Journal of English for Academic Purposes

5 (2006) 4–18
www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis

students writing the discussion section
John Bitchener a,*, Helen Basturkmen b
a
School of Languages, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1020, New Zealand
b
Department of Applied Language Studies & Linguistics, University of Auckland,
Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1020, New Zealand

Abstract
In postgraduate study, students including L2 students are often required to write a thesis and, as a
growing literature reveals, L2 students often experience difficulties in the writing of this genre. While most
of this research has involved surveys (questionnaires and interviews) and case studies of supervisor
perceptions, only a few studies have also considered student perceptions. Most of the perceptions have
considered student difficulties when writing the thesis as a whole, rather than particular section. The present
study, based on the use of in-depth interviews with four supervisor–student pairs, focused on student
difficulties in writing the discussion of results section (DRS) of the thesis and investigated the extent to
which the perceptions of the students matched those of their supervisors. The study found that: (1) students
had a more limited understanding of the function of the DRS compared to that of their supervisors; (2)
common understanding between the supervisors and the students about the nature and cause of the students’
difficulties was limited; and (3) students tended to use limited proficiency as a default mode of explanation
of their difficulties whereas three out of the four supervisors offered explanations not related to second
language proficiency.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: L2 writing difficulties; Thesis writing; Supervisor–student perceptions; Postgraduate writing; Thesis discussion
of results.

1. Background

Difficulties encountered by L2 student writers at a wide range of proficiency levels have been
the subject of on-going research for more than forty years (Braine, 1989; Braine, 1995; Hamp-
Lyons, 1991; Johns, 1990; Johns, 1993; Johns, 1995). While much attention has been given to

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C64 9 917 9999x7830; fax: C64 9 917 9978.
E-mail addresses: john.bitchener@aut.ac.nz (J. Bitchener), h.basturkmen@auckland.ac.nz (H. Basturkmen).

1475-1585/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2005.10.002
 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18 5

identifying difficulties at the sentence and paragraph levels in undergraduate and postgraduate
coursework papers, less research has investigated the extent to which these difficulties continue
to be problematic for postgraduate L2 students writing a thesis in English.1 More recently,
investigations have begun to examine whether, and the extent to which, such students also
experience difficulties in understanding and meeting the genre requirements of the thesis. In this
background section, we report on the nature of these difficulties.

1.1. Difficulties at sentence and paragraph levels

Supervisor perceptions of the difficulties encountered by postgraduate L2 students have been

reported in several publications over the last twenty years. Casanave and Hubbard (1992) survey
of 85 supervisors across 28 departments at Stanford University reported that L2 doctoral thesis
students usually have more problems than native speakers and that these are more evident at the
sentence level (grammatical accuracy and appropriateness, vocabulary appropriateness, spelling
and punctuation accuracy) than at the paragraph level. Similar findings have been reported by
Cooley and Lewkowicz (1995, 1997) in their study of 105 supervisors across nine faculties at the
University of Hong Kong. However, the supervisors in this study explained that while difficulties
with surface forms and structures (for example, the use of definite articles and subject–verb
agreements) can be irritating, they are less problematic than difficulties affecting the
development of coherent ideas and arguments. Difficulties with lexical choice, especially with
levels of appropriateness and formality, were also identified in this study for their potential to
obscure meaning. As well as these difficulties, Dong (1998) found in her study of two tertiary
institutions in the US that L2 postgraduate students experience difficulty with the sequencing and
development of propositions and with the use of transitions between propositions and topics.
The particular effect of these difficulties on overall communicative success was observed by
James (1984) in his case study of a Brazilian PhD student at the University of Manchester. James
categorised the effects according to whether they resulted in a breakdown of meaning, a blurring
of meaning or a distraction of meaning. He tended to categorise difficulties at the sentence level
as distractions for the reader whereas inefficient ordering of propositions, inappropriate
weighting of propositions and functional incoherence were seen as more likely to blur intended
meaning. However, he noted that some difficulties at the sentence level could also lead to a
breakdown of meaning: overlong, complex sentences; faulty referencing; lexical difficulties
associated with specialized vocabulary; and signposting weaknesses.
L2 student perceptions of the difficulties they experience when writing a thesis in English
have also been reported in surveys by Cooley and Lewkowicz (1995, 1997) and Dong (1998). In
Cooley and Lewkowicz’s survey, 26% of the L2 students thought that they had serious
difficulties using English. In particular, they referred to problems in organising ideas and
arguments, using the appropriate style of writing, and expressing their thoughts clearly in
English. In Dong’s study, all of the L2 students said that they thought vocabulary choice was
particularly important for expressing ideas and arguments. Approximately a third of the students
believed that they had difficulties with vocabulary choice (compared with 10% for native
speaker students). Interestingly, only 49% of ESL students believed that they had difficulty with
grammar and mechanics. By comparison, 72% of native speakers thought that they had difficulty

1
In this paper, we do not make a distinction between a thesis and a dissertation. We use the term ‘thesis’ to include
‘dissertation’ and to refer to research at masters’ level in New Zealand.
6 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18

with these features. Difficulties with sequencing propositions, making transitions and achieving
overall unity were also mentioned but no statistics were supplied.

