knowledge helped me all
the time of research and writing this thesis. I could not have imagined having better
supervisors and mentors for my study.

I extend my thanks to Prof. David Blaazer, Dr. Deane Peter Baker, HASS, UNSW
Canberra for their support and guidance.

Further, I’d like to thank Prof. Susan Howitt, ANU, Dr David Low, UNSW and Mr
Andrew Papworth, ANU for providing me laboratory reports.

I acknowledge the admin staff of HASS and RSU for their support and cooperation.
Undergraduates at ANU and UNSW Canberra deserve my thanks.

Finally, I appreciate the support and encouragement of my beloved husband Kaweesh

having all the hardships allowing me to study and for my kids for their tolerance of mum
not being available all the time.

This project was conducted with the Ethics approval of the UNSW HREC with the
approval number -HC 15721.

5
 Publications and Presentations Based on This Study

Publications
 Ranawake, G. S., & Wilson, K. (2016). Learning to do science: lessons from a
discourse analysis of students’ laboratory reports. International Journal of
Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education (formerly CAL- laborate
International), 24 (2).

 Ranawake, G. S.,Gunawardena, M. & Wilson, K. (2017). Teaching academic

literacy in disciplinary contexts: Insights and implications from a discourse study.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning. 3 (3), (222-225) In press

 Ranawake, G. S. & Gunawardena, M. Students’ use of language rhetoric in

science writing genres. Australian journal of Applied Linguistics Under Review

Presentations
 International Conference of Teaching Education and Sciences (ICTES),
Singapore 24th, 25th June (2016)
Award Winner- Best Presentation

Other

The model for laboratory report writing shown in figure 6 will be used in Chapter 1 of
the following textbooks:

 Chidrawi, G., Bradstock, S., Robson, M. and Thrum, E. Biology in Focus Year
11, Cengage Learning, Melbourne, expected publication date December 2017,
ISBN 9780170407281

 Smith, R. and Davis, A. Chemistry in Focus Year 11, Cengage Learning,

Melbourne, expected publication date December 2017, ISBN 9780170408929

 Farr, R., Wilson, K. and Young, P. Physics in Focus Year 11, 2nd Ed, Cengage
Learning, Melbourne, expected publication date December 2017, ISBN
9780170409063

6
 Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Originality Statement .................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 5
Publications and Presentations Based on This Study.................................................................... 6
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 7
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 9
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 9
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ 9
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 10
1.1) Background and Overview of the Study ..................................................................... 10
1.2) Research Problem ....................................................................................................... 13
1.3) Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 15
1.4) Research Methods ....................................................................................................... 16
1.5) Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 16
1.6) Structure of the Thesis ................................................................................................ 17
Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 18
2.1) The Importance of Writing in University Settings .......................................................... 18
2.2) Defining EAP .................................................................................................................. 20
2.3) Theories and Practices that Support Writing Instruction (EAP) in University Courses .. 21
2.3.1) Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory .................................................................... 22
2.3.2) Genre Analysis ......................................................................................................... 22
2.3.4) Metadiscourse Analysis ............................................................................................ 24
2.4) Academic Literacy Practices in Australia........................................................................ 25
2.4.1) Resources Available to Support Student Writing ..................................................... 27
2.5) Research on Expert Science Writing ............................................................................... 28
2.6) Science Communication .................................................................................................. 30
2.6.1) Scientists to General Public ...................................................................................... 30
2.6.2) Scientists to Scientists............................................................................................... 31
2.7) Importance of Laboratory Report Writing ....................................................................... 31
2.8) Justification of the Study ................................................................................................. 33
2.9) Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................ 34
Chapter 3: Research Methodology.............................................................................................. 35
3.1) Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 35
3.2) Move Analysis ................................................................................................................. 36
3.2.1) Swales CARS Model for the Introduction Section ................................................... 36
7
 3.2.2) Swales CARS Model for the Discussion Section ..................................................... 39
3.2.3) Justifications for using Swales Model for the Move Analysis ................................. 41
3.3) Linguistic Analysis .......................................................................................................... 41
3.3.1) Interactive Resources ................................................................................................ 43
3.3.2) Interactional Resources ............................................................................................. 43
3.4) Importance of the Introduction Section and Discussion Section of a Report .................. 44
3.4.1) Introduction Section.................................................................................................. 44
3.4.2) Discussion Section .................................................................................................... 45
3.5) The Sample Set ................................................................................................................ 46
3.6) Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 48
3.6.1) Move Analysis of laboratory Reports ....................................................................... 48
3.6.2) Linguistic Analysis of laboratory Reports ................................................................ 48
3.7) Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................ 49
Chapter 4: Results ....................................................................................................................... 50
4.1) Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 50
4.2) Move Analysis of the Introduction Section of laboratory Reports .................................. 51
4.1.1) Move 1: Establishing Territory ................................................................................. 52
4.1.2) Move 2: Establishing a Niche ................................................................................... 53
4.1.3) Move 3: Presenting the present study ....................................................................... 54
4.2) Move Analysis of the Discussion Section of the laboratory Reports .............................. 56
4.3) Linguistic Analysis of Students’ laboratory Reports ....................................................... 65
4.4) Common Linguistic Features Noted -Other than Hyland’s Model.................................. 68
4.5) Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................ 70
Chapter 5: Discussion ................................................................................................................. 71
5.1) Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 71
5.2) Move Analysis in the Introduction Section ..................................................................... 72
5.3) Move Analysis of the Discussion Section ....................................................................... 75
5.4) Linguistic Analysis .......................................................................................................... 78
5.5) Implications for the Pedagogy of Academic Literacy Practices ...................................... 79
5.6) Contribution for the Pedagogy of Science ....................................................................... 83
5.7) Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 84
5.8) Future Research ............................................................................................................... 84
5.9) Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................ 85
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 87
References ................................................................................................................................... 89
Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 95
8
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Swales CARS Model for Introduction (2004)………………… ….. .. 36
Figure 2 - Swales Model for Discussion (2004)………………………………………..38
Figure 3 - Hyland’s Metadiscourse Model for Academic Texts (2004)………………. 41
Figure 4 – Frequency of Occurrence of Moves and Steps in the Introduction Section...50
Figure 5 – Frequency of Occurrence of Moves and Steps in the Discussion section…..56
Figure 6 – Easy Steps for laboratory Report Writing………………………………….79
Figure 7 – Easy Steps for Introduction and Discussion Section of Research Projects…80
Figure 8 - Model for student support for EAP practitioners and science academics 84

List of Tables
Table 1- Frequency of Occurrence of Moves and Steps in Introduction……………….49
Table 2- Frequency of Occurrence of Moves and Steps in Discussion………………...55

Abbreviations

ALP - Academic Literacy Practice

BICS - Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills
CALP - Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
CARS - Create-A-Research-Space Model
EAP - English for Academic Purposes
EEP - English for Educational Purposes
EOP - English for Occupational Purposes
ESP - English for Specific Purposes
IMRD - Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion
RA - Research Articles
SFL - Systemic Functional Linguistics

9
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter Overview

1.1) Background and Overview of the Study

1.2) Research Problem
1.3) Research Questions
1.4) Research Methods
1.5) Significance of the Study
1.6) Structure of the Thesis

1.1) Background and Overview of the Study

Literacy instruction is an integral part of primary, secondary and post-secondary

education, and thus university students are expected to be adequately literate to
communicate eloquently and appropriately (Drury & Webb, 1991). However, many
university students in their first-year experience numerous difficulties in writing in
different genres. This may be due to their limited knowledge of the language rhetoric of
academic literacy in their disciplines, which is an essential part of literacy in university.
Language rhetoric is known as “a way of speaking and writing within the confines of
specific social sanctions” (Berlin, 1987, p. 4). Scholars such as Oliver & Vanderford
(2012) state that high competency in academic writing is crucial for success in tertiary
studies. Leki & Carson (1994) also support this view, and state that the ability to write
well is necessary to achieve academic success.

Often language teaching programs are designed to assist students from non-native English
speaker backgrounds. However, academic writing is no one’s native language. Attaining
academic proficiency is a challenge for both native and non-native speakers. The study
by Strauss & Mooney (2011) on academic literacy also confirms that both native and non-
native speakers experience difficulties with academic genre requirements, especially at
postgraduate level. This difficulty directly impacts on the successful completion of their
studies.

10
In the context of globalisation, English has acquired the status of a lingua franca for
international communication. Therefore, studies of academic writing are useful and their
role is important in helping students to achieve better outcomes in academic disciplines
(Kanoksilapatham, 2012).

This study therefore aims to examine writing practices in science discipline in native
speaker context. Especially to what extent that the student writers imitate expert writers
in their discipline. Science is a major area of university study, which leads to innovation,
discovery, and creativity. Perera (2011) highlights the advantages of having scientific
knowledge and its impact on our lives. These advances need to be communicated well to
different audiences. Therefore, written communication is vital in the sciences, even
though it is sometimes not recognised as significant, particularly compared to other areas
such as business, history and social sciences. However, science is an area chosen by
passionate students driven by interest in their discipline. Their passion is for science and
technology, not for writing, which is seen by some as a difficult or boring chore rather
than as a valuable skill (Woolnough,1994; DeBacker & Nelson, 2000; Uerz, Dekkers &
Béguin, 2004).

Scientific writing is a complex process, which involves a number of skills, including

interpreting, summarising and critical thinking. Kanoksilapatham (2012, p. 294)) states
that for accomplished writing,

scholars need to be acquainted with not only the linguistic features, whether they
are lexical or grammatical, but also the structural pattern commonly followed and
expected in academic writing in their focused disciplines.

Universities invest substantial resources in maintaining academic skills support units

where students receive help with their writing. These units offer services in English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) which can be defined as “language research and instruction
that focuses on the specific communicative needs and practices of particular groups in
academic contexts” Hyland (2002, p. 2). These units provide support and instruction for
students, particularly non-native English speaking students in EAP. Most practitioners in
such units are literacy specialists, rather than experts in a particular genre, and few have
expertise in science. The importance of EAP will be discussed in more detail in Chapter
2.

11
Due to the increasing demand for proficiency of academic language, academic literacy
practice has become one of the major areas of concern in student preparedness. Not all
students who enter universities are adequately prepared to face the numerous literacy
based challenges, and for many their written communication skills need further
enhancement. Advanced written communication skills in academic English are expected
amongst the attributes of graduates in almost all degree programs of Western countries.
For example, UNSW includes amongst its program level learning outcomes for all
graduates “communicate complex ideas in a variety of formats to diverse audiences”
(Unsweduau, 2017).

Communication skills are valued by employers, however there is evidence that these
skills may not be adequate by graduation (Drury, 2012). So, between entering university
and graduating, students must acquire these written communication skills, along with the
discipline specific skills and knowledge which are the main focus of their studies. Hence
catering to students’ specific disciplinary needs is a major challenge faced by EAP
practitioners.

Lim (2006) emphasises that writing courses in tertiary institutions should be tailored to
meet the needs of students encountering difficulties in associating linguistic features with
communicative functions of academic texts. This idea supports the genre-based approach
in academic literacy practice. “Genre based approach” simply means teaching academic
language skills using content-based materials, for example using science research articles
to teach scientific report writing. Strauss and Mooney (2011) also highlight the necessity
of the mastery of genre requirements and state that discipline specific writing instruction
is far better than generic courses. Drury & Mort (2012, p. 2) states that

Students need to understand the similarities and differences in written

communication within and across disciplinary boundaries. Clearly a more
systematic, co-ordinated and comprehensive approach was needed to provide more
effective development of students’ writing

Further, Stanley & Lewandowski (2016) show that there is limited research available
on university students’ writing, especially in the discipline of science.

Laboratory reports are considered as one of the major writing tasks in science based
subjects. Laboratory programs, sometimes called the practical component, are given a
significant place in tertiary science education. The laboratory or practical component is a
12
core element of science-based courses. This component is intended to develop
experimental skills and investigative and communication skills and may serve to reinforce
theoretical principles and concepts (Kirkup, 2016). Hofstein and Lunetta (2004) also
support the same idea highlighting that students benefit from laboratory activities. They
state that laboratory programs allow learners to “Investigate the natural world, propose
ideas, explain, justify assertions based upon evidence, and in the process, sense the spirit
of science”.

A laboratory report is generally structured in much the same way as a scientific article.
Almost all the student laboratory reports used for this study follow the IMRD
(Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion) structure, mirroring that used in the
professional scientific literature. Hence, the typical format of a laboratory report has the
same sections as many scientific articles, and students are often encouraged to follow the
conventions of scientific writing (Ranawake & Wilson, 2016). In this way students are
inducted into the discipline, and learn to use the structural and lexical features, which are
typical of that specific genre.

1.2) Research Problem

The plethora of literature available on genre analysis mainly focuses on expert research
writing, aiming to identify features of writing practices and genre specific differences for
instance (Samraj, 2002; Lim,2006; Kanoksilapatham, 2012; Safnil,2013). Published
research articles have attracted attention to genre-based research in science disciplines.
Further, extensive research has been performed on research articles in many disciplines,
including medical research articles (Nwogu, 1997), computer science and information
and communication technology journals (Samraj, 2002), engineering sub disciplines and
biochemistry articles (Kanoksilapatham, 2005 & 2012). Recent research in the area has
also examined students’ PhD dissertations (Lim, 2014). However, there is only limited
research that focuses on undergraduate students’ writing (Stanley & Lewandowski, 2016;
Ranawake & Wilson, 2016). It is important to analyse students’ writing in disciplines
such as the sciences to develop bottom up approaches that identify student needs and
thereby assist in developing effective pedagogies for teaching writing in science.

13
Lea (2006) states that research in the field of academic literacy has predominantly
concentrated upon “Essay Writing” and suggested that more attention should be paid to
the other, different, written texts. Lea & Street (1998) also state that it is important to
investigate the understandings of both academic staff and students about their own
literacy practices without making prior assumptions.
Some recent reports highlight the need for students’ skills in effective communication in
disciplines of science (American Association Physics Teachers (AAPT) (2016);
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012); National Science
Foundation (1996). Further, Stanley & Lewandowski (2016) highlight the importance of
university students’ engagement in science documentation and the use of laboratory
notebooks and reports for documenting science records.

Therefore, the focus of this study is to examine the language rhetoric in the students’
science reports by investigating the different Move structures and linguistic features in
science laboratory reports, predominantly written by native speaker undergraduate
students. The Move structures in academic writing were first suggested by Swales (1981)
and his model became popular among the applied linguists dealing with academic writing
of different disciplines (Samraj, 2002; Lim,2006; Kanoksilapatham, 2012; Safnil,2013) .
This model will be discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
The study was supervised by a scholar from a linguistics background and a scholar from
a science background to identify language related practices and their functions in science.
This allowed an opportunity to make sound decisions, and not to make assumptions about
science but to identify practices and their functions. It is problematic when disciplines are
studied from outside. It is like an anthropologist making assumptions about other cultures
based on their own cultural biases without talking to people within the discipline. On the
other hand, being immersed in the discipline also makes it harder to study the nature of
the discipline because the implicit knowledge and assumptions of the discipline are taken
for granted and not examined. Hence, the interdisciplinary nature of the team of
supervisors and student is valuable.
The researcher has over ten years of experience teaching EAP in science disciplines in a
university in Sri Lanka and has an undergraduate background in biological sciences.
Based on her experience, the researcher has found that EAP only addresses the macro
level language communication issues. However, micro level issues have not so far been
an interest of curriculum developers.
14
 Language is a social practice and people from a particular community know the
conventions of writing in their contexts. According to Gee (1989) literacy studies is an
emerging field, which integrates “Psycho” and “Socio” approaches. Therefore, Gee
claims that the focus of literacy studies should not be studied in isolation, since it is a
social practice. He defines literacy as a socially accepted association among ways of using
language, of thinking and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a
socially meaningful group or “social network”. Teaching the discourse empowers and
enables students, and has a positive impact on their sense of belonging within the
discipline, while at the same time helping them succeed in higher education. Despite the
validity of Gee’s argument, teaching literacy within disciplines has been challenging.
Hence, this study provides advice of a pedagogical nature for teaching writing in science
to native speakers and to students from EAP contexts.
This study will enhance teachers’ understanding of different writing mechanisms in the
sub-genre of science. It will also contribute to building a bridge between discipline
practitioners – scientists and science teachers – and academic literacy practitioners, which
would eventually provide better opportunities for students to increase their academic
literacy skills and improve their overall performance. This will also contribute to the
enculturation of the students into their chosen disciplines.

1.3) Research Questions

This study aims to find answers to the following major research questions:

1. What Move structures (rhetoric) and linguistic features are commonly used in the
introduction and discussion sections of students’ science reports? To what extent do
students follow the rhetorical structures of expert writing?

2. Are there differences in the use of Move structure and linguistic resources in the selected
science sub-genres or laboratory programs? If so, what are the potential reasons?

