Genre analysis of introduction section in electrical engineering undergraduate laboratory reports

Veeramuthu Veerappan; Mokhtarrudin Ahmad; Mohd Afizal Aris; Wei Hui Suan

doi:10.12688/f1000research.73461.1

Home Browse Genre analysis of introduction section in electrical engineering undergraduate...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Genre analysis of introduction section in electrical engineering undergraduate laboratory reports

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Veeramuthu Veerappan ¹, Mokhtarrudin Ahmad¹, Mohd Afizal Aris¹, Wei Hui Suan²

PUBLISHED 09 Feb 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Applied Communication, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Selangor, 63100, Malaysia
² City University, Selangor, Malaysia

Veeramuthu Veerappan
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Mokhtarrudin Ahmad
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization

Mohd Afizal Aris
Roles: Formal Analysis, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Wei Hui Suan
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Research Synergy Foundation gateway.

Abstract

Background

This study examines the genre of Engineering Laboratory Reports (ELR) introduction section written by Electrical Engineering Undergraduates in a higher learning institution. The aims of this study are to identify the rhetorical moves and combinations of move patterns used by engineering students to write introduction section of ELR.

Methods

A genre analysis was conducted to identify writing patterns and convention practices of engineering undergraduate students thus a corpus of N= 35 was selected from electrical engineering students in their final year of study. This study adopted Genre Theory as its theoretical framework, [1] analytical framework and [2] BCU approach for analysis procedure. A pilot test was conducted to determine the model that fits the best to describe moves and steps of ELR. The study benchmarks a move or step to be present in at least 60% of the reports.

Results

The finding shows the introduction consists of one main move which is providing background information of the experiment and followed by four subsequent steps which are reference to research purposes, reference to theoretical knowledge in the field, providing an overview of the study and identification of main research apparatus. The move 1 and all four steps identified above are viewed as conventional move and steps of introduction section only among undergraduates in academic context. The exemplification of finding pave ways to address grey areas of improvement in scientific written genre among laboratory instructors and academics. The method employed in this study may be replicated to analyse other sections of scientific and technical reports such as method, result, discussion and conclusion (MRDC).

Conclusions

This study posits the importance of collaboration between English for Academic (EAP) practitioners such as English-writing instructors and discipline specific specialist from engineering field to further improve on genre-based writing instruction, and to identify student learning needs.

Keywords

Introduction section, laboratory reports, move analysis, engineering discourse

Corresponding author: Veeramuthu Veerappan

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2022 Veerappan V et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Veerappan V, Ahmad M, Aris MA and Suan WH. Genre analysis of introduction section in electrical engineering undergraduate laboratory reports [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:163 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73461.1) First published: 09 Feb 2022, 11:163 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73461.1) Latest published: 22 Mar 2024, 11:163 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73461.3)

Introduction

Among the many academic genres, writing an investigative article has grown a lot of curiosity and thoughtfulness among the academicians and researchers.³ has introduced his “move analysis” to examine the structure of introduction section in the engineering research articles. In his 1990 research, Swales suggested a “3-move schema” in writing introductions for any articles which is known as the “Create A Research Space” (CARS) model. This study contributes to a better understanding among practitioners in this discourse community on how to write effective research articles but not much study has been conducted to analyze undergraduate engineering laboratory reports.⁴ in his paper, “Writing a Laboratory Report for Senior Electrical Engineering Courses: Guidelines and Recommendations,” mentioned that in engineering pedagogics, specifically in the electrical engineering courses, laboratory report can be use as the measurement to evaluate the understanding of the theory taught in the classes.

The primary job of any scientific Introduction is to establish the purpose for doing the experiment that is to be reported. Thus, the introduction and the theoretical background were usually combined into one introductory section depending on the length and complexity of the report.⁴ stated that the introduction creates the reader’s overall understanding of the rest of the report. He mentioned that students should only write a maximum of two A4 papers to avoid any irrelevant information being mentioned and stated in the introductory paragraph. Moreover, the introductory paragraph should also make a reference to the appropriate theory and the importance of the previous studies whenever necessary. Not all undergraduate students have experienced writing ELRs in high schools or before varsity admission.⁵

The ability to write an effective introductory paragraph and abstract or summary will assist the writing process, as these sections, especially the introduction contains a synopsis of the whole report. According to⁶ the inquiry based ELRs foster questioning, designing experiments and interpreting results are essential processes to become experimental scientist.¹⁰ The introduction or the introductory paragraph is one of the central sections of a laboratory report. To have the readers have a better understanding and a clear guideline of the report, the introduction should also provide relevant background information and puts the study into context of the depth and challenges of an experiment.¹¹ Additionally, the introduction should include a brief overview of relevant and latest publications in the respective field.