1.2. Difficulties in understanding the requirements of the thesis genre

In addition to these difficulties at the sentence and paragraph levels, other problems relating
specifically to the thesis genre have been identified by supervisors and, to a lesser extent, by
students. Difficulties in structuring an argument over an extended stretch of discourse with
consistency and balance have been noted in a number of studies (Cooley & Lewkowicz, 1995,
1997; Dong, 1998; Jenkins et al., 1993; Parry, 1998; Thompson, 1999). In particular, they report
that students have difficulty understanding what content is appropriate for individual chapters
and sections of a chapter as well as uncertainties about how it should be organized. Jenkins,
Jordan and Weiland (1993) explain that, to some extent, these difficulties can result from a lack
of clear and logical thinking but, as Paltridge (2002); Swales (2004) explain, they are just as
likely to be the result of a limited knowledge of the characteristics of the genre and of their
supervisors’ expectations.
Another major difficulty reported by supervisors concerns the positioning of arguments in
relation to those of the wider literature. For example, they note that students often either
overstate or understate the significance of their findings in relation to the published literature. As
some supervisors have noted, part of this problem is caused by a failure to use the appropriate
modal verbs when making claims about the findings of their research (Cooley & Lewkowicz,
1995, 1997; Parry, 1998; Thompson, 1999). Other supervisors have commented that positioning
problems can result when students have a different conceptualization of the new academic
community to that of their supervisors or an uncertainty about who their audience is and what its
expectations are (Belcher, 1994; Casanave, 1992, 1995, 2002; Fox, 1994; Gale, 1994; Hirvela
and Belcher, 2001; Shen, 1989). Belcher (1994) case study of three L2 students from different
disciplines (Chinese Literature, Applied Mathematics and Human Nutrition) reports on the
mismatch between supervisor and student understanding of writing goals and reader
expectations. The supervisors in that study explain how mismatches are more characteristic
of the less successful students. To help students understand the expectations of the academic
community, Lillis (2001); Prior (1994) stress the importance of on-going dialogue between
supervisor and student. Some studies (Cadman, 1997; Dong, 1998; Frost, 1999; Knight, 1999;
O’Connell & Jin, 2001; Smith, 1999) have examined Chinese students in particular and found
that postgraduate students have difficulty with the development of arguments and counter-
arguments, with the use of evidence to support arguments, and with the critical evaluation of
theories, models and methodologies. As they explain, these difficulties are understandable given
that they have been taught to respect and not question the ideas and opinions of their academic
superiors.
There are a number of reasons why students may not develop an explicit knowledge of the
functions, content and organisation of the thesis. Firstly, research has shown (Lillis, 2001; Parry,
1998; Prior, 1994) that supervisors themselves tend to have tacit rather than explicit knowledge
of the features of the thesis in their own disciplines. Therefore, this may be one reason the
requirements of the thesis are not articulated to the students. Secondly, students may complete a
research methods course before starting their thesis and may also have opportunities to apply
their knowledge and skills in short research projects but this does not guarantee that they will be
able to apply it to thesis writing (Allison, Cooley, Lewkowicz & Nunan, 1998; Silva, Reichelt &
Lax-Farr, 1994). Thirdly, students will certainly have read research articles related to their field
 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18 7

of study before they start writing the thesis but they may not have consciously noticed the
characteristic features of different sections of an article or variations that can occur within and
across disciplines and journal types. Additionally, few students are likely to have read any of the
studies that have identified the characteristics of different sections of research articles such as
those by Dudley-Evans (1986); Samaraj (2002) and Swales (1981, 1990) on introductions, or
those by Brett (1994); Williams (1999) on results sections.2 Finally, students may look at
published advice in guides and handbooks on thesis writing. However, this advice is often
limited in the detail it offers about specific sections of a thesis (Basturkmen & Bitchener, in
press; Paltridge, 2002).