3. What pedagogical implications can be suggested for teaching scientific report writing?

15
1.4) Research Methods

Typically, laboratory reports follow the IMRD (Introduction, Method, Results and
Discussion) structure and they can be considered as miniature versions of research
articles. Therefore, this study used Swales’ (2004) CARS (Create- A-Research Space)
model as an analytical tool because it has been extensively used to analyse expert writing.
Commonly used “Move” structures of the students’ reports were identified to investigate
to what extent novices follow conventions of experts. This model is described in chapter
3. A quantitative approach, as described in chapter 3 was used to compare a sample of
students’ writing from laboratory reports of physics and biology, physics project reports
and science research placement project reports. Hyland’s (2004) model for
metadiscourses in academic writing was also used for analysing linguistic features in
laboratory report writing to examine whether novice writers use the same linguistic
structures as experts. (See chapter 3 for further descriptions of these models).

1.5) Significance of the Study

A plethora of literature is available analysing expert writing (Nwogu, 1990; Samraj, 2002;
Safnil, 2013; Kanoksilapatham, 2005). However, there is limited research that focuses on
undergraduate students’ writing, especially laboratory reports (Ranawake & Wilson,
2016). But research in this area is of vital importance, and several authors highlight the
need for such studies investigating the disciplinary specific literacy practices and
understanding of both academic staff and students about the unique writing conventions
of their disciplines (Lea & Street, 1998; Lea, 2006). Stanley & Lewandowski (2016),
highlight the need for studies on university students’ laboratory report writing. Such
studies could provide insights and implications for the development of EAP curricula and
material design.
Hence, the outcomes of the present study will provide a valuable reference to novice
writers about different Moves, formats and linguistic features used in laboratory report
writing. Furthermore, this study provides more information on the hybridity and
variations occurring within genres in the sciences, even though they all come under the

16
umbrella term of laboratory report writing. Those disciplinary and sub-disciplinary
variations are essential and integral aspects in developing genre based curricula for EAP
units.
Research findings from the field of academic literacies are useful to underpin course
design. Textual analyses of student writing are rich sources of data, which provide
insights into material design (Lea, 2006).
The ultimate goal of this study is to provide insights on writing and assist both language
and science teachers when helping students to write in science. By enhancing students’
writing in the sciences, their performance will be enhanced in the university contexts and
their enculturation into their disciplines supported. Based on the analysis, this study
suggests two simple models for easy steps for writing laboratory reports and research
placement reports. Those models will be explained in detail in the discussion chapter.

1.6) Structure of the Thesis

This thesis includes 5 chapters: Introduction, Literature review, Research methodology,

Data analysis and results, Discussion and implications and Conclusion. The Introduction
(chapter 1) provides the overview of the study in brief. The Literature review (chapter 2)
explains the background of the research, which is genre based theories of academic
literacy. This chapter also examines the need for students to raise their awareness of
strategies for communication. Chapter 3 presents the procedures of data collection and
analysis. Chapter 4 presents the results of the data collection, and provides an analysis of
the results. Chapter 5 will discuss the meaning of the results, and the implications arising
for curriculum development and pedagogy of EAP in science disciplines specifically in
laboratory report writing. Further, the limitations of this study will be discussed in this
chapter suggesting future research. Finally, the Conclusion sums up the whole study
highlighting the findings and the key message.

17
 Chapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter Overview

2.1 The Importance of Writing in University Settings

2.2 Defining EAP

2.3 Theories and Practices that Support Writing Instruction in University

2.4 Academic Literacy Practices in Australia

2.5 Research on EAP

2.6 Science Communication

2.7 Importance of laboratory Report Writing

2.8 Justification of the Study

2.9 Chapter Summary

2.1) The Importance of Writing in University Settings

Rapid development in tertiary education and variations in the secondary curriculum

nationwide have inevitably been accompanied by increasing concerns among academics
and administrators about the challenges experienced by many undergraduate students
Berman & Cheng (2010). Developing advanced written communication skills is one of
the main graduate attributes in almost all the degree programs in most Western countries.
Adequate written language proficiency is important for successful academic performance
by students and many studies have shown a positive correlation between students’
language abilities and academic success (Matthew, 2007). Further, Ellis et al, (2006) state
that university students’ conception of learning science through writing is inextricably
linked to science through processes such as exploration and reflection. Hence, writing is
a valuable way of determining the extent to which students have understood scientific
methodologies. Clearly a balance between the two in the design of student learning
18
experiences is important for the quality of student learning (Ellis et al, 2006). Hence,
academic literacy practice and effective written communication should be given priority
by universities.

Huang (2010) states that curriculum designers, material writers and teachers should pay
attention to the students’ individual and discipline specific needs when designing an EAP
curriculum and applying teaching pedagogy in EAP. Teaching academic literacy to
diverse learners with specific needs in their own disciplines is challenging. The challenge
is more acute when the students lack the expected language proficiency skills.

Designers of literacy programs have recognised the importance of academic language

proficiency in order to facilitate effective and efficient learning to achieve educational
goals. Hence, academic language proficiency is considered as one of the central goals in
language teaching programs. Mathews (2007) highlights the necessity of adequate
language proficiency to achieve higher performance. Further, Hamp-Lyons & Hyland
(2002, p.1) state that,
The growth of English as the leading language for the dissemination of
academic knowledge has transformed the educational experiences of
countless students, who must now gain fluency in the conventions of English
language academic discourse to understand their discipline and to
successfully navigate their learning.
Further, there has been extensive research conducted in this field due to the increasing
demand for teaching EAP. Cummins (1994) has studied the language requirements of
students and devised a concept known as “Cummins’ concept of two language
proficiencies”. According to Cummins, these two proficiencies are those needed for
everyday communication termed, Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and
the language needed for academic work, termed Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1994). Although students may have developed their
language skills adequately for everyday communication or in Cummin’s terms their
BICS, they are unlikely to have the necessary CALP skills. This will cause problems
because, as Suville–Troike (1984) points out, communicative competence in social
interaction is not a guarantee of communicative competence in academic situations.
There are several other studies, which highlight the need for academic literacy skills or
academic language proficiency skills. Ellis et al, (2006) describe how the students’

19
language skills contributed to the quality of university learning. Matthew (2007) supports
the same idea providing evidence of positive correlation between the academic literacy
skills of the students and their performance. The next sections will discuss EAP practices
and research in detail.

2.2) Defining EAP

The English language has been accepted as the academic lingua franca in the world. Pan
(2011) regards English as a window on the world and a tool to empower learners. Pan’s
study further describes the way that English acts as a gatekeeper to the acquisition of
social and economic prestige for individuals. Due to the requirements of present day
educational systems and the usefulness of English in the employment sector, mastery of
the English language is essential to achieve educational and socioeconomic success.
Hence, students, especially at tertiary level, should be motivated to obtain a strong
command of the academic language skills despite their cultural differences.
Due to the increasing demand for English language proficiency in different contexts,
English is divided into sub-genres for teaching purposes. According to Dudley-Evans and
John (1998), ESP (English for specific purposes) is used as an umbrella term to cover two
major sub fields: English for Academic Purposes (EAP)/English for Educational Purposes
(EEP) and English for Occupational Purposes (EOP). That means ESP instruction may
take place in either academic/educational or occupational settings.
Out of those sub fields, EAP is considered as the most significant teaching program,
which is quite popular even in native speaker contexts (Kirzanowski, 2011). Hence EAP
has been defined by many experts in this field. According to Cranel and Tucker (1990),
“English Academic language proficiency (ALP) is commonly recognized as a curriculum
objective in content-based language teaching (CBL)”. Flowerdrew and Peacock (2001,
p. 8), defines EAP as
English for academic purposes is generally defined quite simply as teaching
English with the aim of facilitating learners’ study or research in that language.

Further, Hyland (2002, p. 2) refers to EAP as “language research and instruction that
focus on the specific communicative needs and practices of particular groups in academic

20
contexts”. Further, Hyland’s study states that the function of EAP is to ground instruction
in an understanding of cognitive, social and linguistic demands of specific academic
needs.
This in turn takes EAP practitioners beyond preparing learners to study in English for
developing new kinds of literacy; but to equipping students with the communicative skills
to participate in particular academic and cultural contexts.
Krashen (2007) proposes that academic language proficiency is composed of two central
components. The first component is knowledge of academic language, characterised by
complex syntax, academic vocabulary and a complex discourse style. The second
component is knowledge of academic content, specialised subject matter. Krashan’s study
also demonstrates that the strategies that aid in acquisition of academic language
contribute to subject matter learning and hence play a major role in achieving academic
success. Further, Chowdhury and Kamal (2014) state that “EAP practice is essentially a
pragmatic undertaking which requires an optimized understanding of local contexts and
the needs of particular cohorts of students”. Having discussed the importance of EAP, it
is worth noting the theories, which underpins EAP.

2.3) Theories and Practices that Support Writing Instruction (EAP) in

University Courses
The philosophical views, theories and pedagogical innovations are the triune, which
shape EAP and Academic Literacy Practice (ALP). The most significant theories that
contributed immensely for the development of EAP and ALP are Systemic Functional
Linguistics developed by Halliday (1973) and the Genre-Analysis developed by Swales
(1981). These two theories have been further improved by experts in the field since they
underpin almost all research in the field of EAP and ALP. Hyland’s (2004) metadiscourse
analysis too is based on SFL theory. All those theories will be described in the latter part
of this chapter.

21
2.3.1) Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory
The main theory that underpins most of these studies is Systemic Functional Linguistics
(SFL) theory, developed by Halliday (1973). SFL theory, as the name implies, is an
approach to meaning making coming from the field of linguistics that is primarily
concerned with the functional aspects of language use. Principally, SFL examines how
language is used, the purposes it serves, how we achieve those purposes and how forms
have evolved to serve functions. According to SFL theory (Halliday, 1994 p. 29),
language is seen as a resource for meaning making comprising a set of potentials
to mean; these sets of potentials, or options make up systems.
The centrality of system in SFL stems from the “paradigmatic” approach whereby any
features of language are always related back to the “system of language as whole”.
Further, system in SFL includes three functional components known as meta functions.
They are ideational (understanding the environment), interpersonal (acting on others in
that environment) and textual which combines the other two functions. These generalized
functions explain the main purposes underlying all the languages.
Further, Halliday (1973, p. 22) states that
These generalized functions correspond to the sets of options empirically realized
in the grammar and are essential to social functioning of language and thus SFL’s
understanding of language as a system.
It states clearly that the usefulness in studying the functions of language is primarily to
establish general principles relating to the use of language.
SFL underpins most other linguistic theories including Genre Analysis and metadiscourse
analysis, which are discussed in the following sections.

2.3.2) Genre Analysis

Genre Analysis means the study of how language is used within a particular setting
(Swales,1990). Swales’ contribution to this field is significant. He has offered an
approach to the understanding of academic discourse and provides a rhetorical framework
that can be applied to a variety of practical situations such as the teaching of advanced
writing and English for academic purposes. He has demonstrated the value of genre
analysis as a means of studying spoken and written discourse and shown how a genre-
based approach can be used to shape language learning and development activities.

22
He defines the different disciplines as discourse communities. A discourse community
has an agreed set of goals, a distinct mechanism of communication (writing conventions
and conversations), an acquired specific lexicon (technical terminology) and a
participatory mechanism to provide information and feedback. Hence the discourse
community owns one or more genres (Swales, 1990). For instance, if we take science
writing as a discourse community, it has a set of expected learning outcomes, unique
writing styles, formats and technical terms. It has more than one genre; the focus of this
study, laboratory reports, is one such genre.
Academic language plays a vital role in this setting being the medium of communication.
Hence it is of importance to those who are concerned with tertiary education, including
students, teachers, employers and publishers. Holmes (1997) also advocates that this
interest in genre analysis has, to a large extent, been motivated by pedagogical concerns.
These concerns are, in particular, to provide satisfactory models and descriptions of
academic and scientific texts, and to enhance the ability of students to understand and use
them where appropriate.
A genre can be briefly defined as a class of texts characterized by a specific
communicative function that tends to produce distinctive structural patterns. According
to Holmes (1997), the concept of genre has been discussed at some length by several
writers, but the most helpful definition is still perhaps that provided by Swales (1990).
A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share
some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognized by the expert
members of the parent discourse community, and thereby constitute the rationale
for the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and
influences the constraints choice of content and style. … . In addition to purpose,
exemplars of a genre exhibit various patterns of similarity in terms of structure,
style, content and intended audience (Swales, 1990, p. 58).
This description highlights the characteristics of a genre and how a particular genre can
vary from another based on its communicative event, purpose and intended audience
Genre analysis in professional settings by Bhatia (1993) is an important contribution to
genre analysis in English for Specific Purposes (ESP). This clarifies the concept of genre,
the methodology of genre analysis and its implications especially in the field of ESP
(Drury, 2000). Over the last two decades, much research has been conducted based on
this theory.

23
Many scholars and practitioners involved in academic writing have concluded that genre-
oriented instruction is one key to preparing students for the writing that they may be
expected to produce during their academic career. This approach caters to the unique
needs of students dealing with specific genres by raising their awareness of linguistic
features and patterns closely associated with their specific academic genres. This
enhances their effective communication skills in their discipline. For this reason, applied
linguists have shown a great deal of interest in employing genre-centered approaches to
the analysis of written and spoken discourses in different disciplines. Genre analysis has
considerably increased EAP practitioners’ understanding of the complexity of genres and
their linguistic and social realisation (Swales, 1990). It has also offered valuable
perspectives on possible approaches to teaching genre to diverse populations of students
and shed light on some of the most urgent needs of students in particular contexts, for
instance disciplines such as sciences, history, geography and management. The writing
conventions of different disciplines vary depending on the formats and also the expected
learning outcomes of the courses (Ranawake et al, 2017). Genre based analysis was used
to analyse students’ reports in this project.

2.3.4) Metadiscourse Analysis

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the interactive characteristics of
academic writing. Metadiscourse analysis has become another interesting area since it
contributes to a range of recent work in text analysis. According to Hyland (2004, p.133),
Metadiscourse is a self-reflective linguistic expression referring to the evolving text,
to the writer, and, to the readers of that text. It is based on a view of writing as a
social engagement and, in academic contexts, reveals the ways writers project
themselves into their discourse to signal their attitudes and commitments”.
Metadiscourse studies have been popular in the last three decades, but there has been a
change in their focus. Early studies of metadiscourse mainly focused on textual meaning
considering cohesion and coherence (Connor, 1984). Later, metadiscourse studies
focused on both textual and interpersonal aspects (Hyland, 2002). More recently
metadiscourse studies have shifted their focus towards pedagogical implications of
teaching of composition and academic writing (Hyland, 2004; 2010).

24
Hyland’s contribution to these studies is significant. Having done extensive studies on
metadiscourse analysis, he proposed a model of metadiscourse for academic writing in
2004, and this is the model used in this study. See chapter 3 for more details.
In brief, his model is composed of two types of resources namely, interactive resources
and interactional resources. The function of the interactive resources is to enable the
writer to achieve explicit information flow based on the writer’s preferred interpretations
(Kim & Lim, 2013). Hence, interactive resources guide the reader throughout the text.
The function of the interactional resources is to make the text more personal or in other
words makes the writer’s voice more explicit.
While theoretical perspectives throw light on how to understand genres, adopting genre
based pedagogies is not as simple as it seems. Therefore, investigating what pedagogies
are used by EAP practitioners, shed light on the range of practices and the challenges in
teaching EAP in both generic and disciplinary contexts.

2.4) Academic Literacy Practices in Australia

Australian universities provide resources including language units attached to faculties,

with specialist staff employed, to improve the academic literacy skills of students. There
are three major models of literacy practices existing in Australia namely "Study Skills",
"Academic socialisation" and "Academic literacies" (Lea & Street, 1998; 2006).
“Study Skills" is a generic model where students’ advanced English language skills are
improved. This approach focusses on surface features of the language and assumes that
students will be able to transfer their knowledge and to write in another context (Lea &
Street, 2006).
Academic socialisation is based on the genre based approach where students’ language
skills are developed through embedded curriculum. Lea and street (2006, p. 369) state
that
Academic socialization is concerned with students' acculturation into disciplinary
and subject-based discourses and genres. Students acquire the ways of talking,
writing, thinking and using literacy that typifies members of a disciplinary or
subject area community.

25
This approach is appealing to students because it is immediately applicable to their
disciplinary context and is therefore perceived as efficient. Due to the time constrains and
workload of undergraduates, especially in the fields of science, this model is considered
very pragmatic. It supports the “built into curriculum” teaching practice (Devereux &
Wilson, 2008) where true embedding takes place.
Moreover, the third model that is named as “Academic literacies model” is more
explorative where students are given the skills to acquire necessary language and
discipline specific skills. This is good for lifelong learning processes because it helps
them to understand genres in general. However, it takes time and the commitment and
dedication of the students. Lea and Street (2006) states that
Academic literacies concerned with meaning making, identity, power and authority
and foregrounds the institutional nature of what counts as knowledge in any
particular academic context.
These models are not mutually exclusive, but can be seen as complementary. EAP
practitioners may draw on aspects of all of these in their teaching practices, as each
provides different and useful insights. Further, Lea and Street (1998, p. 158) states that
Academic literacies approach encapsulates the academic socialization model,
building on the insights developed there as well as the study skills view. The
academic literacies model, then, incooperates both of the other models into a more
encompassing understanding of the nature of student writing within institutional
practices, power relations and identities.
However, Australian universities seem more focused on the embedded approach due to
the practicality of this approach. Since this approach caters to the disciplinary needs of
the students it contributes to the enhancement of the students’ performance directly. Many
scholars have highlight the need for this approach. Lim (2006) states that the university
course on academic literacy should be “tailor-made” to fulfill the requirements of the
students. Huang (2010) discusses how when developing curricula, the curriculum
designers should pay attention to students’ individual needs and discipline specific needs.