According to the university’s guideline, an introduction of an Engineering Laboratory Report (ELR) should consist of an overview of the topic under experiment, a clear statement of purpose, the reasons to initiate the experiment, as well as general content to assist reader’s understanding into subject matter. The engineering faculty also requires students to discuss underpinning theory that leads to experiment, a short literature review on the theory, questions and even ambiguities which arose from the chosen theory. The current study attempts to fill the existing gap by investigating the specific discourse features in the Introduction section used among engineering students in writing ELR at tertiary level. The purpose of this study is to investigate what are the moves and steps as well as the combination of move and step patterns used by engineering undergraduates in writing the introduction section of ELR. These aims are to be realized with the use of Genre Theory.³^,⁷ mentioned that Genre Theory has evolved from the study of discourse and linguistic analysis to further describe and explain why the members which belongs to a certain discourse community use the language the way they do. The interpretative characteristic of genre theory made it widely accepted and used in genre-based studies among academics and linguists.⁸

Methods

A genre analysis was conducted to determine the moves and steps that occur in the introduction section by adapting the categories outlined by Ref. 1 framework. Prior to using Ngowu’s model, a pilot test was conducted to examine the suitability of this model to the current study on introduction section of ELR. 15 ELRs were selected and examined to determine the match in description. There were more than 60% match in the categories outlined by the model and ELRs under examination, making it the most suitable analytical framework that can be modified and replicated. The total sample size collected was N=74. These samples were further minimized and scrutinized to select the ELRs that contain most complete and comprehensive information. Quality of data, amount of information, nature of topic, scope of study, design and method used in a qualitative study are the few factors used in determining sample size.⁹ In this study, the sample was based on selected ELR’s that achieved a score of 4 marks out of 5 marks. The sample size of this study is maintained at N=35 as these samples best represented the electrical engineering laboratory genre and reached a saturation level with similar recurring moves and steps. To further validate the data, semi-structured interview was conducted with an engineering content specialist. The total intake of electrical engineering students in this tertiary institution is not more than 100 students a year and, in each trimester, these students are engaged in writing at least 4 ELRs. The data consist of ELRs that have obtained a higher rating of at least 4 out of 5 marks. The procedures for conducting move analysis in this study adapted a corpus-based model outlined by Ref. 2 BCU approach.

As to address the trustworthiness of this study, a coding protocol was developed with definitions and examples for mandatory, conventional and optional moves and an inter-rater reliability check was conducted among three coders, consisting firstly the researcher, secondly an engineering content specialist and thirdly a language expert to determine disagreement or discrepancies and the coding protocol was revised. This coding scheme assists in identification of introduction section and also controls the variability in the analysis, which guides other coders apart from the researcher himself to identify the moves and steps. Some textbooks and research articles were also used as a guide such as the textbooks written by Refs. 8, 9 on engineering and technical writing and research articles reporting engineering writing,¹²^–¹⁴ and genre-based studies of written discourse in other engineering disciplines.¹⁵^–¹⁷ There were three coders involved in the development and modification of the coding scheme who is the researcher himself, secondly an engineering content specialist and thirdly a language instructor. The reason of including two other coders apart from the researcher is to ensure inter-coder reliability. The second and third coders were trained to read two similar samples of ELR’s and identify the moves and steps in the Introduction section.

Ethical Approval Number: EA1582021 approved by Technology Transfer Office, Multimedia University.

Results and discussion

In order to depict how the texts are analysed, the extracts of text from ELR corpus which show moves and steps are exemplified. The move and steps are identified such as (M1S1 means Move 1 Step 1). The extracted text used for exemplification is bolded and italicised to show the differences in analysis. The analysis shows that the introduction consists of one main move which is providing background information of the experiment and followed by three subsequent steps which are reference to research purposes, reference to theoretical knowledge in the field, providing an overview of the study and identification of main research apparatus. This finding has more than 80% consistency to the findings of a previous studies by Refs. 17, 18 on biochemistry articles.