1.3. Gap in the literature

From this overview of the literature, it can be seen that postgraduate L2 students experience a
range of difficulties not only at the sentence and paragraph levels but also in understanding and
meeting the requirements of the thesis genre. Because a thesis comprises a number of different
sections, it is possible that students may find some more difficult to write than others. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that the cognitive demands of the discussion of results section (DRS) are
likely to make this section of the thesis problematic for L2 students, particularly if they have
been trained in an epistemology that has not encouraged the critical perspectives. Therefore, it is
important that research investigates the level of understanding that supervisors and students have
of the function of the DRS. Secondly, the literature has reported on a range of supervisor and
student perceptions of the types of difficulties that L2 students encounter when writing their
thesis. However, this consideration has not focused on the particular difficulties that they
experience when writing the DRS. Thirdly, the literature has reported on difficulties perceived
by supervisors and students as separate groups but it has not considered the extent to which there
is a shared understanding of the difficulties in supervisor-student pairs. In order to meet these
needs, three research questions were investigated in the this study:

1. What do supervisors and students perceive as the functions of the DRS?

2. What do supervisors and students perceive as the difficulties of L2 students in writing the
DRS?
3. How does a student’s perceptions of his or her own writing problems compare to those of his
or her supervisor?

2. Method

The method used to answer the research questions involved in-depth interviews. Four pairs of
in-depth interviews were conducted. Each pair comprised an interview with a thesis supervisor
and an interview with one of the L2 masters students that the supervisor was supervising.
Oppenheim (1992) describes the “depth” interviews as organized around a handful of headings
(p. 67) and functioning to explore how people think and feel about a topic. In-depth interviews
were used in the present study to investigate how the participants conceptualised the functions of
the DRS and student writing difficulties in it.

2
Despite these studies, limited research has investigated the extent to which the characteristics of sections within
research articles are similar to corresponding sections of a thesis (Dudley-Evans, 1999; Starfield, 2003).
8 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18

The study was conducted in two universities in Auckland, New Zealand. Two supervisors
from each (two from Applied Linguistics in one university, and one from Business and one from
Art and Design in the other university) and four of their masters’ level students participated in
the study. We did not confine our study to one discipline as we wished to see whether ideas about
the functions of the DRS and student writing difficulties in it might be shared by two or more
disciplines. Two supervisors were male and two were female. The students were all female. In
this report, all the supervisors are referred to as she and pseudonyms are used for both
supervisors and students in order to protect their anonymity. We invited academic staff to
participate in the research. Those who accepted the invitation nominated an L2 student whom
they were supervising at that time. The researchers then invited the nominated students to
participate. Four students participated in the research. Two were from Mainland China, one was
from Korea and one from Eastern Europe. Three of the students were international students and
one was a New Zealand permanent resident.
Each supervisor and student was interviewed once. The interviews lasted 30 to 45 minutes
and were held towards the end of the supervisory process when the students were writing up their
theses. The students had already submitted drafts of their DRS and received feedback from their
supervisors. Interviews were conducted with the supervisors and students individually. The
interviewees brought copies of recent versions of the student’s DRS to the interviews to refer to.
In the departments in which the students were writing their theses, it was expected that the thesis
would include a discussion of results section either as a separate chapter or as a section within
the results chapter. One Applied Linguistics student had conducted a largely quantitative study
and one a mixed methods study. The Business Studies student had conducted a quantitative
study and the Art and Design student a qualitative study.
The interviews with the supervisors were based on a two-part interview schedule (see
Appendix A). In the first part, the supervisors were asked to describe their general experiences of
supervising ESL theses and the DRS. They were asked about the number of L2 students they had
supervised, their perceptions of what a DRS should involve and the strengths and difficulties
they noticed in students’ writing of this section. There was also a list of closed items of specific
types of possible difficulties based on the study by Bitchener and Turner (2002). In the second
part, the supervisors were asked about their perceptions of the DRS of the student participating
in the study. Interviews with the students were based on a modified version of the same interview
schedule (see Appendix B) so that their perceptions could be compared to those of their
supervisors. In line with the recommendations for interviewing made by Richards (2003), we
avoided sticking rigidly to the interview schedule and we tried to provide the interviewees with
sufficient “thinking space” to encourage them to make extensive responses.
The interviews were audio-recorded. The recordings were transcribed using a broad level of
transcription. The actual words and pauses were transcribed but not the phonological details.
There were two stages in processing the data. The first stage involved a broad reading of each
transcribed interview. The aim was to identify the main problem(s) specified by each supervisor
and student. An “image” was devised to label the supervisor’s idea of this problem. The term
“image” and the inductive analytical procedure used were derived from Golombok (1998).
Golombok defines an image as the personal, organising concept a teacher uses to construct and
make sense of his or her experiences (pp. 452–453). Both researchers worked independently and
then met to compare notes on the problems and agree on the labelling of the images.
The second stage of data processing was a micro level analysis of how participants described
aspects of writing the DRS. A grid was devised to include the specific aspects addressed in the
interview, namely: the function of the DRS, how it is organized and what content is included,
 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18 9

the writing process, language difficulties, what stance writers should adopt in the DRS and what
is most important (priorities). The responses of each pair were recorded on separate copies of the
grid. We noted comments and recorded quotes made by the supervisor alongside those made by
her student. The two researchers worked independently on the data and later compared notes.
As an additional check, “member validation” (Guba and Lincoln, 1985; Richards, 2003) was
used. The information recorded on the grids was summarised and emailed to the participants. All
four supervisors replied to the emails saying that they found the summaries to be accurate.
Unfortunately, none of the students replied. At the time, the students were finishing or had
finished their theses so had possibly lost interest in the research project or gone on holiday.