26
2.4.1) Resources Available to Support Student Writing
There are plenty of resources available, which help to scaffold students’ writing skills.
The books written on academic literacy skill development are one such resource. There
are many of these books available, for instance Swales and Feak (2004), Goodson (2012),
Schimel (2011) and Jordan (1999). Apart from these, there are many online resources also
are available. The websites sponsored by universities can be considered as reliable and
precise. For instance, “iWrite” sponsored by University of New South Wales is one such
program. This website provides online content with activities and explanations of good
writing strategies in type of genre that the students are engaged in. This assists students
in writing engineering reports, laboratory reports, field reports, proposals and theses. The
main purpose of such websites is to assist students in their writing.
While there are many such resources, which provide templates, and they are task-specific
(for example field report as distinct from laboratory report), they are not generally,
discipline specific (for example biology as distinct from ecology).
In addition, students may have difficulty understanding the purpose of the linguistic
resources and rhetorical structures used in example reports. While explicit classroom
teaching of discipline specific knowledge and skills is the norm, even with the growing
use of “flipped mode” teaching, there is often an expectation that skills such as writing
can be learnt “from the book” without additional support from a teacher. However, there
is no good reason to believe that such skills can be learnt without teacher support, any
more than disciplinary specific skills can be (Gibbions, 2009).
Online resources do not provide the scaffolding for learning that an EAP practitioner can
through writing courses and individual consultations. Scaffolding as a metaphor for
supporting learning. Burns (2005) highlighted the importance of learners developing
understanding through appropriate scaffolding. Meaningful scaffolding can only be
provided by teachers who have an understanding of the macro and micro level genres,
and the students’ individual needs (Burns, 2005).
The risk when students rely on online templates is that they do not gain an understanding
of writing practices that is transferable to other tasks or other genres.
Hence, research on student writing would be useful in the EAP teaching pedagogy.

27
2.5) Research on Expert Science Writing

According to Hamp-Lyons & Hyland (2002, p.4), the modern-day field of EAP addresses
The teaching of English in the academy at all age and proficiency levels, and it draws on
a range of interdisciplinary influences for its research methods, theories and practices.
It seeks to provide insights into the structures and meanings of academic texts, into the
demands placed by academic contexts on communicative behavior and into the pedagogic
practices by which these behaviors can be developed.
However, researchers have expressed concern that broader and more critical approaches to
research and practice within EAP and genre analysis are needed. This concern relates to the
development of EAP as a discipline and its large scope as an international field of activity
today (Jones, 2004). Consequently, linguists have conducted much research in this field.
The study by Evans and Green (2007) emphasises the importance of Academic literacy,
EAP programs and material design and provides a very helpful sketch of the language
problems experienced by undergraduates. Further, the study by Basturkmen (2002)
highlights the fact that there is a need to focus more on disciplinary content understanding
of teachers in teaching academic writing to learners of English as a second language. In
particular, writing in English places tremendous academic and linguistic demand on
international research students from non-English speaking background.
As noted earlier, Lim (2006) points out that the writing courses in tertiary institutions
should be tailored to meet the needs of within particular disciplines. The study by Bruce
(2008) supports Lim’s recommendations. Bruce (2008) focuses on the use of genre-based
approaches to teaching academic writing. The genre-based study on results sections in
sociology and organic chemistry articles reveals that there are consistent differences in
the textual resources employed in each subject (Bruce, 2009). Further, Bruce (2010),
concludes that genre-based courses enable learners to integrate their linguistics,
organizational and contextual knowledge in a variety of different tasks. Studies of expert
writing in disciplines much more similar to each other than sociology and chemistry have
also shown differences in genre. Samraj (2002) highlights the disciplinary variations in
the structure of two similar genres namely, conservation biology and wild life behavior.
Using the same model, that is, Swales CARS model, Kanoksilapatham (2005) conducted
a study on the rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles.
28
Further, Kanoksilapatham (2012) suggests that Swales (1990) model is descriptive but
not prescriptive. Studies such as this led Swales to revise his model in 2004. The 2004
Swales Model was the model chosen for this study that will be described in detail in
chapter 3.
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) theory developed by Halliday (1973) has also had
a significant impact on the improvement of the EAP discipline. According to Drury and
Webb (1989), over the last decade in higher education, aspects of genre-based academic
literacy pedagogy has been used to help tertiary students to address their academic literacy
needs. These approaches have seen many SFL–based literacy research initiatives,
including the adoption of SFL text analysis to reveal the genre of academic texts to
students. Chaisiri (2010) has also conducted genre-based research based on SFL theory
in implementing genre pedagogy to teaching of writing in a university context in
Thailand. Chaisiri proposes a model of language comprising the context of situation and
the context of culture.
In contrast, discourse analysis studies show that these Moves tend to be similar across
disciplines irrespective of the prototype of the genre. Nwogu (1997) used discourse
analysis to complement his genre-based analysis of medical research papers. He observed
the use of past and present tense for different purposes within the articles, as well as
features common to scientific writing such as hedges. Huckin (1987) studied physics and
microbiology research articles, and found a growing usage of text features, which
promote “surprise”, making scientific articles more engaging to the reader. Huckin notes
that helping student to make links between form and function of discourse conventions
may help to “demystify academic discourse”.

29
2.6) Science Communication

Science communication is a broader topic basically concerned about the awareness of

general public about sciences and how do scientists communicate to general public about
their knowledge and findings. According to Stanley & Lewandowski (2016, p. 1),
Science communication is commonly defined as the communication of scientific
results to the community, typically through scientific presentations and publications
in scientific journals
Communication of scientists with their own discourse community should also come under
the umbrella term of science communication.

2.6.1) Scientists to General Public

Durant et al. (1989) suggest that people deserve to know about science since it affects
everyone's life, he further emphasizes the need to have at least a minimal scientific
knowledge since many public policy decisions involved science. National surveys (1998)
also highlights this need. Perera (2011, p. iii) and states that
science communication, over the last two decades, has shifted its onus from public
understanding to public engagement. These efforts are paralleled in science
education, which strives to promote continued student engagement with science.
Centres such as Questacon promote science and technology as valuable and interesting to
the public by focusing primarily on using science to engage and entertain. They stimulate
interest in science, particularly in children, who can then use further sources of
information to increase their knowledge of science.
Further, the study by Perera (2013) demonstrates that short-term professional
development of teachers could play a vital role to support this endeavor and emphasises
the need for greater involvement of general public about science communication in
science education reform. Perera (2013) and McKinnon & Perara (2015) further state that
inquiry based pedagogy and professional development of teachers enhance the
engagement of science.

30
2.6.2) Scientists to Scientists
Scientists communicate using formal scientific writing in research articles published in
scientific journals and conference proceedings to members of their own discourse
community. As described earlier, such writing has been analysed using genre based and
metadiscourse analyses. Such writing represents a posterior account of a scientist’s
research, generally reporting only significant and successful experiments. It is not a
complete record of a scientist’s work.

Scientific documentation, including logbooks, contain the day to day and most complete
record of the scientist’s work. However, such documentation is usually only used to
communicate with their immediate collaborators and supervisors. Students are trained in
laboratory programs to keep log book records, The keeping of good records is a learning
outcome common to many laboratory programs (Stanley & Lewandowski, 2016).

According Stanley & Lewandowski, (2016) research on scientific documentation has

received little attention from science education researchers. The need for research in
scientific documentation has been expressed by several recent reports for instance,
American Association of Physics Teachers (2016), President’s Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (2012). Further, Stanley & Lewandowski (2016) highlight the
importance of university students’ engagement in science documentation and the use of
laboratory notebooks and reports.

2.7) Importance of Laboratory Report Writing

Laboratory learning plays an important role in science courses since it provides students
with the practical skills to complement what they learn in their lectures. Kirkup et al.
(2016) states that laboratory program should resemble the practice of scientists giving
students a realistic picture of the ways science is done. Further, study by Kirkup &
Bonfiglioli (2011) highlights the importance of embedding inquiry-oriented activities into
first year laboratory programs. Hofstein & Lunetta (2003) also point out the rich benefits
in learning that accrues from using laboratory activities and highlight their significant
place in tertiary science education.

Rice et al (2009, p. 13) state that, “Science is about knowledge of the material world
grounded in experiment. For most science academics, it follows automatically from this
31
that laboratory work must be an essential part of a science education”. The scientists
interviewed for the study by Rice et al took it for granted that laboratory work was a
necessary part of scientific training. However, they were not always able to articulate
clearly the learning outcomes associated with laboratory work that were unique to
laboratory work. Rather laboratory work is part of the culture of science, and hence
training in science, reflecting the nature of science as empirical. Laboratory work is thus
an important part of the enculturation into science for students.

The skills that are typically associated with laboratory programs are problem solving,
critical thinking, experimental design and data analysis as well as teamwork and
communication skills. Laboratory programs, particularly project or inquiry based rather
than recipe-based programs, expose students to the real research processes allowing them
to use experimental design, data collection, analysis and finally communication of their
findings via a report. It is difficult, if not impossible, to provide this opportunity without
a laboratory program (Ranawake & Wilson, 2016). According to Kirkup (2016) student
centered strategies such inquiry oriented learning enhances the students’ skills of problem
solving, stimulate their creativity and innovative thinking.

Laboratory reports are one of the major writing tasks in almost all science subjects and
serve the dual purpose of teaching students how to communicate as a scientist, as well as
providing a way for academic staff to measure the learning achieved in the laboratory
(Ranawake & Wilson 2016). The importance of the laboratory report as a means o`f
assessing student learning is indicated in any given course by the weighting given to the
report. This varies greatly, and may be as low as only a few percent of the final course
mark, to 50% or greater for fourth year projects or research placements.

A laboratory report is a miniature version of a published research article with the same
structure, style and vocabulary. A laboratory report typically includes components of
introduction, methodology, results, discussion and references with some variations such
as the inclusion of an abstract at the beginning and or conclusion at the end or a combined
section of results and discussion. Further, students are often encouraged to use the
conventions of scientific writing. The Academic Skills and Learning Centre at the
Australian National University (Anueduau,2017) explains that the format of IMRD has
evolved to fill the need of scientific community to critically evaluate research. They
further advise the students that it is essential to provide evidence of their skills of

32
interpretation, and relating it to the theory of the academic discipline through their
laboratory reports in order to achieve higher grades in their performance.

2.8) Justification of the Study

Academic writing is no one’s native language, thus, students face numerous linguistic
challenges. While many studies tend to highlight the challenges faced by non-native
speaker students (Basturkmen and Bitchner, 2006) only a few studies attempt to
investigate the challenges faced by native speaker students. Therefore, this study used a
corpus of student writing to examine their skills in writing within the genre of scientific
report writing.
Teachers’ expertise in teaching EAP or literacy is another ongoing debate. Basturkmen
and Lewis (2002) highlight the need for teachers to have subject knowledge in teaching
academic writing. The genre-based approaches, therefore, have become a common
practice (Bruce, 2010). Fakhruddin (2013) argues that teachers who frequently use
specific genre in their writing in the target discourse community will have a better
knowledge and understanding of the writing conventions compared to those who use them
occasionally. However, teachers from linguistic and TESOL backgrounds tend to
understand socio-psychological aspects and functional approaches to teaching. Therefore,
they could use more neutral and comparative approaches to teaching EAP courses.
Moreover, research on science writing has provided insights into the communicative
strategies and language devices used in the sciences. The emphasis in such work has been
to analyse features of academic genres and how such specialized texts are engaged in
particular disciplines (Chahal, 2014). However, most of the current research on science
writing is focused on experts’ writing. Such studies tend to propose top down approaches
to genre studies. Bottom up approaches that identify student needs are not given attention.
As described earlier, the need for such studies is expressed in several recent reports
namely American Physics Teachers’ Association (2016); President’s council of advisors
on science and technology (2012); National science foundation (1996).

This study analyses different types of student laboratory reports across disciplines and
different year levels. By highlighting differences between novice and expert writing, I

33
hope that this study may contribute to improved pedagogies for the teaching of scientific
writing by EAP units. Further, analysing students’ laboratory reports provides valuable
information for both science academics and EAP teachers. Such an analysis may allow
science academics to check to what extent laboratory programs help students to
experience the process of doing science. EAP teachers could gain insights into the
differences within laboratory report writing in different disciplines, year levels, and type
of laboratory experience (inquiry based or traditional).

This study aims to help both EAP practitioners and science academics to better support
students to develop their effective written communication skills.

2.9) Chapter Summary

This chapter first described the importance of writing instruction in university settings
and defined EAP. It then described EAP practices in the universities, namely the study
skills, embedded approach and the literacies model. The embedded approach was
described in detail since the results of this study support the embedded approach.

The three theoretical frameworks that underpin the research in this discipline were
described. These are Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Genre Analysis and
Metadiscourse Analysis. Most of the research on EAP has been based on these theories.
According to the literature available, it is noted that, there is little research on science
writing and specifically science undergraduate writing. The need for such research is
highlighted in several reports. This study addresses that gap in the literature by
investigating different types of student laboratory reports.

Laboratory report writing is one of the main writing tasks in science disciplines through
which students are trained to communicate effectively within the genre of scientific
writing. Further, based on the analysis, this study provides suggestions for EAP
pedagogy.

34
 Chapter 3: Research Methodology

Chapter Overview

3.1) Introduction

3.2) Move Analysis

3.2.1) Swales CARS Model for the Introduction Section

3.2.2) Swales CARS Model for the Discussion Section

3.2.3) Justification for Using CARS Model for Move Analysis

3.3) Linguistic Analysis

3.3.1) Interactional Resources

3.3.2) Interactive Resources

3.4) Importance of Introduction Section and Discussion Section of a Report

3.5) Sample Set

3.6) Procedure

3.7) Chapter Summary

3.1) Introduction

Swales’ CARS Model (2004) was used for the Move structure analysis and the Hyland
(2004) model was used for the analysis of the metadiscourse features in student laboratory
reports. This study only rigorously analyses the introduction sections and the discussion
sections in student report, as they are significant sections in reports. A detailed
justification is given in the latter part of this chapter. The introduction and discussion are
of a more general form than the method or results, which are more experiment specific.
Given the time constraints of the project, only a limited number of sections could be
analysed, so the introduction and discussion were selected.

35
This chapter will firstly discuss the two models in detail providing the justifications for
choosing these models for the analysis of laboratory reports. It further discusses the
reasons for analysing only the introduction sections and discussion sections. Finally, it
will provide the details of the sample set and the procedures followed.

3.2) Move Analysis

As described in the literature review, genre-based approaches such as genre analysis are
considered as the most appropriate approaches to analyse scientific genres. Swales CARS
(Create-A-Research-Space) model has been popular among applied linguists in analysing
writings of different genres. This model is well-suited for writings which follow the
IMRD (Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion) structure.

Move analysis, articulated by Swales (1980), discusses a hierarchical organisation of

academic research articles. These texts are made up of distinct sections namely
Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. Each of these sections is composed of
one or several sub sections. These sub sections are known as “Moves”. Those Moves
sometime are broken down into steps. Move analysis is useful in genre studies as “Moves
are semantic and functional units of texts, which can be identified because of their
communicative purposes and linguistic boundaries” (Swales, 1980). Hence, Move
analysis of different genres aims to determine the communicative purpose of the
particular text by dividing the text into several units or sections based on the
communicative functions.

3.2.1) Swales CARS Model for the Introduction Section

The CARS model was first proposed in 1990. It is composed of 3 Moves in the
introduction section, namely, establishing the territory, establishing a niche within the
territory and occupying the niche. Each of these Moves is considered obligatory and
consists of a minimum of one component or step.

A plethora of literature is available based on 1990 model (Nwogu, 1997; Bhatia,1993;

Holmes, 1990). Based on the results of subsequent studies such as those listed above, the
model has been revised in 2004 (Swales, 2004).

36
Swales (2004) states that “I therefore propose that the model take on board the potential
cycling or iterations of Move 1 and Move 2 sequences, which many investigators have
found to be prevalent, especially in longer introductions.”

The following Figure 1 shows the revised CARS model (2004).