Move 1: Presenting background information

Move 1 of the ELR is written to present background information of the experiments consists of 4 steps. Firstly, Move 1 Step 1 the reference to research purposes. This statement is written prior to all other information as to guide the writer throughout the reporting process of laboratory experiment. All the reports have stated at least two objectives that it aimed to achieve in the experiment. Move 1 Step 2 provides an overview of the topic under study. This step is important to give readers general information about the experiment. Move 1 Step 3 provides the theoretical knowledge of the field under study. Move 1 Step 4 is identification of main research apparatus. This step mainly outlines the apparatus used in the current experiment. It was observed that in Move 1 Step 4, most of the ELRs did not provide detailed description of the apparatus used.

Move 1 Step 1: Reference to research purposes

The Move 1 Step 1, reference to research purposes is written to state the objectives of the initial experiment. This move can be considered the most important move in the introduction section to inform readers the main aims of conducting the experiment. The completed report can be understood by readers if the objectives are clearly stated before moving on to other steps in the introduction section. Based on the analysis of 35 ELR’s compiled, this step occurred as Move 1 Step 1 in 24 ELR’s or 69% from the total percentage. This is a significant finding as it is representative to the overall moves in introduction section.

Move 1 Step 2: Giving an overview of the topic under study

Move 1 Step 2 provides an overview of the topic under study. It gives general information about what the experiment is all about, states the characteristics of the variables under study, the main terms used in this experiment, short definition of the functions of each variables and features used in the experiment that gives an overall view of the experiment which has been conducted. The analysis reveal that this move has occurred in 24 reports or 69% of the total report. This has made this move conventional in the introduction section based on occurrence rate. Although this step frequently occurs in the reports, yet its sequence is not in accordance. It was observed that this step has occurred only in 9 reports as step 2. This shows that the move pattern in introduction section is not always in sequence of M1S1-M1S2-M1S3-M1S4.

Move 1 Step 3: Reference to theoretical knowledge in the field.

Move 1 Step 3 provides reference to the theoretical knowledge in the field. This move provides students or readers with sufficient mathematical or theoretical background to understand how the experiment works, what has the earlier assumptions indicated and how the experiment is related to the theoretical knowledge. This section may be written in short, if it can be well understood and connection can be made with the measurement of an experiment. Based on the analysis on 35 ELR’s, this step occurred in 21 reports, which totals up to 60% of occurrence from the overall reports. This finding is significant, making this step as a conventional step in writing introduction section. However, the analysis also shows that this step occurred as step 3 in Move 1 in 17 instances or 49% only.

Move 1 Step 4: Stating the main apparatus used to conduct the experiment

The Move 1 Step 4 is written to state the main apparatus used to conduct the experiment. In this step, all the equipment used are usually outlined and very small number of ELR’s provide detailed description of each apparatus used for the experiment. Based on the analysis of 35 ELR’s compiled, this step occurred in the introduction section of 33 ELR’s or 94% of the total reports. This is a significant finding as it is representative to the overall moves in introduction section. However, another finding shows that this step has occurred as Move 1 Step 4 in only 17 ELR’s or 49% only. Hence, this indicates that the identification of main apparatus has occurred as other steps in move 1. This shows that not all steps in ELR’s occur in a pre-determined sequential step. The analysis also indicates that Move 1 Step 1 was not written in 3 ELR’s.

Combination of move patterns in Introduction section

In this section, the analysis of ELR’s focuses to determine the sequence of move and steps with which steps to begin and end the introduction section. As noted in previous analysis, the length of each steps varies with Move 1 Step 1 that states the objectives of the study to be the shortest of all 4 steps in move 1. In this step, students use action verbs to state the objectives without detailed elaboration. This step clearly states the aims to be achieved by the end of an experiment. It is clear that 24 ELR’s or 69% of the reports began with the statement of objectives. Although most of the reports starts with M1S1, this finding cannot be generalized to overall ELR’s as some start from M1S1. 7 ELR’s or 20 % of the overall reports starts with M1S2, 2 ELR’s or less than 6% of the reports start with M1S3 and only 1 report or 3% starts from M1S4 and 17 ELR’s or 49% of the total reports end with M1S1. This is the last step in presenting background information of the experiment. This step is frequently adopted to end the introduction section and before moving to method section. Next, 9 ELR’s or 26% of the reports end with M1 S3, while 6 ELR’s or 17% of the reports end with M1S2 and only 3 report ends with M1S1. Based on the occurrence of each steps in Move 1 of introduction section, move 1 and all three steps identified and discussed above are viewed as mandatory and conventional steps of introduction section. The model proposed in Table 1 below encapsulates the Move and Steps made by undergraduate students of Electrical Engineering in writing their laboratory reports.