3. Results

3.1. Perceptions of the functions of the DRS

The comments made by the participants about the functions and content of the DRS were
examined. Table 1 shows the perspectives of the supervisors and Table 2 shows those of their
students.
Table 1 shows the supervisors had similar perspectives. All felt that the DRS should make
links between the results of the present study and the literature, summarize and discuss the
results. Two further functions/content areas were identified by three of the supervisors.
Comments made about student difficulties revealed the supervisors’ perceptions, for example:
“Students don’t know the purpose of this section and find it difficult to link the content of the
study back to the literature. Instead they tend to think THEY have to come up with explanations
of their results” (Anne) and “She doesn’t use the literature to explain concepts but tries to do it
herself...when she does use the literature.she does not really engage with it” (Celia).
Table 2 shows that shared understanding among the students was limited. At most, two of the
students expressed the same idea. Kim and Tina both considered the function of the DRS in
terms of presenting the results. Tanya and Susie considered it in terms of summarizing the
results.
With the exception of Susie, the students had less to say about the functions and content of the
DRS than the supervisors. They saw it as having one or two functions/content areas. Susie
thought the DRS should not only summarize results and make links to the literature but also be a
forum for the student to air her own opinions and discuss implications. The supervisors
mentioned the role of the DRS in offering interpretations of results and reconsiderations but the
students did not mention these ideas.

Table 1
Perceptions of supervisors concerning the functions and content of the DRS

Anne Celia Cathryn Jane

To summarize and discuss the results C C C C
To make links between the results and the C C C C
literature
To interpret the results C C C K
To reconsider key concepts K C C C
10 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18

Table 2
Perceptions of students concerning the functions and content of the DRS

Tanya Susie Kim Tina

To sum up results C C K K
To present the results K K C C
To make links between the results and the C C K K
literature
To discuss the implications of the results K C K K
To express own opinions about the results K C K K

3.2. Perceptions of student difficulties in writing the DRS

The comments made by the participants about the process of writing the DRS and difficulties
experienced were examined. The perspectives of the supervisors are shown in Table 3 and those
of their students are shown in Table 4.
The supervisors had similar perspectives. They all felt that, in general, students lacked a full
enough understanding of the DRS as a genre. One problem mentioned in this respect concerned
the function of the DRS to make links between the present research and the literature. Celia
described the problem in the following way: “I think there is a tendency (for students) to give
weight again to their own interpretations and not to use other academic texts to make their, to
support their claims. they seem to rely on themselves and their own interpretations rather than
more academic type of argument.”
The supervisors all said the level of English proficiency of L2 students in general could
sometimes be a hindrance. Between them, they mentioned a range of specific points including an
inability to hedge, limited ability to make generalizations, and syntactic and lexical weaknesses.
Three felt that, at times, the written expression of ideas was weak. Specific problems mentioned
included: a lack of clear articulation of how ideas are linked; a lack of general ideas
(generalizations), ideas being convoluted (bunched together), and ideas not being developed
fully enough.
The students identified four to seven problems each. All reported (in line with the perception
of their supervisors) not knowing well enough what was required in the DRS. One student said
she really should ask her supervisor what content to include in the DRS. Another said she
realized from supervisor feedback that she had mistakenly mixed the results and discussion of
results sections. Like the supervisors, the students all raised the topic of their proficiency in

Table 3
Perceptions of supervisors concerning student difficulties in writing the DRS

Anne Celia Cathryn Jane

Lack of linking between sections/ideas C C K K
Lack of generalisations/topic sentences C K K K
Lack of introductions or lead ins C C K K
Language proficiency problems (grammar/vocabulary) C C C C
Convoluted writing with ideas insufficiently explained C K C K
Inconsistent use of terms C C K K
Emergent, unpolished writing K C K K
Lack of knowledge about DRS as a genre C C C C
 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18 11

Table 4
Perceptions of students concerning their difficulties in writing the DRS

Tanya Susie Kim Tina

Expression of links between ideas and C C C K
using connectives
Clarity of expression of ideas C K C C
Overall organisation of sections K K K C
Writing paragraphs K C C K
Delimiting content K C K K
Giving the reasoning for ideas K K C K
Simple writing K C C K
Language proficiency problems C C C C
(grammar/vocabulary)
Knowing what should go in the DRS C C C C

English. For the students, this was perceived as the major stumbling block to their writing well.
Each mentioned specific linguistic difficulties (for example, tenses, limited range of vocabulary,
language to express statistical information or make comparisons). Tina said she tried to cope
with language difficulties by transferring expressions and chunks of language found in books to
her own writing.
Like the supervisors, three students mentioned difficulties in expressing the relationship
between ideas. However, unlike the supervisors, they saw this in terms of accurate choice of
linking words (however, nevertheless, in spite of, etc.).
Susie and Kim were concerned about their writing style. They had been required to write
clearly and felt their writing had become simple and boring. They both felt that they had
problems in making paragraphs. Susie found it difficult to select content. She felt she had “too
much to say” and was reluctant to discard any of her work.