Move1: Establishing a territory (citations)

Topic generalizations of increasing specificity

Move 2: Establishing a niche (citations possible)

Step 1: Indicating a gap

Step 2: Adding to what is known

Step 3: Presenting positive justification

Move 3: Presenting the present work

Step 1: Announcing present research descriptively and\or purposively (obligatory)

Step 2: Presenting research questions or hypothesis* (optional)

Step 3: Definitional clarifications (optional)*

Step 4: Summarizing methods (optional) *

Step 5: Announcing principal outcomes (PISF***)

Step 6: Stating the value of the present research (PISF***)

Step 7: Outlining the structure of the paper (PISF***)

Figure 1. Swales CARS Model for Introduction(2004)

* Steps 2-4 of 3 are optional and not fixed in the order.

** PISF (Probable in some fields)

***Moves 1 and 2 are likely to be cyclical, especially in longer introductions.

37
This study is based on the revised 2004 model since it is the most up to date version.

The Swales CARS model (2004) for introduction sections include three basic Moves.

Move 1: Establishing the Territory

This provides background information on the topic with increasing specificity. Research
articles most often begin by providing the topic generalisation as supported by the
available literature. The specificity of the current research is highlighted at the end linking
to Move 2. Move 1 can be seen in almost all published research articles irrespective of
the discipline. Writers demonstrate their knowledge of the field by providing facts and
information based on the available literature. In doing so they also demonstrate their
membership within the discourse community through their knowledge of the writings of
that community.

Move 2: Establishing a Niche

Move 2 is the most significant section of a research article introduction since it highlights
the significance of the current study, and provides the justification for its publication. This
is done by indicating the knowledge gap based on available literature (adding to what is
known), by presenting a positive justification or counter-claiming (disputing existing
literature). This Move is present in almost all research articles irrespective of the
discipline.

Move 3: Presenting the Present Work

This involves 7 steps, namely; 1. Announcing the present research descriptively, 2.

Presenting the research question, hypothesis or aim, 3. Definitional clarifications
(providing definitions and explaining them), 4. Summarising the methods (Explaining the
procedure in brief), 5. Announcing the principle outcomes, 6. Stating the value of the
present research (highlighting the significance of the study), 7. Outlining the structure of
the paper (providing the roadmap).

38
Step 1 is considered obligatory and is always found in research articles, while steps 2, 3,
and 4 are common but not universally found. Steps 5, 6, and 7 are present only in some
fields like humanities and social sciences but are not usual in science.

3.2.2) Swales CARS Model for the Discussion Section

The discussion section contextualizes the reported study and relates it to previous work
in the field. It also links back to the introduction section, for example by saying whether
the question was answered or the hypothesis was supported. The CARS model for the
discussion section is shown in Figure 2. Moves 8-11 are related to Methodology and the
Moves of the discussion starts from Move 12.

The Discussion Section

Move 12: Contextualizing the Study

Step 1: Describing established knowledge

Step 2: Presenting generalizations, claims, deductions, research gaps

Move 13: Consolidating Results

Step 1: Restating methodology

Step 2: Stating selected findings

Step 3: Referring to previous literature

Step 4: Explaining differences in findings

Step 5: Making overt claims or generalizations

Step 6: Exemplifying

Move 14: Stating Limitations of the Present Study

Step 1: Limitations about the findings

Step 2: Limitations about the methodology

Step 3: Limitations about the claims made

Move 15: Suggesting Future Research

Figure 2- Swales Model for Discussion section (2004)

39
The discussion section is composed of 4 major Moves, namely, contextualizing the study,
consolidating results, stating limitations of the present study and suggesting future
research. Each Move carries a few sub steps. Out of the four Moves the first three are
obligatory whereas the last one is optional.

Move 12- Contextualizing the Study

This Move includes two steps: 1. Describing established knowledge and 2. Presenting
generalisations, claims, deductions or research gaps. In the first step, writers situate their
study in the interest of the discourse community by referring to available literature. In the
second step, writers highlight their study indicating the knowledge gap that they are
addressing. This Move is present in almost all scientific research articles.

Move 13- Consolidating Results

This Move is composed of 6 main steps, namely, Step.1 Restating methodology, Step 2-
Stating selected findings, Step 3- Referring to previous literature, Step 4- Explaining
differences in findings (making comparisons and contrasts between the results and others
in similar existing literature), Step 5- Making overt claims or generalisations (announcing
the findings), Step 6- Exemplifying (providing examples to explain).

In this Move, writers highlight the strength of their study, assuring the reader that this
particular study has a specific purpose and describes how the methodology is designed to
serve that particular purpose. Each and every piece of writing does not exhibit all these
steps yet each writer uses a few steps to elucidate the value and the importance of their
own study.

Move 14- Stating Limitations of the Present Study

This Move consists of 3 major steps; discussing the limitations of the findings, discussing
the constraints in the methods followed, and discussing the limitations of the claims made.
This Move is not obligatory, but at least one of these steps can be seen in most research
articles.

40
Move 15- Suggesting Future Research

In this Move writers suggest the need for future research, pointing to particular research
questions that need attention, or suggesting improvements in the instrumentation or
research design. This Move too is not obligatory but it is present in most research articles.

3.2.3) Justifications for using Swales Model for the Move Analysis
This model has been the most common analytical tool used by linguists who analyse
linguistic features in scientific research articles. Examples given below demonstrate how
popular this model is in analysing science genres.

Kanoksilapatham (2005) investigated the rhetorical structure of biochemistry research

articles using the Swales’ model that were composed of 15 distinct Moves and concluded
that they conformed to the Swales’ model with minor variations. Kanoksilapatham (2012)
focused on the structure of research article introductions in three engineering sub
disciplines and found that these also largely conformed to the CARS model with some
disciplinary variations.

Safnil (2013) conducted a genre-based analysis on the differences of the introduction

sections of research articles written by Indonesian academics and English academics. The
three disciplines chosen for this study are engineering, science and medical science and
the different rhetorical structures were identified using the Swales CARS model. Other
examples of the use of the CARS model were described in the literature review.

In the present study, the sample of student work analysed consisted of science laboratory
reports from various sub disciplines including physics, biology, ecology and
oceanography. The CARS model is an appropriate choice for a theoretical framework
since it has been extensively used in analysing science writing as demonstrated above.
The use of this model can reveal whether the novices use the same structures as experts
and it will highlight the differences between the sub disciplines of science. Further, it can
identify differences between the year levels and the differences between the experimental
laboratory reports and research placement projects.

3.3) Linguistic Analysis

Hyland’s model for academic writing is used for the analysis of linguistic features. The
Hyland’s model is summarised in Figure 3.
41
 Category Function Examples
Interactive resources
Transitions Express semantic In addition /but/thus/and
relation between main
clauses
Frame markers Refer to discourse acts, Finally /to conclude/my
sequences, or text stages purpose is to……
Endophoric markers Refer to information in As above/see Fig./in section
other parts of texts 2
Evidentials Refer to source of According to X (Y, 1990)/Z
information from other states……
texts
Code glosses Help readers grasp Namely/e.g./such as/in other
meaning words….
Interactional resources
Hedges Without writer’s full Might/perhaps/possible
commitment to
proposition
Boosters Emphasise force or In fact /definitely/it is clear
writer’s certainty in that….
proposition
Attitude markers Express writer’s attitude Unfortunately/surprisingly
Engagement markers Explicitly refer to or Consider/ note that/you can
build relationship with see that
reader
Self-mentions Explicit reference to I/we/my/our
author(s)

Figure. 3 – Hyland’s metadiscourse model for academic texts (2004)

According to Hyland (2004, p. 137) metadiscourse is seen in this model as

42
 The interpersonal resources used to organize a discourse or the writer’s stance
towards either its content or the reader. In other words, it refers to the linguistic
devices writers employ to shape their arguments to the needs and expectations of
their target readers.

Many linguistic devices described by Hyland are characteristic of all formal writing, but
some features are more or less commonly used within particular disciplines. A member
of a discourse community can be identified as a member of that community by other
members by their use of linguistic features.

3.3.1) Interactive Resources

Interactive resources are used by the writer to manage the flow of information and to give
a clear structure to the writing. Interactive resources include transitions (expressing the
relationship - for example in addition, but, thus, and), frame markers (referring to the
sequential order - for example first, finally, to conclude), endophoric markers (referring
to information in other parts - for example notice above, see fig. in section 2), evidentials
(referring to sources of information from other texts - for example according to, states
that) and code glosses (helping the reader grasp the meaning - for example namely, such
as, in other words). By using these interactive resources, the writer is able to maintain a
better flow guiding the reader throughout his/her writing.

3.3.2) Interactional Resources

Interactional resources focus on the writer’s voice. Hyland (2004, p. 139) states that
metadiscourse in interactional resources concerns

The writer’s efforts to control the level of personality in a text and establish a
suitable relationship to his or her data, arguments, and audience marking the
degree of intimacy, the expression of attitude, the communication of commitments
and the extent of the reader’s involvement.

Interactional resources include hedges that show a writer’s reluctance or hesitation to

present propositional information or to highlight the provisional nature of the proposition.

43
Boosters, in contrast to hedges, emphasise and express certainty. Hedges are more
common in science writing than boosters.

Attitude markers depict the writer’s view, opinions or attitudes, including emotions.
These are generally absent in science writing.

Engagement markers are used in science writing to engage the reader as a participant, and
to make the writing more interactive. They may also contribute to assisting the reader in
understanding the work.

Self mentions suggest the extent of author presence, are uncommon in science, where
third-person passive voice is the traditional mode of writing. They are however becoming
increasingly used in scientific writing.

The Hyland’s model was chosen because it is the most commonly used metadiscourse
model in the analysis of academic texts. It is a pragmatic and easy to use model.

3.4) Importance of the Introduction Section and Discussion Section of a

Report

Due to the time constraints of the Master of philosophy candidature, the study was limited
to the Introduction and Discussion sections of student reports. These sections were chosen
because their structure is likely to be less dependent on the detailed method or results of
the experiment being described in the report.

3.4.1) Introduction Section

One of the most important sections in a research article is the introduction section because
it is the first section to be read by readers where writer - reader interaction builds up. If
the introduction section is not impressive and interesting, it is very unlikely that readers
will continue reading the article. Safnil (2013, p.181) states that Introduction section of a
research article functions to motivate readers in order to read the whole part of the article
and therefore, this section must be written as interestingly and convincingly as possible”.
According to Belcher (2009, p.209), the main purpose of the introduction section is to

44
“provide enough information for the reader to be able to understand your argument and
its stakes.

Hunston (1994) states that the introduction section of an article carries some of the
persuasive value of the entire article, since the authors appeal to readers to accept their
work in this section. A similar comment has also been made by Swales and Feak (1994).
They suggest that

the main purpose of an introduction section of a research article are of two folds:
these are to give a logical reason for the article and to provoke readers to read it.
The ways writers rhetorically present the argument in their article introductions
will determine whether or not readers are impressed and convinced and whether
or not they will continue reading the article.

An outstanding introduction provides the reader the background with increasing

specificity of the topic being discussed in the body in a convincing manner. It also
establishes the writer as someone familiar with the current state of the discipline, and with
the current literature and hence as a member of the discourse community.

In the student reports, students demonstrate that they have researched the field and
understand it through the introduction.

3.4.2) Discussion Section

The discussion section of an article or a report plays a vital role; linking back to the
introduction and stating whether the questions posed in the introduction have been
answered or the hypothesis supported. Further, it summarises what has been done,
providing insights for the body of knowledge and suggesting future research areas.

In spite of the importance and value of the discussion section, there has been less research
based on the discussion sections of research articles than introduction sections. Peacock
(2002) states that

while much work since 1990 has analysed Moves in introductions, much less has
investigated the important discussion section, agreement is still lacking on their
Move structure. Additionally, there has been little investigation of interdisciplinary
variation or native speaker/non-native speaker differences.

45
When considering the laboratory report discussions, the teachers or the markers pay
attention to see whether the students have justified and explained their results, answered
the questions posed in the introduction or supported the hypothesis suggested. The
discussion section is where students demonstrate they have understood the significance
of the data that they have collected.

3.5) The Sample Set

Student laboratory reports from two research-intensive universities in Canberra, Australia

were chosen for this study. The sample contains a total of 36 reports; including 16 from
biology projects, 12 from physics laboratory experiments and projects, and 8 from science
research placement projects. These reports were chosen from across disciplines, and from
different year levels. Out of the 16 biology laboratory project reports eight were drawn
from the second year and eight from third year biology courses from the same set of
students. These biology projects consisted of a series of linked experiments. Out of the
12 physics reports, six were first year physics experimental reports and six were first year
physics laboratory project reports. The laboratory experiment reports were written on an
experiment which was somewhat inquiry based, with the experimental aims given to the
students. The physics laboratory projects were more strongly inquiry based, with students
working in groups and selecting their own topics, formulating their research questions or
hypotheses, and designing their own methods. These projects were, generally, undertaken
in the teaching laboratory with the usual demonstrator staff supervising the projects.

The eight third year science experimental research placement project reports covered a
range of science disciplines including physics, chemistry, oceanography and ecology. The
students undertaking these projects are the more able students, who are placed,
individually, with an academic supervisor and work with that academic’s research group
on some aspect of that group’s research for a semester.

The range of instruction on report writing provided to students varied, but in general was
minimal. In the case of the physics and biology reports, students were provided with a
laboratory manual, which outlines the basic structure and major sections of a laboratory
report but did not include detailed descriptions of each section. No other instruction was
offered, although it was possible for students to seek help from the academic skills unit.
46
Whether they did so was not possible to ascertain as all the reports were provided
anonymously. For none of the courses from which reports were obtained was EAP
embedded. The research placement students were mentored individually by academics,
so the level of instruction they received was highly variable. These students were
expected to read and become familiar with scientific papers in the discipline, so are likely
to have had more exposure to professional science writing, even if there was no formal
instruction. Two of the lab manuals one from biology and one from physics are attached
in the appendix.

The sample reports used were those that were available at the time; reports collected for
benchmarking purposes, uncollected student reports and those retained by course
coordinators. The ethical requirement for the use of only anonymised reports limited the
sample set available.

All reports were supplied without the student authors’ names, and demographic data such
as gender and native or non-native speaker status. However, the cohorts from which the
reports were drawn consisted of predominantly local, native English speaker students.

The number of reports analysed was typical of that used for linguistic studies, where
sample sizes of 12 to 20 are not uncommon. Where manual coding is used, as in this case,
the numbers are typically of this order of magnitude. The number can be even less in
textual analysis (Chahal, 2014).

The average word count of biology reports ranges from 3000-4000 words of which
introduction section caries around 1000-1500 and the discussion section also have around
1000-1500 words. Physics laboratory reports are comparatively shorter than the biology
reports and the word count varies from 1500-2500. The introduction section carries
around 750-1200 and the discussion sections are comparatively shorter having a word
count around 500-750. The word count of physics project reports is around 3000-4000
where both introduction section and discussion section carries around 1000-1500 each.
The research placement projects are lengthy and range from 6000-8000 words of which
introduction is about 1500-2000. The discussion section goes to around 2000-2500 words.

47
3.6) Procedure

3.6.1) Move Analysis of laboratory Reports

Different Moves in the introduction sections and the discussion sections in students’
reports were analysed quantitatively. Students’ usage of each Move and sub steps were
recognized by the researcher and subsequently confirmed with a science academic and an
expert linguist. This task was laborious since all the reports needed to be read carefully,
paying attention to each sentence to recognise the Moves and steps. The researcher had
to read each report several times since Moves are not highlighted or even always
explicitly stated in the reports, most of the time they are rather implied. Where a Move
was found, it was highlighted in the document and labelled appropriately. A database of
instances of each Move in each report was built up, with exemplifying quotations from
each report recorded.

Students are not aware that they are using the Moves but they follow the instructions
given by the laboratory manual or report writing assignment sheet, their lecturer, EAP
teachers or demonstrators. Sometimes science academics upload good examples into their
online course materials as a guideline for students to follow. Scientists (either academics
or students) are not aware of the Moves and steps of linguistic models yet they generally
use the Moves and steps as they follow the writing conventions in their discipline. Hence
the Moves are generally present, but not in the sequence expected, and were often implicit
rather than explicit. This made the coding process laborious.

3.6.2) Linguistic Analysis of laboratory Reports

The linguistic analysis of the laboratory reports was conducted to see whether student
writers use the same metadiscourse features as experts do in their writing. The researcher
identified Interactive and Interactional resources present in the reports. The entire reports,
all sections, were read and coded, with interactional and interactive resources identified
and labelled in the reports. Examples are provided in results chapter.

48
3.7) Chapter Summary

The theoretical frameworks used for this study were the CARS model and the Hyland’s
metadiscourse model. These were chosen because they have been widely used to analyse
academic writing, including science research articles. As students’ laboratory reports are
mini-versions of scientific research articles, these models may be expected to be
applicable. The sample set consisted of 36 student reports from two research-intensive
universities. The reports were drawn from a range of subject areas, and from different
types of laboratory programs and research placements.