3.3. Similarities and differences in the perspectives of supervisor–student pairs

The supervisors were asked about their student’s particular strengths in writing the DRS. All
mentioned a number of strengths they had observed. The main focus of the present study was on
difficulties, however. This section reports each supervisor’s perspectives of the main difficulty of
her student and the image the supervisor used to convey this. The images are then compared to
comments made by the student revealing what the student perceived as her main difficulties.

3.3.1. Pair A: Image of the supervisor—The big picture

Anne felt that Tanya had “tunnelled vision” to some extent. She tended to just write about her
study rather than make connections to the “bigger picture” of existing literature. Tanya could
usefully consider “how it (the result) relates to what other people have found and think about the
implications.” Anne felt that Tanya sometimes also “struggled to present the bigger picture” by
launching into a myriad of details about her findings rather than developing a limited number of
main ideas.
Tanya felt a major problem for her was that she could not express ideas clearly because she
had difficulties in linking ideas and could not use linking words. Anne also mentioned that
Tanya, at times, found it difficult to express ideas clearly. According to Anne, her student
expressed ideas weakly because she did not make enough generalisations and over-focused on
details.
12 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18

3.3.2. Pair B: Image of the supervisor—Too much weight to her own ideas
Celia felt that Susie tended to base her writing too much on her own ideas and that she did not
discuss sufficiently the links between her results and the literature. She felt that Susie gave too
much importance to her own interpretations and at times “projected her own beliefs onto the
data.”
Susie felt a function of the DRS was to express her own opinions about the results. In the
interview, she mentioned, in passing, the need to make links to the literature but referred more
strongly to the need to write about her own opinions. For example, she talked about how she
aimed to produce “an integration of my idea with the result.” Susie felt her main problem was her
proficiency in English and that she made too many errors in grammar and word choice. Celia
recognised that Susie had some problems with her language proficiency but according to Celia
this was not a critical matter. Celia said she could “ignore grammar.”

3.3.3. Pair C: Image of the supervisor—Losing meaning

Catherine felt the main problem was that Kim’s writing sometimes lacked clear meaning and
could be convoluted (ideas “globbed” together). There was a need, she felt, for Kim to separate
out ideas, explain the reasoning behind them and show how they were linked. Catherine said
that, at times, she had to infer meaning (“I think that is what it means”). She felt it was possible
that this problem occurred because Kim thought in her native language and translated into
English.
Kim felt her main problem was her proficiency in English. Catherine, her supervisor, had seen
language as contributing to the lack of clarity in the writing but not as the major cause. Kim
worried that her writing was simple and boring. There was no mention of this from Catherine
who had simply wanted clearer expression of meaning.

3.3.4. Pair D:—Image of the supervisor—The gap

Jane felt Tina’s main problem was in expressing meaning clearly and that this was linked to
her proficiency in English. Tina did not have a good enough grasp of “the tool of language” and
so there was a gap between the complex concepts that she needed to express and her language
resources for doing so. A further problem that Jane mentioned was the tendency for Tina to use
the literature superficially - she “just pays lip service to it.”
Tina also referred to her difficulties with English but did not make comments of a specific
nature. Jane had felt that Tina lacked the English to express abstract concepts. During the
interview, Tina commented that she would find it difficult to express abstract concepts in her
native language. Tina also referred to the literature, saying she did not understand it well and felt
that she should read more. In this case, both parties identified similar problems but perceived the
sources of the problems differently.

4. Discussion

Considering the first research question, we were not surprised to find that the supervisors had
a similar understanding of the functions of the DRS given their level of experience in conducting
and writing up their own research projects and in supervising other thesis students. That three of
them mentioned three rather than four functions was not an issue as sectional emphases and
requirements can vary within and across disciplines (Berkenkotter and Huckin, 1995; Swales,
2004). On the other hand, there was relatively little similarity in perspectives between the
students. We had expected that all students would have mentioned the need to sum up the results
 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18 13

of their study. However, this was not the case. This limited understanding of the role of the DRS
was something of a surprise given the amount of time they had spent on writing earlier drafts of
the DRS and the amount of detailed oral and written feedback they had received from their
supervisors.
Several reasons could account for this limited understanding. They may have received more
micro feedback on specific ideas and stylistic requirements than macro feedback on the overall
structure and content parameters of the DRS (Belcher, 1994; Hirvela and Belcher, 2001; Lillis,
2001; Parry, 1998). All four students had completed a research methods course before starting
their thesis but this does not necessarily mean that the functions of individual sections of the thesis
had been covered. As we mentioned in the background section of this article, the advice provided
in guides and handbooks can be limited. It is also possible that as emerging researchers, they may
simply have not been ready to take on board all the requirements of the DRS. Arguably, the writing
of the DRS makes greater cognitive demands on students than other sections of the thesis so it may
be that students need closer supervision when writing the DRS than is necessary for other sections.
Finally, it is possible that students may have difficulty writing this section if they have not revised
their literature review - a section that is usually written several months earlier.
The second research question investigated supervisor and student perceptions of the
difficulties that were encountered when writing the DRS. Not surprisingly, there was a good deal
of similarity in the perspectives of the supervisors. As earlier research has revealed (Casanave
and Hubbard, 1992; Cooley & Lewkowicz, 1995, 1997; Dong, 1998; Hinkel, 2003; James,
1984), all supervisors, as a group, acknowledged their students’ difficulties with linguistic
proficiency (grammar and vocabulary). Additionally, most supervisors made repeated reference
to difficulties in expressing and developing ideas. The difficulty of developing clear ideas when
making arguments has been reported in other studies such as those by Cooley & Lewkowicz
(1995, 1997) and James (1984). Many of the difficulties referred to by the supervisors were also
identified by the students. First, students referred to their uncertainty about what content should
be included in the DRS and about how it should be organized. This was quite surprising given
the amount of time and feedback that the students had received from their supervisors.
Consequently, we would recommend that future research investigate why such a situation can
arise so late in the supervision process. Like the supervisors, the students also referred to their
language difficulties. However, the students tended to see their problem more at the sentence
level whereas the supervisors saw it more in terms of creating clear meaning at the paragraph
level and in terms of understanding the rhetorical and organisational requirements of the genre.
It became evident in the interviews that the supervisors had a higher level of awareness of the
fundamental causes of their students’ difficulties than their students had. This suggests,
therefore, that supervisors have a role to play in helping their students identify the underlying
cause(s) of particular difficulties.
The third research question found a limited degree of similarity between supervisor and
student perceptions of what was most problematic for the students. In the absence of other
studies of paired perceptions, further research is needed to investigate the extent to which this is
a widespread problem and why such mismatches can exist. On the one hand, they may be the
result of communication issues between supervisors and students but, on the other hand, they
may occur because students are not able to cognitively internalize and remember the advice they
are given in supervisor feedback. A possible explanation for the limited degree of similarity may
be seen in relation to Activity Theory (Lantolf, 2000). Activity theorists explain that individual
learners construct activities in unique ways and can do so according to their individual goals and
motives.
14 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18

5. Conclusions

The results of this preliminary study corroborate many of the earlier research findings of
supervisors and students about difficulties that L2 students encounter at the sentence and
paragraph levels as well as providing some new understandings of the perceptions of supervisors
and students concerning the difficulties experienced when writing a DRS. One of the new
understandings to emerge from this study was the level of difficulty that students experienced in
meeting the requirements of the genre. Both supervisors and students reported that L2 students
were unsure about the various functions and content parameters of the DRS. Most significantly, it
was found that the supervisors had a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding of these
difficulties than the students had. Another important finding in the study was the limited common
understanding between supervisors and their respective students about the main difficulty the
students were experiencing when writing the DRS and about the underlying cause(s) of the
difficulty. The students tended to use limited language proficiency as a default mode of
explanation of their difficulties whereas three of the four supervisors offered explanations that
were not related to second language proficiency.
In light of these findings, several suggestions might be offered to supervisors. If they can
identify the main difficulty that their students are experiencing and reflect on the underlying
cause of the problem, it may be possible to treat the problem and resolve it within the supervision
period. However, some difficulties may be less easily overcome within this timeframe. For
example, those which rely more upon linguistic proficiency may be more difficult to resolve than
those related to the specific genre requirements (function and content). The difficulty with
expressing and linking ideas, as the supervisors mentioned, may be as much a cognitive issue as
a linguistic one.
The findings of this study have brought to light a number of issues that future research could
usefully investigate. The first issue that could be examined is the extent to which the findings of
this study can be generalised to a wider L2 student population and the extent to which these
findings can also be applied to native speaker students. A second issue concerns the extent to
which these findings may vary within and across disciplines. A third issue concerns the design of
the study. As we analysed our data, we became aware of the need for future research to
operationalize the construct ’writing difficulties’ from both skills and concept perspectives.
Specific difficulties at the sentence and paragraph levels need to be categorized separately from
those related to the understanding of ideas, concepts, and specific genre functions. From the
interview data, we also became aware of the need for future research to go beyond the mere
identification of writing difficulties as they appear in the written text and identify the specific
causes of these difficulties. We believe that if future research takes up these recommendations, it
will find additional evidence to support the observations and suggestions of this preliminary
study.
We wish to acknowledge the level of thought and time the supervisors and students gave to
this study. Without their willingness to talk freely and openly about their experiences, the
insights of this study would not have been revealed.