The analysis was performed by multiple readings and codings of each report, with Moves
and steps from the CARS model identified in the introduction and discussion sections,
and metadiscourse resources throughout the entire report identified and coded.

49
 Chapter 4: Results

Chapter Overview

4.1) Introduction

4.2) Move Analysis of the Introduction Section of laboratory Reports

4.3) Move Analysis of the Discussion Section of Laboratory Reports

4.4) Linguistic Analysis of the Laboratory Reports

4.5) Common Linguistic Features Noted- other than Hyland’s Model

4.6) Chapter Summary

4.1) Introduction

This chapter comprises three major sections, namely the Move analysis of the
introduction sections of students’ laboratory reports, the Move analysis of the discussion
sections of those reports and the linguistic analysis of the laboratory reports. A
quantitative analysis was conducted by checking the frequency of occurrence of different
Moves and sub steps in both introduction section and discussion section of all laboratory
reports based on the Swales CARS model. The linguistic analysis using Hyland’s model
was conducted to see whether student writers use the same language structures as experts.
In addition, common linguistic features not described by the Hyland’s model were noted

As described in the method section, analysis was done manually. Students are not aware
of the Move structures hence Moves are not always clearly identifiable, they are rather
implied, hence it has been a laborious task, inferring the meaning they implied. These
results were discussed and confirmed with a science academic and a linguist.

50
4.2) Move Analysis of the Introduction Section of laboratory Reports

The results of the analysis of the introduction sections of the laboratory reports are
summarized in Table 1 and Figure 4. Refer to Figure 1 for details of each Move and step.

Table 1: Frequency of Occurrence of Moves and Steps in the Introduction Section

Biology Biology Physics Physics Research

Expt. project Placement
2nd year 3rd year
Projects
1st year 1st year

Move 1: Topic generalization with increasing specificity

Step 1 100% 100% 0 100% 100%

Move 2: Establishing the niche

Step 1 0 0 0 0 25%

Step 2 0 0 0 0 37.5%

Step 3 0 0 0 0 25%

Move 3- Presenting the present research

Step 1 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Step 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Step 3 0 18% 0 0 0

Step 4 0 50% 0 0 0

Step 5 0 0 0 0 0

Step 6 0 0 0 0 0

Step 7 0 0 0 0 12.5%

51
 Frequency of occurance (%) of the Moves and Steps in
Introduction Section
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
M1-S1 M2-S1 M2-S2 M2-S3 M3-S1 M3-S2 M3-S3 M3-S4 M3-S5 M3-S6 M3-S7

Bio LR 2nd Bio LR 3rd Phy LR Phy proj Research Pro

Figure 4. Frequency of occurrence as a % - Moves and steps in the Introduction Section

As can be seen in the table and the graph above, research placement project reports
conformed to the CARS model more closely than the other reports. These research reports
include most of the Moves and steps. However, second year and third year biology reports
and first year physics reports did not include Move 2 that is the identification and
justification of the knowledge gap. Further, only the first 4 steps of Move 3 were found
to be present in most of the reports under investigation.

As shown in Figure 4, the introduction sections of all the reports share some of the Moves
described by the Swales 2004 CARS model. The following section describes each Move
and step in detail, with examples from students’ reports.

4.1.1) Move 1: Establishing Territory

This Move is present in all introduction sections in all the reports. Students demonstrate
their knowledge of the field by presenting established knowledge related to the topic.
Typically, this starts with the broad context, and then proceeds with increasing specificity
towards their own experiment.

52
For example:

1) Next generation sequencing (NGS) has provided scientists with a large

variety of data on the genomes of model organisms, but to gain a better
understanding of the mutations that can be present in a population re-
sequencing is required. (3rd year Biology)
2) An understanding of the behavior of competing exothermic reactions is
useful in areas such as safety and industrial production of the material.
SHS is such industrial process…(Research Placement)
3) Dilution refrigerators are now common place compared to magnetic
cooling in applications for research at low temperatures. Magnetic
cooling, however, still has a vast array of potential
applications…(Physics project)

4.1.2) Move 2: Establishing a Niche

This Move is absent in all the student laboratory reports for single experiments or
laboratory projects which were components of courses.

In contrast, 87.5% of the science research placement project reports (all but one) involved
this Move either by indicating a gap, adding to what is known or by providing a positive
justification of the current study.

For example, a gap was indicated in some reports by pointing out that the topic was not
well understood or desirable results had not been achieved:

1). Whilst its distribution is relatively well studied, very little is known or
understood of the factors, such as climate, that controls it. (Research placement)

2). The phosphorescence that results from the triplet-singlet transition is at the
core of study for this research and is of particular interest as it has not been
extensively studied or measured. Additionally, spectral hole burning within this
region has not been previously achieved. (Research placement)

3). Climate change is becoming the buzz-word of the decade, despite it being
common scientific knowledge for many more years. The effects of such climatic
changes on flora or fauna, including humans, are not generally understood in the
public arena. (Research placement)
53
Some student writers provided justification for their work as adding to existing
knowledge or extending existing models to other systems, for example:

4). A large number of studies have however been done on correlation analysis of
intra natural climate phenomena…All three phenomena are therefore worth
considering in an analysis of sea surface temperature. This project will, therefore,
investigate the relationships between isolated SST records and their surrounds,
and the …. using high resolution model data.( Research placement)

5). Underwater gliders use buoyancy control coupled with a winged-torpedo

shape to transverse the oceans while carrying various sensors. The idea for this
project is loosely based off this concept. (Research placement)

Other student writers provided justification for their research in other ways, for example
testing or replicating previous results in the literature, or evaluating effectiveness of
policy:

6). The long footed Potoroo Potorus is an endangered, medium-sized, terrestrial

rat kangaroo that inhabits forests within south eastern Australia. In New South
Wales, it is listed as endangered under schedule 1 of the threatened species
conservation act 1995. A national recovery plan was prepared in 2000, which is
currently being revised. This project addresses a number of objectives in the draft
revised recovery plan. (Research Placement)

7). Magnetic cooling, however, still has a vast array of potential applications
which still attract interest. Continuing down the field...this project has two aims,
Replication of previously observed magnetic properties and the inverse
magnetocaloric effect using (Research Placement)

4.1.3) Move 3: Presenting the present study

This Move includes 7 steps, some of which are considered to be obligatory, while some
are optional depending on the discipline and the particular study. Step 1, describing the
present research, is obligatory in research articles and this step is present in all the
laboratory reports.

54
For example,

1) This project addresses a number of objectives in the draft revised recovery

plan…(Research Placement)
2) (This purpose of this project is to replicate previously observed magnetic
properties and the inverse…(Physics project)
3) The overall aim of this set of experiments is to use different screening
techniques…(2nd year Biology report)

Steps 2, 3, and 4 are considered optional for research articles, but step 2 which is
presenting the research question or hypothesis is also present in all the reports. For
example,

1) We aim to determine if the induced mutation is either structural or regulatory in

nature.(2nd year Biology report)
2) The aim is to determine the difference in electrical output in amorphous
and…(Physics Project)
3) The specific object of this project is to investigate the impact of ….(Research
Placement)

Step 4, which is summarizing the method, can be seen only in 3rd year biology laboratory
reports. For example,

1) First this experiments aim to identify lac operon and then isolate….and ….

This was the only difference between the biology and physics laboratory reports.

Steps 5 (announcing the principle outcome), step 6 (stating the value of the present
research), and step 7 (outlining the structure of the paper) are probable in some
disciplines, but all of them are absent in the sample of physics and biology laboratory
reports and only 12.5% of research project placement reports (1 report) shows step 7 out
of the reports investigated.

1). The next chapters will describe the methods used followed by analysis of results and
a discussion. ….(Research Placement)

Research placement projects and physics projects conformed to the CARS model while
the first-year physics reports and biology reports differ from CARS lacking Move 2.

55
4.2) Move Analysis of the Discussion Section of the laboratory Reports

The discussion section of a report or an article plays a crucial role since it elucidates the
meaning of the results of the study and interprets them in the context of the existing body
of knowledge, which has been described in the introduction section. The discussion
describes the implications and importance of the results for the discipline too. The
discussion may also have other functions, such as acknowledging limitations, and
suggesting further work. Further, as the discussion section contextualizes the study
relating it to previous work in the field, it reflects a sense of membership in both the
specific discipline and the larger scientific community (Kanoksilapatham, 2005).

According to the CARS model the discussion is composed of 4 major Moves, namely;
contextualizing the study, consolidating results, stating limitations of the present study
and future research (see figure 3 in method section). Out of the above four Moves, the
first three are obligatory in research papers while the last one is optional. The following
table shows the frequency of the occurrence of each of the Moves and steps in the
discussion sections of the students’ reports.

The details of Moves and steps were given in Table 2 and Figure 2.

56
Table 2: Frequency of Occurrence of Moves and Steps in the Discussion Section

Biology Biology Physics Physics Research

Expt. project placements
2nd year 3rd year

Move 12 – Contextualizing the study

Step 1 100% 100% 0 100% 100%

Step 2 0 0 0 75% 87.5%

Move 13 – Consolidating Results

Step 1 37.5% 50% 0 16.66% 37.5%

Step 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Step 3 87.5% 100% 37.5% 33.33% 100%

Step 4 37.5% 50% 33.33% 50% 62.5%

Step 5 90% 90% 80% 90% 100%

Step 6 25% 27% 0 32% 38%

Move 14 – Limitations

Step 1 62.5% 62.5% 18% 66.66% 87.5%

Step 2 100% 92% 87% 100% 100%

Step 3 0 0 0 0 50%

Move 15- Future Research

Step1 62.5% 75% 0 33% 32.5%

57
 Frequency of occurence (as a % )of Moves and Steps in the
discussion Section
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
M12-S1 M12-S2 M13-S1 M13-S2 M13-S3 M13-S4 M13-S5 M13-S6 M14-S1 M14-S2 M14-S3 M15-S1

Boi LR 1 Bio LR 2 Phy LR Phy Pro Research Placement

Figure 5- Frequency of occurrence as a %- Moves and steps in the discussion section

As shown from the table and the graph above, it can be concluded that the research
placement project reports and physics project reports follow all the Moves in the CARS
model, and almost all steps are present in at least some of the research and physics project
reports.

The physics experiment reports and biology reports lack step- 2 of Move 12, that is,
presenting generalisations, claims, deductions or research gaps and step 3 of Move -14,
that is, the limitations of the claims made. Move 12-Step 1 and 2 and Move 14 link back
to the Move 1 and 2 in the introduction section.

Identifying the gap in the literature is not an expected learning outcome for the 1 st year
and 2nd year students. So, the absence of these two steps, related to claims of their study,
is understandable. Further, physics experimental reports are short, and they lack some of
the steps that the biology reports have. For instance, Step 3 (Move 13) that is restating the
methodology and step 3 (Move 13) referring to literature is rare in physics report
discussion sections. This could be due to the disciplinary variations between physics and
biology, or to the nature of specific laboratory programs. However, as the reports came
from two different laboratory programs for each discipline, it is more likely that it

58
is a disciplinary difference. Further work would need to be done to establish if this is the
case.

Further, physics experimental reports do not describe the established knowledge in the
literature in the discussion section but when explaining the results in the result section,
they supported them using the references. Exemplification, that is describing providing
examples, is not common in the discussion section of science reports.

The following section describes the Moves and steps in detail with examples from student
reports.

Move 12- Contextualizing the Study

This Move provides a detailed description of the study. There are 2 steps within this
Move. First, describing established knowledge and presenting generalizations, claims,
deductions or research gap. In step 1 the author situates the study within the discourse
community and in step 2, the author highlights the significance of the particular study by
explaining the results and providing illustrative examples. The following examples show
how student writers used these steps and Moves in their writing.

Move 12- Step 1: Describing Established Knowledge

This Move is compulsory and all the laboratory reports investigated show this Move.
Students indicate their knowledge of, and familiarity with, the field in this step, usually
by citing appropriate literature. For example:

1) Many studies have shown increased drought to tolerance in ABA

hypersensitive Arabdopis…(2nd year Biology Report)
2) However, considering that lac I is not apart from the lac operon and double
mutations across the entire bacterial genome are quite common after UV
mutagenesis (Pierce,2012), So it is reasonable to conclude… (2nd year
Biology Report)
3) Inhibition of PP2C is key to activation of ion channels that allows ABA to carry
out its role in drought response (Hauser et al, 2011), based on this… (2nd year
Biology report)
59
 4) For solid fuels, there was a more complex relationship, where for a range of
exothermicity values, the combustion front would pulse through the reaction
chamber rather than travel at a constant speed. While this has been studied
by Weber et al (1997), we verified …(Physics Project)

Move 12 – Step 2: Presenting Generalizations, Claims, Deductions, Research Gaps

This Move is absent in most of the first-year laboratory reports but it is present in research
placement reports. This was generally done by claiming better results than previous
research or by extending previous work to fill the gap, for example:

1). In conclusion, this experiment showed that our alx20 mutants had less amount of
H2O2 present and could cope with drought stress better compared to wild type
Arabidopsis. (3rd year Biology Report)

2). While this has been studied by Weber et al (1997), we verified and extended their
work to find the point of extinction in the one step system for solid fuels. We also
examined the one step non-adiabatic case . (Physics Project)

Move 13- Consolidating Results

This Move consists of 6 steps highlighting the strength of the study. The steps are
restating methodology, stating selected findings, referring to previous literature,
explaining differences and findings, making overt claims or generalisations and
exemplifying. The following examples show how the student writers use them in their
reports.

Move 13- Step 1: Restating Methodology

This Move is not common in science writing, and was missing from the physics reports
under investigation. But a few third-year biology reports and some research placement
reports included this step. For example:

1). In this and the previous year of sampling, the sites were selected randomly to
sample all habitat types…(Research Placement)

60
 2). Based on the analysis of MacConkey agar screening and b-galactosidase assay
technique, the genotype of… (3rd year Biology Report)

Move 13 – Step 2: Stating Selected Findings

This Move is present in almost all the reports. This is a common step in any discussion
since it explains findings. For example:

1. In figure 1 it was shown that wild type Arabidopsis has the same presence of ROS
as the alx 20 mutant …(3rd year Biology Report)
2. It is evident from Table 2 that there is a noticeable drop in the amount of detected
transmission in the wetted fabrics compared to dry fabric. (Physics project)
3. Based on the complementation analysis (Table 3) it is seen that mutant 5.1 also
contains mutations in the structural gene lacY… (3rd year Biology Report)

Move 13 – Step 3: Referring to Previous Literature

This Move is common in research placement reports and biology reports but rare in
physics reports. In most of the physics reports, students refer to literature when explaining
the results in the results section. For example, they refer to their text books or well-known
laws and theories, but not journal articles. The results section of physics reports is
comparatively longer than the discussion. In the discussion section, students provide
reasons for their results and conclude whether the hypothesis mentioned in the
introduction was supported or whether they achieved the objectives of the experiment.

1. Same literature also suggest that another mutation on this candidate gene could
enhance ABA receptor binding which leads to…(3rd year Biology Report)
2. Values from the literature were measured at 20 c, hence… (Physics Project).
3. As was expected the red light was the most efficient for the polycrystalline cell.
This corresponds to the theory that solar cells are more efficient at longer
wavelengths (Hovel, Hodgson & Woodall 1979). (Research Placement)
4. This opposition of motion by frictional forces grounded within Newton’s third law,
whereby, “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” (Physics
Project)

61
Move 13 – Step 4: Explaining Differences in Findings

This Move is present in some of the reports under investigation.

1) The reason for the nichrome difference may be due to the difference in
composition of the nichrome, it may have more or less certain elements (Physics
Project)
2) This results support previous studies which showed that Potoroos habitats….
(Research Placement)

Move 13- Step 5: Making Overt Claims or Generalisations

This step is observed in almost all the reports. Examples of generalisations include:

1) It is clear from this research that the vast majority of climatically suitable land
under the IPCC scenarios would occur in state forests compared to National
parks. (Research Placement)

Overt claims included statements of precedence, such as:

2) As far as we can tell this is the first investigation of a two-step competing

exothermic reaction under non-adiabatic conditions. (Physics Project)

and simple summaries of the results:

3) Results from single crystal TbNiAl4 were successfully replicated in this project.
The same two magnetic phase transitions were observed, at the same temperature.
(Physics Project)

Move 13- Step 6: Exemplifying

This step is not common in science writing. Explaining things by providing examples
may be done in the literature review, but was rare in the discussion section. It did not
occur at all in the physics experiment reports, and in less than a third of other reports.

62
 1) For example if an Amino acid was changed with the ….(3rd year Biology Report)
2) As illustrated above, this effect is further enhanced by…. (3rd year Biology
Report)
3) There is a difference between the extent to which different fabrics absorb UV-A
radiation as seen in Table 1 where silk and tassar /cotton have a much higher loss
of intensity per mm than the other fabrics. (Physics Project)

Move 14 – Stating Limitations of the Present Study

The limitations of the present study are explained here in 3 steps, specifically, the
limitations of the findings (Step1), limitations of the method (Step 2) and the limitations
of the claims made (step 3). Examples from students’ reports are shown below.