Acknowledgements

We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers of earlier drafts of this article for their
insightful suggestions on how it could be improved.
 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18 15

Appendix A. Interview prompts for supervisors

My name is X and I work in the School of Applied Language Studies/Department of Applied

Language Studies. Part of the work of the School/Department is to help students who do not have
English as their first language with writing for study purposes in the University.
In this interview I would like to ask some questions about your L2 masters students’ writing of
dissertations and theses. By L2 I mean your non native speaker students - those for whom
English is an additional language. I would like to ask you questions about your experiences of
supervising such students.
I am particularly interested in any difficulties you perceive in the Discussion of Results
section of L2 masters students writing a thesis.
First of all, can you tell me about how many L2 masters students you have supervised in the
last two years (2001–2003)?
How many do you currently supervise?
Next I would like to ask you some general questions:
Can you tell me about any difficulties you have noticed in these students’ (the students’ you
currently supervise) draft versions of their Discussion of Results section (DRS).
Do you see such difficulties in most or some of your L2 masters students Discussion of
Results?
Now I am going to ask you about some specific types of possible difficulties:
Have you noticed difficulties in:

understanding the functions of the Discussion of Results?

selecting content?
organisation of content?
showing appropriate stance (how writers position themselves)?
grammar? (Can you give an example or two?)
word choice?

We have discussed a number of problem areas. Which do you see as the most significant areas
(and why)?
In you opinion, why do these problems occur?
And finally, I would like to ask you about one student you currently supervise. I understand
you have at hand a copy of this student’s draft DRS.
How would you describe this student’s writing?
What if any do you see as this student’s main problems?
Could you show me samples of these problems in the student’s writing?
Thank you for your help. Do you have questions you would like to ask me about this study?

Appendix B. Interview prompts for students

My name is X and I work in the School of Applied Language Studies/Department of Applied

Language Studies. Part of the work of the School/Department is to help students who do not have
English as their first language with writing for study purposes in the University.
In this interview I would like to ask some questions about writing your masters dissertation or
thesis.
16 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18

I am particularly interested in any difficulties you have experienced in writing the Discussion
of Results section.
First of all, can you tell me a little about your topic?
What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the (draft) chapter you wrote?
Can you tell me about any difficulties you experienced in writing this chapter?
Now I am going to ask you about some specific types of possible difficulties:
Did you experience difficulties in:

understanding the functions of the Discussion of Results?

selecting content?
organisation of content?
showing appropriate stance (how writers position themselves)?
grammar? (Can you give an example or two?)
word choice?

Why did these problems occur?

We have discussed a number of problem areas. In your opinion which is it most important to
get right in writing a good Discussion of Results?
Thank you for your help. Do you have questions you would like to ask me about this study?

References

Allison, D., Cooley, L., Lewkowicz, J., & Nunan, D. (1998). Dissertation writing in action: The development of a
dissertation writing support program for ESL graduate research students. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 199–217.
Basturkmen, H., & Bitchener, J. (in press). The text and beyond: Exploring the expectations of the academic community
for the Discussion of Results section in Masters thesis. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics.
Belcher, D. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: Graduate students and their mentors.
English for Specific Purposes, 13, 23–34.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bitchener, J., & Turner, E. (2002). Writing academic literature reviews: Overcoming difficulties experienced by L2
speakers of English. Paper presented at fifth biennial tertiary writing colloquim, Auckland, New Zealand.
Braine, G. (1989). Writing in science and technology: An analysis of assignments from ten undergraduate courses.
English for Specific Purposes, 8, 3–15.
Braine, G. (1995). Writing in the natural sciences and engineering. In D. Belcher, & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing
in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 113–134). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 47–59.
Cadman, K. (1997). Thesis writing for international students: A question of identity? English for Specific Purposes, 16,
3–14.
Casanave, C. (1992). Cultural diversity and socialisation: A case study of a Hispanic woman in a doctoral program in
sociology. In D. Murray (Ed.), Diversity as resource: Redefining cultural literacy (pp. 148–182). Alexandra, VA:
TESOL.
Casanave, C. (1995). Local interactions: Constructing contexts for composing in a graduate sociology program. In D.
Belcher, & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays in research and pedagogy (pp. 83–110).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Casanave, C. (2002). Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices in higher education.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Casanave, C., & Hubbard, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing problems of doctoral students: Faculty
perceptions, pedagogical issues, and needed research. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 33–49.
 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18 17

Cooley, L., & Lewkowicz, J. (1995). The writing needs of graduate students at the University of Hong Kong: A project
report. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 121–123.
Cooley, L., & Lewkowicz, J. (1997). Developing awareness of the rhetorical and linguistic conventions of writing a thesis
in English: Addressing the needs of ESL/EFL postgraduate students. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of
academic discourse (pp. 113–140). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dong, Y. (1998). Non-native graduate students’ thesis/dissertation writing in science: Self-reports by students and their
advisors from two US institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 369–390.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1986). Genre analysis: An investigation of the introduction and discussion sections of MSc
dissertations. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Talking about text, discourse analysis monographs no. 13 (pp. 128–145).
Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1999). The dissertation: A case of neglect? In P. Thompson (Ed.), Issues in EAP writing research and
instruction (pp. 28–36). Reading, PA: Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Reading.
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Frost, A. (1999). Supervision of NESB postgraduate students in science-based disciplines. In Y. Ryan, & O. Zuber-
Skerritt (Eds.), Supervising postgraduates from non-speaking backgrounds (pp. 101–109). Birmingham, UK: Open
University Press.
Gale, X. (1994). Conversing across cultural boundaries: Rewriting ‘self’. Journal of Advanced Composition, 14,
455–462.
Golombek, P. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 447–464.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (Ed.). (1991). Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly,
37(2), 275–301.
Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual
writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 83–106.
James, K. (1984). The writing of theses by speakers of English as a foreign language: A case study. In R. Williams, J.
Swales, & J. Kirkman (Eds.), Common ground: Shared interests in ESP and communication studies, ELT documents
117 (pp. 99–113). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Jenkins, S., Jordan, M., & Weiland, P. (1993). The role of writing in graduate engineering education: A survey of faculty
beliefs and practices. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 51–67.
Johns, A. (1990). Coherence as a cultural phenomenon: Employing ethnographic principles in academic milieu. In A.
Connor, & A. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 209–226). Alexandria,
VA: TESOL.
Johns, A. (1993). Written argumentation for real audiences: Suggestions for teacher research and classroom practices.
TESOL Quarterly, 27, 75–90.
Johns, A. (1995). Teaching classroom and authentic genres: Initiating students into academic cultures and discourses. In
D. Belcher, & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 277–291). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.
Knight, N. (1999). Responsibilities and limits in the supervision of NESB research students in the social sciences and
humanities. In Y. Ryan, & O. Zuber-Skerritt (Eds.), Supervising postgraduates from non-English speaking
backgrounds (pp. 93–100). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
J. Lantolf (Ed.) (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lillis, T. (2001). Student writing: Access, regulation, desire. London: Routledge.
O’Connell, F., & Jin L. (2001). A structural model of literature review: An analysis of Chinese postgraduate students’
writing. Paper presented at BALEAP conference, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Oppenheim, A. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Pinter Publishers.
Paltridge, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: An examination of published advice and actual practice. English for
Specific Purposes, 21(2), 125–143.
Parry, S. (1998). Disciplinary discourse in doctoral education. Higher Education, 36, 273–299.
Prior, P. (1994). Response, revision, disciplinarity. A microhistory of a dissertation prospectus in sociology. Written
Communication, 11, 483–533.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Samaraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21,
1–17.
18 J. Bitchener, H. Basturkmen / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 4–18

Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning English composition. College
Composition and Communication, 40, 459–466.
Silva, T., Reichelt, M., & Lax-Farr, J. (1994). Writing instruction for ESL graduate students: Examining issues and
raising questions. ELT Journal, 48, 197–204.
Smith, D. (1999). Supervising NESB students from Confucian educational cultures. In Y. Ryan, & O. Zuber-Skerritt
(Eds.), Supervising postgraduates from non-English speaking backgrounds (pp. 146–156). Suffolk: Open University
Press.
Starfield, S. (2003). The evolution of a thesis-writing course for arts and social sciences students: What can applied
linguistics offer? Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 137–154.
Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham: University of Aston Language Studies Unit.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, P. (1999). Exploring the contexts of writing: Interviews with Ph D supervisors. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Issues
in EAP writing research and instruction (pp. 37–54). Reading, PA: Centre for Applied Language Studies, University
of Reading.
Williams, P. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles: Analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical
purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 347–366.

John Bitchener is an Associate Professor and Programme Leader of the MA in Applied Language Studies at Auckland
University of Technology. He is Editor of TESOLANZ Journal and President of ALANZ. His research interests include
SLA theory and practice, discourse and genre studies (academic and tourism).

Helen Basturkmen is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics at the
University of Auckland, New Zealand. She teaches MA courses in discourse analysis, research methodology and English
for Academic Purposes. Her areas of research interest and publications are in spoken discourse analysis and EAP.