Move 14- Step 1: Limitations of the Findings

Students discuss the limitations of their finding, for example by highlighting the need for
validation or the limited utility of the results:

1) However, we were unable to find linear attenuation coefficient suitable for

application to the type of glass used in microscopic glass slides, and thus our
results need to be validated. (Physics Project)
2) Although polycrystalline samples were successfully used in this project, they may
not be useful in practical applications. (Physics Project)

Move 14- Step 2: Limitations of the Methodology

Students typically discuss the mistakes made in the procedures or lack of resources,
including time, or sophisticated equipment. For example:

1) It is possible that over time the compound would have broken down and reacted
in the presence of other compounds at any time prior to this experiment. (Physics
Project)

63
 2) Although a suitable method was achieved, there was not enough opportunity to
measure temperature profiles using the glider at the same time that the RASS was
profiling, in suitable conditions. (Research Placement)
3) The no growth result is more likely to be due to an error in plating rather than
the mutant being completely unable to utilize maltose. (3rd year Biology Report)
4) 5.1 and 5.2 were borrowed from bench 5, therefore the accuracy and the
consistency of data recorded here could not be verified. (2nd year Biology Report)

Move 14- Step 3: Limitations of the Claims Made

This Move is observed only in research placement project reports.

1) Although there was no conclusive result with regard to the RASS, this project did
prove the feasibility of measuring ABL profile using a model air craft. (Research
Placement)

Move 15 – Suggesting Future Research

After explaining all the aspects of the present study, the writers tend to recommend future
studies in the field by highlighting the aspects which need to be addressed or which need
improvements. But this step is not observed in all the reports. This Move is uncommon
in all but the biology reports. Some examples are shown below.

1) Further experiments can determine what effect the mutation had on the associated
protein. (3rd year Biology Report)
2) Extended experiments can be suggested using sophisticated technique to
investigate mutation at DNA-base level (3rd year Biology Report)
3) There are many possible areas where the work could be extended. A larger range
of Lewis could be examined to try to determine at which values of the pulsing
region exists….Additionally the origins of the pulsing behaviour on the upper
branch of the bistability region could be investigated. (Research Placement)
4) Further work could be still be done with the current implementation to more
definitively verify the RASS temperature profiles… (Research Placement)

64
4.3) Linguistic Analysis of Students’ laboratory Reports

The major focus of this study is the Move analysis of students’ laboratory reports.
However, students’ use of linguistic features, particularly interactive and interactional
features highlighted in Hyland’s (2004, p.39) model were also analysed. This was done
for the entire report, not just the introduction and discussion sections. The function of the
interactive resources is to guide the reader through the text by using transitions, frame
markers, endophoric markers, evidentials and code glosses. Interactional resources
involve the reader in the argument. This is done using hedges, boosters, attitude markers,
engagement markers and self-mentions. Figure 3 in the methodology chapter explains
these resources in detail. Students’ usage of interactive and interactional features was
identified and examples from student writing are presented below.

4.3.1) Interactive Resources

Interactive resources are common in all the laboratory reports investigated. Those
elements help the writer to maintain the coherence or the flow of his or her writing.
Interactive resources also help to guide the reader through the text.

Transitions

These conjunctions keep the flow of writing by linking the ideas.

1) Additionally the origins of the pulsing behaviour on the upper branch of the bistability
region…

2) There are however still some inconsistencies with lac z mutation…

3) Not only did the plasmid test supply information about the specific gene type, it also
supported…..

65
Frame Markers

These markers provide the sequential order of the events in the report.

1) Firstly, it made the glider very difficult to control…

2) Secondly, the wind was of such an orientation…
3) The final attempt was made…
4) Finally the coding can be interrupted….

Endophoric Markers

These markers refer to information in other parts, and help the reader find information
while alleviating the need for repetition.

1) Such a profile is shown in Fig. 2…

2) A diagram of operation is in Fig.1…..
3) Figure 2 shows a schematic of the system that is being investigated….

Evidentials

These elements refer to sources of information from other texts.

1) According to Arrhenius kinetics…

2) Considering Pierce (2012), it is reasonable to conclude…
3) Based on the study by Hauser et al ( 2011),…

Code glosses

Code glosses help the reader grasp the meaning since they provide additional information
or explain in simple words. For example:

1) This means that for exothermicity values in this region….

2) In other words, mutants with this ability show…

66
4.3.2) Interactional Resources

Some types of interactional resources are common in science writing while some are rare.
Scientists use hedges a lot because of the nature of the science as falsifiable but never
provable. Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong”, (Wynn, Wiggins & Harris, 1997), highlighting the
provisional nature of all scientific knowledge. Hence phrases such as “it is likely that” or
“it may be that” are far more common in science writing than in other disciplines.

At the same time, the ideal of science as objective is characterised by minimising the
presence and hence the voice of the scientist. It does not matter who did the experiment.
Hence, science writing has a tradition of using third person passive voice. While it is
becoming more acceptable to use first person in science research articles, the use of third
person passive is still common (Hyland, 2002).

Attitude markers are, for the same reason, considered inappropriate in scientific research
articles. It is rare to find any indication of a researcher’s feelings about the results of an
experiment in science writing. When a scientist does comment on their feelings about
their research it is generally much later, and not in a research article. Such comments are
few enough to be memorable, such as Schroedinger’s famous comment about quantum
mechanics “I don’t like it and I’m sorry I had anything to do with it.” (Gribbin, 2011).

In contrast, it is not uncommon in some humanities disciplines for the researcher’s

emotional response to the research to be considered part of the research itself.

Hedges

Hedges are very common in science writing, as mentioned earlier; this is due to the
provisional nature of science. The use of hedges can be seen either as an indication that a
student has little confidence in their experimental or analytical skills, or as an indication
that a student is being inducted into the culture of the discipline. Examples from student
writing include:

1) This may also have additional consequences on the absorption spectrum…

2) These observations seem to have a relationship to…
3) The reason for this significant increase may be due to …

67
Boosters
Boosters are very rare in science writing. Words like definitely, obviously are seldom
used, and proved is not used at all by experts. No boosters were found in the students’
reports.

Attitude Markers
These markers are also not common in science writing, as discussed above. Only one
example was noted in the sample investigated.

1) Unfortunately due to the Jahn-Teller effect a fundamental limit is placed on…

Engagement Markers
These markers engage the reader as a participant, inviting them to engage in a dialogue
with the content or the writer.

1) When you compare the results of systems under adiabatic conditions…

2) Considering the increase in the wavelength…

Self-mentions
Usage of “I, we” are not common in formal science writing but in student reports they are
used. “We” was used far more commonly than “I”, even when the report had a single
author.

1) We can assume a one-directional configuration….

2) Here we note that we have chosen the values of the parameters from …

3) Using a repair deficient strain of E. coli we aimed to induce mutations in the lac
operon.

4.4) Common Linguistic Features Noted -Other than Hyland’s Model

Student writers provide general information on the examined topic, highlighting their
research area by using lexical items such as “common, commonly, generally, basically,
in general”. When establishing the niche, student writers tend to talk about the limitations
or shortcomings of previous studies and highlight the importance of their study. Negative
68
sentences or elements of Negation are often used when highlighting the knowledge gap.
For instance,

1). Climate change is becoming the buzz-word of the decade, despite it being common
scientific knowledge for many more years. The effects of such climatic changes on flora
or fauna, including humans, are not generally understood in the public arena

2). Whilst its distribution is relatively well studied, very little is known or understood of
the factors, such as climate, that controls it.

3). The phosphorescence that results from the triplet-singlet transition is at the core of
study for this research and is of particular interest as it has not been extensively studied
or measured. Additionally, spectral hole burning within this region has not been
previously achieved.

When presenting the aims of the research, infinitives (to+verb) are generally used. This
form is commonly seen in laboratory manuals and high school texts, often in sentences
beginning “The aim of this experiment is to…”. Hence it is not surprising that students
use this form. For example,

1. This knowledge is applied to predict…

2. The aim of this project is to investigate….
3. This study is conducted to determine…
4. In order to test which candidate gene is responding ….

Students more often used non-agental passive voice. But, there are instances where
students used agency, for example “I” or “we”. The following are examples from the
students’ reports.

1) In this experiment, E.coli cells were irradiated under UV light to allow random
mutations to be incorporated into their genome (non-agental)

2) Mutants were then tested for their ability to produce β-galactosidase in an assay as
the mutants were confirmed to be true lac operon mutants. (non-agental)
3) Using a repair deficient strain of E. coli we aimed to induce mutations in the lac
operon. (Use of an agent, “we”)

69
4.5) Chapter Summary

According to the Move analysis of both discussion and introduction sections of the
reports, it can be stated that final year research placement reports are similar to research
articles of experts in their discipline. First year laboratory reports differ from them by
lacking some of the Moves. In particular, Move 2 which is identifying the niche is absent
in all the physics and biology laboratory reports, and the first-year physics project reports.
Further, there are differences in the usage of Moves between the physics and biology
reports.

Considering the linguistic analysis, it can be stated that laboratory report writing involves
both interactive and interactional resources described in the Hyland’s model. Interactional
resources are commonly used in science writing in ways similar to other disciplines. But
interactional resources show some differences. Hedges are very commonly used in
science writing due to the provisional nature of knowledge in the discipline. For the same
reason, boosters are not used and attitude markers too are very rare.

Apart from the resources included in this model, a few other conspicuous linguistic
features are noted in student writing. One is the usage of negation. Students more often
use negation when “indicating the gap” or highlighting the significance of their study.
Examples were given above. Further, they use infinitives (to+ verb) when writing the aim
of the experiment. Non-agental passive voice is used predominantly in laboratory report
writing except for a few instances.

Based on this analysis, this study suggests some simple models for laboratory report
writing for laboratory experiment and research placement reports. These are described in
the next chapter.

70
 Chapter 5: Discussion

Chapter overview

5.1) Introduction

5.2) Move Analysis of Introduction Section

5.3) Move Analysis of Discussion Section

5.4) Linguistic Analysis

5.5) Implications for the Pedagogy of Academic Literacy Practice

5.6) Contribution to Pedagogy of Science

5.7) Limitations

5.8) Future Research

5.9) Chapter Summary

5.1) Introduction

The main purpose of this study was to examine students’ writing in science, using
established models for analysing science writing, and provide pedagogical implications
for both literacy and science teachers. Students’ skills in effective written communication
play a vital role in higher education as it directly impacts on their performance (Matthew,
2007).

However, having investigated student writing in the university, Drury et al (2012) state
that

Students need to understand the similarities and differences in written

communication within and across disciplinary boundaries. Clearly a more
systematic co-ordinated and comprehensive approach was needed to provide more
effective development of students’ writing.

71
The previous studies using student writing have provided pedagogical implications and
insights into students’ written communication in university courses (Leki, 1991; Drury et
al, 2012). However, there has been limited research conducted on science undergraduate
writing. The need for such studies are highlighted by many recent reports, for instance,
American Association of Physics Teachers (2016), President’s Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (2012). Further, the study by Stanley & Lewandowski (2016),
indicates that scientific documentation skill especially writing laboratory notebooks and
reports is one of the skills which should be given priority in undergraduate courses.

Considering all the above, this study has aimed to find answers to three main research
questions based on undergraduate laboratory report writing.

Research Questions:
1. What Move structures (rhetoric) and linguistic features are commonly used in the
introduction and discussion sections of students’ science reports? To what extent
do students follow the rhetorical structures of expert writing?
2. Are there differences in the use of Move structure and linguistic resources in the
selected science sub-genres or laboratory programs? If so, what are the potential
reasons?
3. What pedagogical implications can be suggested for teaching scientific report
writing?

5.2) Move Analysis in the Introduction Section

The results of the analysis of students’ reports clearly demonstrated that students try to
mimic the writing conventions of the experts in their field even though they may not be
aware of the Move structures used by expert writers in their research articles. In general,
Move 1 (Establishing the territory) and 3 (Presenting the present work) are present in all
the laboratory reports investigated. However, step 5 (Announcing the principle
outcomes), step 6 (Stating the value of the present study) and step 7 (Outlining the
structure of the paper) of Move 3 are absent in student reports. According to Swales
(2004), these steps are optional in introductions of research articles, and hence may be
absent from the novice work because they would also be absent from expert work in that

72
discipline. Most of the time, these steps (Step 5, 6, 7 of Move 3) can be seen in the abstract
or in the discussion, not in the introduction section of the science articles. In addition,
step 7, that is outlining the structure or the roadmap of report in the introduction is
considered not necessary in disciplines like physics (Ranawake & Wilson, 2016).

One of the most significant findings is that Move 2, which is identifying the niche, is
completely absent in laboratory project reports and experimental reports. According to
the science academics consulted, this is not surprising since identifying a knowledge gap
is not an expected learning outcome for traditional undergraduate laboratory programs,
or even the more inquiry based programs. The biology laboratory report manuals gave
experiment specific learning outcomes relating to experimental techniques, but did not
list generic skills (Lab manual, ANU, 2016). The physics laboratory manuals listed
specific skills as outcome for each experiment, as well as containing a general statement
of laboratory learning outcomes for the entire program:

In both these programs, the experiments were clearly defined in terms of experimental
aims and often methods, which were not novel. They did not contribute to the existing
body of knowledge within the discipline. This does not mean that the students are not
making discoveries or being inventive, or that there is no genuine inquiry occurring, as
the processes used by students are enquiry based, even if the content is not novel (Kirkup
et al., 2016). The work done by the students is still novel to the students themselves.
Further, in the first-year physics laboratory course, only the experimental aim is given to
students and they are required to work out an experimental design based on the questions
posed. The report structure reflects the desired learning outcomes of the laboratory
program.

In contrast, all science research placement project reports had similar sequential Moves
that conformed to the CARS model. These projects engaged students in genuine, and
sometimes publishable, research and were supervised by academics within their research
groups. These projects required students to develop scientific skills in problem solving as
part of an authentic research experience. As an authentic research experience, the

73
identification of a gap was a necessary part of the research process. Whether this gap was
identified by the students themselves, or, more likely, by the academic supervisor, is not
possible to tell from the reports. However, this Move, (Move 2), was present in 87.5%
(all but one) of the science research placement project reports. Any individual report
typically only used one of the three methods described by Swales (1990) (indicating a
gap, by adding to what is known and by providing a positive justification). However,
amongst the reports examples of all three were observed.

The analysis of student writing in the research placement reports shows their ability to
demonstrate the gap or provide justification or demonstrate (if not identify) novelty in
their work. This shows their maturity as writers as well as science thinkers. This was not
demonstrated by the first-year physics students undertaking self-directed projects. It may
be that the research placement students, all in their third year of study, were able to
demonstrate this step because of the guidance from academics within the research group,
and the exposure to professional research. It may also be that the additional two years of
study and induction into the discipline contributed to the development of this skill. It
would be interesting to explore how the students developed this skill, and whether the
highly resource-intensive process of providing undergraduate research experience is
necessary for this.

It is worth noting that the sample of reports were from students from two prestigious
research-intensive universities. These students are taught by staff who are research active,
and engaged in researching and writing in their disciplines. Yet even these students’ skills
in communication in science cannot be taken for granted. By helping students to identify
different Move structures in their introduction and discussing the need for each Move,
academics could enable students to think about science and also enhance their
communication in science.

74
5.3) Move Analysis of the Discussion Section

The discussion section of an article links to the introduction section by answering the
questions posed in the introduction. Hence, some of the Moves in the introduction can be
present in the discussion section too. When considering the discussion sections of the
sample of reports analysed in this study, research placement projects and the physics
project reports conformed to the CARS model including all the steps and Moves in the
discussion section. However, some of the steps are less significant in science writing. For
example, Move 13-step 1, that is restating methodology, and Move 13-step 6, that is
exemplifying, are less common. These two steps are not obligatory or commonly found
in the discussion section of experts’ research articles also.

When considering the first-year laboratory reports in physics and the second and third
year biology reports, they lack the above two steps as well as identifying the gap. But the
first-year physics reports do present generalisation. Hence, step 2 in Move 12 is generally
present in all the reports. As described earlier, identifying a gap and claiming are not
expected based on the learning outcomes of the laboratory programs. Hence, lacking the
above Moves in these laboratory reports is justified. This illustrates that the need for
having a Move such as this would depend on the specific learning outcomes of the
laboratory program.

This study also showed that the Move structure can vary based on the subject or
discipline. For example, physics experimental reports are short and hence they lack some
of the steps that the biology reports have. Describing the established knowledge in the
literature (Move 13 step 3) is not commonly used in physics reports. But when they
explain the results in the results section, they sometimes support their results using
references. Moreover, the discussion sections of the physics reports are comparatively
shorter than their results sections. Generally, results sections of physics reports are
elaborative, with a lot graphs, diagrams, and tables. There are descriptions and
explanations of results in the results sections in most of the physics reports. They write a
shorter discussion or a conclusion linking back to the research questions or the aims
mentioned in the introduction and summing up the study.
75
Another finding about novice writing is that students need to have a good understanding
of the topic to write up the limitations. For example, when writing Move 14, that discusses
limitations, the majority of student writers include the limitations arising from methods
but they are less likely to discuss limitations arising from their findings and associated
claims.

Almost all the reports mention the limitations of the method; all biology, research
placement and physics projects reports, and all but one of the physics experimental
reports. However, the students do this in a superficial way, mostly limitations are
mentioned stating that results would have been more precise if they had more
sophisticated instruments or tools.

Limitations of claims made were discussed only in research placement projects. Hence a
sophisticated understanding of what is meant by “limitations” is either lacking in students
who are not undertaking research placements, or is not being demonstrated in their
writing.

Disciplinary differences were also noted in Move 15 of the discussion. Move 15, which
is suggesting future research, is more common in biology reports than physics reports.
Two thirds of biology reports suggest future research while only one third of physics
project reports suggest future research while physics experimental reports did not have
that step at all. This may be due to the variations in the disciplines or the particular biology
experiment that these reports were based on. It may also be due to the nature of the biology
project as a series of connected experiments, in contrast to the physics experiments which
were stand-alone experiments taking only a few hours. The self-contained nature of the
individual physics experiments does not naturally lead students to think in terms of
extending or continuing the work. Hence, there may be a pedagogical advantage to
connected series of experiments that is lacking from stand-alone, conceptually
independent laboratory experiments.

76
Summing up the results of the analysis of the discussion section, the discussion section
of the third-year research placement project reports conformed to the CARS model having
all the Moves and steps. As was found in the introduction section, the other laboratory
reports differ from the CARS model since they lack some of the steps. In the discussion
sections, the missing steps were in Move 13, 14 and 15. Variations and differences were
recognized in the first-year biology and physics reports.

To return to the research questions, one of the aims of this study was to investigate
whether there are differences in laboratory report writing in different science subjects.
According to the comparison of the biology and physics laboratory reports, there are small
disciplinary differences in both introduction and the discussion section. However far
greater differences were found between laboratory programs and research placement
reports. Hence, it is likely that the differences are due primarily to differences in intended
learning outcomes.

To address the third research question, what implications there might be for teachers of
literacy, these differences should be taken into consideration when preparing material for
student support. Literacy practitioners should pay attention to learning outcomes that are
related to the content to be understood and skills to be developed.

Apart from the disciplinary variations and differences in the expected learning outcomes
of different learning experiences, this analysis suggests that writing some Moves in the
discussion is challenging for students. The reason for this may be students’ limited
scientific thinking which goes hand in hand with the communication. Scaffolding
students’ thinking and writing, as part of their enculturation into their discipline, can be a
remedial measure for this.

77
5.4) Linguistic Analysis

The Hyland (2004) model was useful to examine different levels of interactive and
interactional language resources used in laboratory report writing. Figure 3 in Chapter 3
summarises the linguistic resources described in the Hyland’s model.

Results showed that interactive resources are common in student laboratory reports.
Interactional resources including transitions, frame markers, endophoric markers,
evidentials and code glosses can be found in almost all the reports. In the expert writing
these interactive resources are also generally common.

This study found some interactional resources were rare in the students’ writing and some
were common. For instance, hedges (such as might, perhaps, possible) are commonly
used but boosters like definitely, absolutely, and obviously could not be found in any of
the reports. Attitude markers (such as unfortunately, surprisingly) are also very rare in the
students’ writing and also in expert science writing. Attitude markers were noticed only
in two reports in the sample investigated, and these were in physics project reports.

Self-mentions like I and We are not common in science writing, but the students did use
“we” sometimes in their reports. The use of “we” was more common in the laboratory
reports than in the research placement reports. This is a further indication that the research
placement reports more closely mimic expert writing than the laboratory reports.

Hence, it can be stated that, to a large extent novice writers use the same metadiscourses
as experts in the field since they show similarities in the usage of interactive and
interactional resources described in the Hyland’s metadiscourse model for academic texts
(2004). However, there are differences in the extent to which the different types of reports
(laboratory program or research placement) mimicked expert science writing.

78
5.5) Implications for the Pedagogy of Academic Literacy Practices

This section focusses on addressing the third research question: what implications there
are for the teaching of writing in science. The roles of both EAP practitioners and science
academics are considered.

As expected this study has provided a number of implications for developing effective
pedagogies for both science and literacy teaching.

EAP programs often include teaching materials to help students to write effectively. They
tend to use a general format (not subject specific) when teaching scientific writing. A
problem with teaching generic skills is that students do not get a consistent message from
EAP teachers, laboratory demonstrators and academics about the writing conventions and
norms in the discipline. Since students get different advice from different sources, they
get confused, especially when students are in the first year. This may eventually
demotivate the students from getting assistance from EAP units to improve their writing
skills. Therefore, the study has seen that providing generic Moves to assist students in
writing programs can create confusion, as the Moves would depend on the purpose of the
task, particularly in sciences.

Universities spend a substantial amount of money on developing the academic literacy

skills of the undergraduates since it is regarded as an essential skill. As described earlier,
effective communication is a priority in almost all the university courses and it is
highlighted in the statements of graduate attributes. To provide the maximum benefit for
the students it is essential to work in collaboration. Studies like this highlight the necessity
for science academics and EAP practitioners to work in collaboration. There should be a
common agreement between the science academics and EAP teachers about the writing
conventions, the expected learning outcomes of the different year levels and the different
tasks for example experimental laboratory reports vs research project reports.

This study was conducted under the guidance of a science academic and a linguist. This
collaboration makes it easier for the researcher to understand the writing conventions,
language rhetoric and pedagogical expectations of laboratory report writing. The science
academic and linguist (also an EAP practitioner) who supervised this project both
reported gaining valuable insights into each other’s disciplinary practices and into the

79
way each approached the teaching of writing to undergraduate students. As a result, both
will be better able to support student learning, contributing to better student outcomes.
While this was not specifically an aim of this project, it does demonstrate the value of
collaboration between EAP practitioners and disciplinary academics, not only in the
development of pedagogy, but also in research.

This study provides useful insights to EAP pedagogy about the conventions and the
discipline specific language rhetoric of laboratory report writing. Based on the analysis,
this study develops a “easy guide for laboratory reports” to assist teaching and learning
of laboratory report writing. As described earlier, chapter 4 has demonstrated the different
Move structures of student reports in the four types of laboratory reports chosen. The
following flow charts, Figures 6 and 7, were developed to clearly establish the subtle
differences in each type of report and provide guidance to students on how to effectively
complete each type of task. These models could be used by both EAP teachers and science
academics to scaffold learning.

The model shown in Figure 6 is for laboratory reports, either for traditional or inquiry
based laboratories where students do not need to identify a literature gap and perform
original research to address it.

This model was developed by considering the expected learning outcomes for typical
undergraduate laboratory programs, and also the commonly used Move structures and
linguistic features of laboratory reports. As described in the results chapter, laboratory
reports lack some of the Moves and steps of the CARS model. The above model differs
from the CARS model since it only includes necessary steps for laboratory report writing.
The model is presented as a flowchart as science students tend to prefer flow charts or
diagrams over a lengthy description. It also enables the model to be displayed as a poster,
or presented on a webpage.

Even though this is a linguistic model, linguistic terms were deliberately omitted since
complicated language may demotivate the students to follow or read this type of model.
It is hoped that this model will be useful to scaffold student writing and also it would be
useful for the EAP practitioners and science academics when preparing embedded
80
curricula. As described earlier, embedding is an essential aspect of current EAP material
design.

The second flow chart (Figure 7) provides the key steps for a novice in the field of science
to write his/her first research report. This may be as part of a research placement, a self-
directed undergraduate research project or even a first paper from an Honours or Master’s
thesis. This model differs from the CARS model since this only includes the most
commonly used Moves in science writing.

In general, research placements are conducted under the supervision of an academic to

provide students with real research experience and often they are encouraged to write a
publication, as was the case for the students’ whose reports were used for this study. This
chart could provide them with some guidance about the nature and conventions of writing
a report or paper. This second model covers only the introduction and discussion sections
because the method and results sections may be very discipline specific and their structure
is likely to vary greatly with the methodology used and type of results obtained.

81
Abstract Introduction
Provide a summary of Step 1-
the reports
Provide background with
a few references
Step 2 -
Give motivation for the
readers (optional)
Step 3 -
Include formulae,
equations, laws, theories
neccessary for the reader to
understand
Step 4 -
State the purpose of the
experiment: give the
question to be answered or
the hypthesis being tested
Figure 6. Easy steps for laboratory report writing
Method Results Discussion Conclusion
Provide sequential Summarise data Step 1- Summarise main results and
order of the steps in
Describe the purpose of the give answers to research
the procedure - questions or state whether
study in a few sentences
written in passive hypothesis was supported.
Present data in
voice, past tense
graphs etc.
Step 2-
Justify the method Present analysis of Explain the results by
selected data highlighting the significant
findings/making comparisons
and providing reasons
Step 3 -
Implications- answer the
questions or state whether
the hypothesis was supported
Step 4 -
State limitations if there are any
in the method or findings
Step 5 -
Suggest future research
Extend experiments or
alternative/improved methods
and techniques
82
Figure 7- Easy steps for the Introduction and Discussion Sections of research projects

5.6) Contribution for the Pedagogy of Science

An analysis like this, coming from a discipline (linguistics) outside of science can show
scientists new ways of looking at the discipline of science and make them reconsider
some of the claims and assumptions about their disciplinary practices. Ranawake &
Wilson (2016, p. 80) talk about this issue and they state that “It demonstrates the value in
stepping back and looking at ourselves through others’ eyes. Increased interaction
between scientists and people studying the discipline from outside may yield useful fresh
perspectives, which contribute to our research and teaching practices”.

Our study suggests that traditional laboratory programs may not be providing all the
training necessary for students to undertake research. While this may not be the explicit
purpose of laboratory programs, particularly first year programs, laboratory programs are
intended to give students experiences of “doing” science. This is an important part of
learning to be a scientist and hence to do research (Ranawake and Wilson, 2016). It may
be better to introduce the skills needed to identify the gap in the literature as early as
possible in the undergraduate program since it is a central part of science, where research
preparation is one of the aims of the degree. However, this is difficult and may be
excessively resource intensive. Providing authentic research experiences to large
83
 numbers of undergraduate students requires a significant investment of academic time,
more than may be possible. Other strategies for developing such skills should be
investigated.

5.7) Limitations

This study was conducted as a part of the requirement of a Master of Philosophy that
includes both course work and a research component. Hence, the time frame in which the
research was conducted was limited.
The sample size of this study is relatively small for studies in science education, but is
typical of linguistic studies. Since this study is an in depth linguistic analysis, it is not
practical to increase the sample size due to the time constraints. Further, except for
biology reports all the other reports were available as hard copies. Hence, the coding had
to be done manually. It is a reasonable size according to the norms of the linguistics
discipline, caution must be exercised in generalising from these results to the population
of undergraduate science students as a whole.
The researcher tried to obtain a diverse sample including different subjects, different year
levels. But the sample does not include all the subjects in the discipline of science; for
example, no undergraduate chemistry reports were available. Further, all the reports came
from two research-intensive universities. It may be that the student experience at these
universities is significantly different to the experiences of students at other universities,
although there is no a priori reason to believe that this is the case.
.

5.8) Future Research

More studies of this nature can enhance the understanding of teachers and students of
genres. Empirical data also highlights the need for studies like this specifically based on
student writing for the development of pedagogy (Leki, 1991).

Extended research using the same kind of methodology with a broader spread of the
discipline including all the science subjects would be valuable to identify disciplinary
differences.

84
The CARS model is suitable for research based experiences, but not so much for normal
lab work. A modified CARS for lab work would be useful since scope, scale and
purpose differ from scientific papers.

The use of the flow charts proposed by this study also can be tested and a comprehensive
instruction package as in a toolkit or a support package manual and online resources could
be developed to assist science undergraduate students in writing within different genres
in sciences.
Another potential research area is to investigate the differences of science writing in
native and non-native speaker contexts to examine how students in those contexts write
science. Perspectives from such studies can expand our understanding of global practices.
EAP programs in international universities seem to suffer due to lack of resources on
genres and hence studies like this will be valuable.
This study has used a genre base approach. However, increasingly, hybrid approaches
which recognise the diversity of practices within genres and the dynamic nature of
communication practices are being used. A study of student writing using a hybrid genre
model could make valuable contributions to the understanding of science students’
writing.

5.9) Chapter Summary

According to the questions posed in the introduction section, this study investigated the
commonly used Move structures and linguistic features of undergraduate science
students’ laboratory reports. In this chapter, the findings of the Move analysis, and
linguistic analysis were discussed providing possible explanations for the patterns
observed. The Move structure of the research placement reports followed more closely
the CARS model for research articles than the other reports did. This can be explained by
considering the different learning outcomes of the research placements and laboratory
experiments. The research placements gave students an authentic research experience,
which included working towards filling a gap in the literature. This was not the case for

85
the laboratory programs, even when they were inquiry based, and the work being done
was novel to the students.
Based on the findings, this study has provided some insights and implications for the
pedagogy of academic literacy practice and science report writing. In particular, it
highlights the need for collaboration between science academics and literacy / EAP
teachers.
Two simple models for laboratory report writing were suggested. The model suggested
in Figure 6 is a common format that can be used for any laboratory program in science.
The model suggested in Figure 7, is suitable for research placement projects, and may
also be of use to fourth year science and masters level research students.
Finally, this chapter discussed the limitations of the present study and indicated gaps in
the literature where future research is needed in this field.

86
 Conclusion

Research on university student writing is a current need highlighted by several scientific

reports. Effective communication skills of students are regarded as one parameter that
leads them to find prospective employment after graduation. Hence, universities allocate
a substantial amount of resources to improving students’ communication skills, and list
communication skills as amongst the attributes of their graduates. Effective
communication skills also have a direct impact on student performance.

Based on the three literacy models in academic literacy practice (study skills, embedded
approach and academic literacies), many universities prefer the embedded approach
where students’ language skills are developed by exposing them to disciplinary content
based material. Ideally, this would allow students to receive consistent messages from
literacy experts and disciplinary teachers. This study also contributes to the improvement
of pedagogy of the embedded approach by analysing science students’ report writing and
providing insights to this discipline.
From the results of the Move analysis and linguistic analysis, it can be stated that research
placement project reports and physics projects conformed to the CARS model including
all the obligatory Moves and steps. Their writing is close to expert writing in the
discipline. Laboratory reports of both biology and physics experiments differ from the
CARS model since they lack some of the Moves in the introduction and discussion
section. Lack of these steps and Moves is in accordance with the expected learning
outcomes and disciplinary differences. Hence the academic literacy practitioners should
be aware of these disciplinary differences and differences depending on type of laboratory
experience (traditional, inquiry based or research placement) when designing academic
literacy courses.
Based on the findings, this study suggests two simple models for laboratory report
writing. As described earlier, Figure 6 is suitable for any laboratory program while Figure
7 is for research projects. Studies like this are useful for embedded curricula development.
These two models are a result of collaboration of science academics and academic literacy
experts.
The ultimate goal of both discipline specific academics and literacy experts is to enhance
students’ performance and provide competent graduates to the society. Hence, both
parties work towards achieving one goal. Collaborative work makes it easier to achieve
87
this goal, which is better performance of students. However, there are practicalities
associated with this issue. Some science academics have the view that as science students
do little writing, academic literacy is not an area of concern. This attitude makes them
demotivated to contribute their time towards developing academic literacy curricula.
Conversely, some literacy experts too have the view that teaching science is not their
duty. These attitudes make them demotivated to work in collaboration and find out about
the writing conventions and expected learning outcomes of different science tasks. Both
these attitudes affect student learning.

However, if both parties are flexible and prepared to discuss and share their knowledge,
the academics could let the literacy units know about their expectations, marking criteria
and disciplinary variations of writing, while literacy experts could use their linguistic
expertise to develop built in curricula. Such an approach would cater to students’ unique
needs, based on their discipline, learning activities, and the types of writing task.

In conclusion, it can be stated that this study has shown the strengths of the embedded
approach in literacy teaching and the importance of collaboration between science
academics and literacy specialists. Such collaboration can increase sophistication in
pedagogy providing a synergistic effect on student performance. Therefore, Australian
universities should enhance staff understanding of the embedded literacy approach and
provide students more opportunities to understand diverse practices.

88
 References

Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and
Human Resources, Shaping the future; New Expectations for Undergraduates
Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (NFS,
Washington,DC,1996)
American Association of Physics Teachers, AAPT Recommendations for the
undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum, 2014.
http://www.aapt.org/aboutaapt/organization/laboratories.cfm
Anueduau. (2016). ANU. Retrieved 20 February, 2017, from
https://academicskills.anu.edu.au
In-text citation: (Anueduau, 2016)

Basturkmen, H., & Lewis, M. (2002). Learner perspectives of success in an EAP

writing course. Assessing writing, 8(1), 31-46.
Berlin, J. A. (1987). Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges,
1900-1985. SIU Press.
Berman, R., & Cheng, L. (2010). English academic language skills: Perceived
difficulties by undergraduate and graduate students, and their academic
achievement. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de
linguistique appliquée, 4(1), 25-40.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing Genre: language use in professional settings.
Routledge.
Bird, S., Borger, P., Evergreen, M., Martin, G.,Pappas, X., Walker, K., Woolnough, J., &
Wright, J. (2015) Nelson biology units 1 & 2 for Australian curriculum. Cengage learning
Australia, Melbourne.
Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate
L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 5(1), 4-18.
Bruce, I. (2008). Academic writing and genre: A systematic analysis. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Bruce, I. (2009). Results sections in sociology and organic chemistry articles: A genre
analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 28(2), 105-124.
Bruce, I. (2010). Textual and discoursal resources used in the essay genre in sociology
and English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 153-166.
Burns, A. (2005). Action Research.In J.Cummins & C. Davidson (Eds), Kluwer
handbook on English language teaching. Amsterdam:Kluwer

89
Chahal, D. (2014). Research article introductions in cultural studies: A genre analysis
exploration of rhetorical structure. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and
Academic Purposes, 2(1), 1-20.
Chaisiri, T. (2010). Implementing a genre pedagogy to the teaching of writing in a
university context in Thailand (Doctoral dissertation, IDP Education).
Champion, N., Cody, G., Farr, R., Mundy, M. & Wilson, K. (2014). Nelson physics
units 1 & 2 for Australian curriculum. Cengage learning Australia, Melbourne
Chowdhury, R., & Kamal, M. (2014). Balancing Conformity and Empowerment.
In English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in Asia (pp. 79-92). Sense Publishers.
Connor, U. (1984). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language
students’ writing. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 17(3), 301-316.
Crandall, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1990). Content-Based Language Instruction in Second
and Foreign Languages.
Cummins, J. (1994). Primary language instruction and the education of language
minority students. Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical
framework, 2, 3-46.
DeBacker, T. K., & Nelson, R. M. (2000). Motivation to learn science: Differences
related to gender, class type, and ability. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4),
245-254.
Devereux, L., & Wilson, K. (2008). Scaffolding literacies across the Bachelor of
Education program: an argument for a course‐ wide approach. Asia‐ Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, 36(2), 121-134.
Drury, H., & Mort, P. (2012). Developing student writing in science and engineering:
the Write Reports in Science and Engineering (WRiSE) project. Journal of Learning
Development in Higher Education.
Drury, H., & Webb, C. (1991). Teaching academic writing at the tertiary
level. Prospect, 7(1), 7-27.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific
purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge university press.
Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of
science. Nature, 340(6228), 11-14.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. Tesol
Quarterly, 83-107.
Ellis, R. A., Taylor, C. E., & Drury, H. (2007). Learning science through writing:
associations with prior conceptions of writing and perceptions of a writing
program. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(3), 297-311.
Evans, S., & Green, C. (2007). Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong Kong tertiary
students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 3-17.

90
Fakhruddin, W. F. W. W., & Attan, A. (2013). Putting knowledge gained into practice
in civil engineering laboratory reports. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70,
1501-1512.
Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). Issues in EAP: A preliminary
perspective. Research perspectives on English for academic purposes, 8-24.
Fryer, D. L. (2012). Analysis of the generic discourse features of the English-language
medical research article: A systemic-functional approach. Functions of language, 19(1),
5-37.
Gee, J. P. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction. The Journal of
Education, 171(1), 5-176. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for
graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (Vol. 1). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking. Learning in the
Challenge Zone. Portsmouth, England: Heinemann.
Goodson, P. (2016). Becoming an academic writer: 50 exercises for paced, productive,
and powerful writing. Sage Publications
Gribbin, J. (2011). In search of Schrodinger's cat: Quantum physics and reality.
Bantam.
Halliday, M. A. (1994). Functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward
Arnold.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations
for the twenty‐ first century. Science education, 88(1), 28-54.
Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the
structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific
Purposes, 16(4), 321-337.
Hounsell, D. (1984). Essay planning and essay writing. Higher Education Research and
Development, 3(1), 13-31.
Huang, L. S. (2010). Seeing eye to eye? The academic writing needs of graduate and
undergraduate students from students’ and instructors’ perspectives. Language
Teaching Research, 14(4), 517-539.
Huckin, T. N. (1987). Surprise Value in Scientific Discourse
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing.
Journal of pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate
writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(2), 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic
Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
91
Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English
for academic purposes, 1(1), 1-12.
Johnson, A. (2009). The rise of English: The language of globalization in China and the
European Union. Macalester International, 22(1), 12.
Jones, J. (2004). 14 Learning to write in the disciplines: the application of systemic
functional linguistic theory to the teaching and research of student writing. Analysing
academic writing, 254.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for
teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research
articles. English for specific purposes, 24(3), 269-292.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2012). Research article structure of research article introductions
in three engineering subdisciplines. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 55(4), 294-309.
Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research
article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146.
Kirkup, L., & Bonfiglioli, C. (2011). Research-inspired learning revitalises the
curriculum for first-year science. International Journal of Innovation in Science and
Mathematics Education (formerly CAL-laborate International), 19(1).
Kirkup, L., Waite, K., Beames, S., Mears, A., Pizzica, J., & Watkins, S. (2016).
National Science Agency–University Collaboration Inspires an Inquiry-Oriented
Experiment. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education
(formerly CAL-laborate International), 23(5).
Krashen, S. D. (2004). The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research: Insights
from the Research. ABC-CLIO.
Krzanowski, M. (2009). Current developments in English for academic and specific
purposes in developing, emerging and least-developed countries. Garnet Education.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic
literacies approach. Studies in higher education, 23(2), 157-172.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The" academic literacies" model: Theory and
applications. Theory into practice, 45(4), 368-377.
Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing
pedagogies. Tesol Quarterly, 25(1), 123-143.
Leki, I., & Carson, J. G. (1994). Students' perceptions of EAP writing instruction and
writing needs across the disciplines. Tesol Quarterly, 28(1), 81-101.
Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: A
pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 282-
309.

92
Lim, J. M. H. (2010). Commenting on research results in applied linguistics and
education: A comparative genre-based investigation. Journal of English for academic
Purposes, 9(4), 280-294.
Lim, J. M. H. (2012). How do writers establish research niches? A genre-based
investigation into management researchers' rhetorical steps and linguistic
mechanisms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 229-245.
Lim, J. M. H. (2014). Formulating research questions in experimental doctoral
dissertations on Applied Linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 35, 66-88.
Mathews, J. (2007). Predicting international students’ academic success... may not
always be enough: Assessing Turkey’s foreign study scholarship program. Higher
Education, 53(5), 645-673.
McKinnon, M., & Perara, S. (2015). The big picture pre-service teachers' perceptions
of'expert' science teachers. Teaching Science, 61(4), 32.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for
specific purposes, 16(2), 119-138.
Oliver, R., Vanderford, S., & Grote, E. (2012). Evidence of English language
proficiency and academic achievement of non-English-speaking background
students. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(4), 541-555.
Pan, L., & Block, D. (2011). English as a “global language” in China: An investigation
into learners’ and teachers’ language beliefs. System, 39(3), 391-402
Pan, L., & Block, D. (2011). English as a “global language” in China: An investigation
into learners’ and teachers’ language beliefs. System, 39(3), 391-402Charles, M. (2013).
English for academic purposes. The handbook of English for specific purposes, 137-
153.
Perera, S. (2011). Exploring the implication of science communication practices on a
model for teacher professional development: Serving up the Pierian Waters.
Perera, S., & Stocklmayer, S. (2013). Science communication and science education. In
J. K. Gilbert, & S. Stocklmayer (Eds.), Communication and engagement with science
and technology–Issues and dilemmas (pp. 180-196). Routledge New York.
President’s Council of Adivisors on Science and Technology.Engage to Excel:
Producing one Million Additional College Graduates with degrees in STEM (PCAST,
Washington, DC, 2012)
Ranawake, G. S., & Wilson, K. (2016). Learning to do science: lessons from a discourse
analysis of students’ laboratory reports. International Journal of Innovation in Science
and Mathematics Education (formerly CAL-laborate International), 24(2).
Rice, J., Thomas, S., & O'toole, P. (2013). Tertiary Science Education. in the 21st century.
Australian Council of Deans of Science.

93
Safnil, S. (2013). A Genre-Based Analysis On The Introductions Of Research Articles
Written By Indonesian Academics. TEFLIN Journal-A publication on the teaching and
learning of English, 24(2), 180-200.
Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines.
English for Specific Purposes 21, 1-17.
Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learning for
academic achievement?. TESOL quarterly, 199-219.
Schimel, J. (2012). Writing science: how to write papers that get cited and proposals
that get funded. OUP USA.
Stanley, J. T., & Lewandowksi, H. J. (2016). Lab notebooks as scientific
communication: investigating development from undergraduate courses to graduate
research. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.00403.
Strauss, P., & Mooney, S. (2011). Painting the bigger picture: academic literacy in
postgraduate vocational education. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 63(4),
539-550.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Ernst Klett
Sprachen.
Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Language Studies Unit,
University of Aston in Birmingham.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential
tasks and skills (Vol. 1). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Uerz, D., Dekkers, H. P. J. M., & Béguin, A. A. (2004). Mathematics and language
skills and the choice of science subjects in secondary education. Educational Research
and Evaluation, 10(2), 163-182.
Unsweduau. (2017). Unsweduau. Retrieved 20 February, 2017, from
https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/outcomes
Woolnough, B. E. (1994). Why students choose physics, or reject it. Physics Education,
29(6), 368.
Wynn, Charles M.; Wiggins, Arthur W.; Harris, Sidney (1997). The Five Biggest Ideas
in Science. John Wiley and Sons. p. 107. ISBN 0-471-13812-6

94
 Appendices

PHYS1001 Foundations of Physics

2009
CONTENTS

Introductory Information
Welcome

Laboratory Logbook Records 4

Uncertainties in Measurements 6

Graphing of Experimental Data 10

The Experiments
HS Helical Spring (introductory exercise) 15

COL Collisions

RD Rotational Dynamics

PB Puzzle Boxes

CRO Cathode Ray Oscilloscope

MFF Magnetic Fields and Forces

OF Optical Fibres

IDL Interference and Diffraction of Light

TLS Thin Lenses and a Simple Optical System

Appendices
Writing a Formal Laboratory Report

95
 APPENDIX: WRITING A FORMAL LABORATORY REPORT

Apart from the regular recording of what you do in the lab, you will also be asked to write and
submit one or more formal laboratory reports. Your logbook records will form the basis of such
a report, and if you have kept good records you should find it is quite quick to write a report.

The laboratory report should consist of the following sections:

Abstract – A brief summary of what you did, what you found out, and its significance. This is a
short summary, typically around 50 to 100 words, of the entire experiment. It should be short
and to the point. Always write the abstract last!

Introduction and background theory – A brief summary of any relevant theory. This should
include anything that the reader of your report needs to know to be able to understand the
significance of your experiment. You will need to read multiple sources of information to write
this section, including the lab manual, your text book, other books and perhaps even articles in
journals or on the internet. You should reference any information you use here. A half page or
page will generally suffice.

Experimental Method – What you did! It should include a diagram showing any circuits you
wired up, what equipment was used and how it was connected. It may be divided into several
parts. It must be a record of what you did NOT a set of instructions for someone else, hence it
should be written in past tense. Reports should be written in past tense and passive voice, eg
“the circuit shown in figure 1 was connected up and the voltage cross R1 was measured”. This
helps to emphasise that the results are independent of who performed the experiment. Please use
this convention when writing you reports, although you may write a less formal style in you
logbook.

Results – what your results were, including uncertainties (errors). Results should be tabulated
where possible, and graphed if appropriate. Use sensible scales on graphs. Raw data as well as
derived quantities should ALL have uncertainties. This section should be as long as it needs to
be, but no longer.

Analysis and discussion of results – this can be within the results section as a combined
“Results and Analysis” section. It should include a discussion of what your results mean,
whether they agree with any background theory you discussed in the introduction, and
interesting or surprising results should be explained or at least commented on. You should
compare your results to previous measurements or accepted values. You may also wish to
comment on ways in which the experiment could be improved, however this is not necessary.

96
Conclusions – a very brief summary of what you measured and what it meant. For a typical first
year experiment this will very rarely need to be more than a few lines long.

References – a list of the sources of all the information you used to write your report. There is
information on correct referencing available on the course webCT site or from the academics
skills center.

“THE EXTRAORDINARY POWER OF TOOTHPICKS AND

LOGIC”*: ISOLATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF LAC
OPERON MUTANTS

LABORATORY MANUAL BIOL2161

GENES: REPLICATION AND EXPRESSION

PRACTICAL COURSE 2013

*Shuman HA and SilhavyTJ (2003). The art and design of genetic screens: Escherichia coli. Nature
Reviews in Genetics 4: 419-431

97
Experiment 3: Isolation and characterization of lac
operon mutants in E. coli

Report

This report will be worth 50 marks and will be based around a formal lab report. Follow the
guidelines below carefully as some components of a lab report are not required and others focus
on specific parts of the project. You do not need to write an abstract or a methods section at all.
Marks will be deducted for excessive length.

The results and discussion section should address two mutants with different phenotypes. If
the two mutants from your demonstrator group have the same phenotype, you will need to
obtain data for a different mutant. This will be available in the final lab session and on wattle.

Introduction (no more than 800 words)

The introduction should focus on describing the experimental strategy. It is not necessary to
fully describe the lac operon; however you need to explain why our screening strategy is likely
to result in mutations that affect the lac operon. Explain the purpose of the
MacConkey/maltose experiment and how this contributed to narrowing down possibilities for
the remaining mutants. Explain the approaches used to characterize the mutants. What new
information do you expect to have at the end of the project? Conclude with an aim for the
project.

Results (no word limit but text should be concise)

Your results section should be divided into two parts, as described below.

Part 1: mutant isolation

Describe how mutants were isolated for and discuss any problems with mutant screening.
Include the source of the mutants described in Table 1 (your own UV plates or supplied by
demonstrator). Include Table 1 from the report sheet along with a brief description of the

98
purpose of this experiment and your results, including consideration of the questions listed
below the table. State a conclusion about the number and nature of your mutants.

Part 2: mutant analysis

Include Tables 2and 3 and the graph from the report sheet, plus extra data supplied if your two
mutants have the same phenotype. Include the extra data in your graphs and tables. Each
result should be briefly introduced by describing the purpose of the experiment that was done.
Note any changes to procedure. Describe your results as indicated by the questions
accompanying the tables. Draw a conclusion about the similarity of your mutants with each
other and with controls for both experiments.

Discussion (no more than 800 words)

The main purpose of the discussion is for you to identify the genotypes of your mutants and
justify your identification. The following questions are a guide for your discussion – you do not
need to answer each in turn and not all may be relevant. Instead, develop a logical argument
to justify your conclusions, based on your data and your knowledge of the lac operon. Explain
how the evidence you have obtained has led to your conclusions. If you cannot be sure of the
genotype of either mutant, explain why and give the alternative possibilities. Suggest another
experiment that would support your conclusions or provide further information and explain
what additional information it would provide.

What have you achieved in this project? What can you conclude about the genotype of your
two mutants? What gene is mutated in each of your mutants? How does the mutation affect
function of the encoded gene product? What data supports your conclusion? Is the data from
all your experiments consistent? How do the controls for each part of the experiment help in
interpreting your data? Were there problems with any experiment or its interpretation? How
sure are you about the genotypes you have suggested? Are there other possibilities? What
extra information do you need to be sure?

References

99
You do not need to refer extensively to the literature but if you use information from textbooks
or the web, make sure it is referenced appropriately. Cite references in the text where relevant
and include a bibliography.

Marking guide for Experiment 3 report

The table below is to give you an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of your report. Grades
do not translate directly into marks since each covers a range: two students could have the same
boxes ticked but a different overall grade. Categories within each section are not equally
weighted.

N P Cr D HD
Introduction (15 marks)
Successfully outlines the experimental strategy
Demonstrates understanding of the lac operon and how it can
by analysed experimentally
Effectively presents the aim of the project

Results (15 marks)

Presents graphs and tables clearly and accurately
Uses appropriate text to introduce tables and graphs
Demonstrates how conclusions are drawn from data
Controls used to support conclusions

Discussion (15 marks)

Identifies possible genotypes for two mutants
Supports conclusions with reference to appropriate data

Provides logical argument leading to conclusions

Incorporates knowledge of lac operon into the argument
Addresses uncertainty of conclusions as appropriate
Suggests an appropriate further experiment and explains
relevance

Presentation and style (5 marks)

References adhere to consistent format

Report is written in scientific style: clear and within word

limits
Terminology relating to genes and proteins used correctly
Grammar and spelling are correct

100
101