Table 1. Model for Introduction section of ELR

Move 1	Presenting background information
by Move 1 Step 1	Reference to research purpose
by Move 1 Step 2	Providing an overview of the study
by Move 1 Step 3	Reference to theoretical knowledge in the field
by Move 1 Step 4	Identification of main research apparatus

Conclusion

There are several conclusions that can be drawn from this study. Mismatches between the guidelines set by the university and the final output of students are identified, firstly, the omission of background theories or pertinent literature review. The historical background of previous studies is important as it can be replicated and used for the current experiment. It is also to convince the readers the theory is viable to be used in the experiment. Secondly, it is lacking in the content to orientate the readers with enough general ideas into the subject of experiment. Thirdly, although it is the most applicable approach to enforce students experiential learning, this may not contribute or add on to the body of knowledge in engineering field. This study propose collaboration between English for Academic (EAP) practitioners such as English writing instructors and discipline specific specialist from engineering field to further improve on genre-based writing instruction to identify students’ learning needs. The limitation of this study is it focuses only on ELR written in electrical engineering domain and findings cannot generalized to other sub-disciplines and the omission of data triangulation from various sources such as interviewing and expert validation which could contribute to better understanding of why a particular discourse community writes the text the way they do.

Data availability

Figshare. Genre Analysis of introduction section in electrical engineering undergraduate laboratory reports. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14881911 ¹⁹

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC BY 4.0 Public domain dedication).

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Dr. Shamala Paramasivam from UPM has given permission to include her name and affiliation in this publication for her advice in conducting this research.

References

1. Nwogu KN: The medical research paper: Structure and function. Engl. Specif. Purp. 1997; 16(2): 119–138. Publisher Full Text
2. Biber D, Connor U, Upton TA: Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. John Benjamins Publishing; 2007; (Vol. 28. ).
3. Swales J: Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990
4. Masoud MI: Writing a laboratory report for senior electrical engineering courses: Guidelines and recommendations. Proceedings of 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON 2017. [7942870] IEEE Computer Society. 2017; (pp. 340–346). Publisher Full Text
5. Parkinson J: The student laboratory report genre: A genre analysis. Engl. Specif. Purp. 2017; 45: 1–13. Publisher Full Text
6. Kalaskas AB: Science lab report writing in postsecondary education: Mediating teaching and learning strategies between students and instructors (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University).2013.
7. Bhatia VK: Integrating products, processes and participants in professional writing. Candlin CN, Hyland K, editors. Writing: Texts, Process and Practices. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.; 1999a.
8. Bhatia VK: Applied Genre Analysis: A MultiPerspective Model. Ibérica. 2002; 4: 3–19.
9. Morse JM: Determining sample size. Qual. Health Res. 2000; 10: 3–5. Publisher Full Text
10. Beer D, McMurrey D: A guide to writing as an engineer. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1997.
11. Lannon JM: Technical Writing. 6th ed.New York: HarperCollins College Publishers; 1993.
12. Flowerdew L: The problem-solution pattern in apprentice vs. professional technical writing: An application of appraisal theory. Aston G, Bernardini S, Stewart D, editors. Corpora and language learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2004; (pp. 125–135).
13. Flowerdew L: Corpus-based analyses of the problem–solution pattern: A phraseological approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2008.
14. McKenna B: How engineers write: An empirical study of engineering report writing. Appl. Linguis. 1997; 18(2): 189–211. Publisher Full Text
15. Hopkins A, Dudley-Evans T: A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. Engl. Specif. Purp. 1988; 7: 113–121. Publisher Full Text
16. Kanoksilapatham B: A corpus-based investigation of scientific research articles: Linking move analysis with multidimensional analysis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.2003.
17. Kanoksilapatham B: Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. Engl. Specif. Purp. 2005; 24: 269–292.
18. Kanoksilapatham B: Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. 2007; 73–119.
19. Veerappan V, Ahmad M, Aris M, et al.: Genre Analysis of Introduction Section in Electrical Engineering Undergraduate Laboratory Reports. figshare. Dataset. 2021. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 09 Feb 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Applied Communication, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Selangor, 63100, Malaysia
² City University, Selangor, Malaysia

Mokhtarrudin Ahmad
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization

Mohd Afizal Aris
Roles: Formal Analysis, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Wei Hui Suan
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 22 Mar 2024, 11:163

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73461.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 27 Apr 2023, 11:163

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73461.2

version 1

Published: 09 Feb 2022, 11:163

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73461.1

© 2022 Veerappan V et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Veerappan V, Ahmad M, Aris MA and Suan WH. Genre analysis of introduction section in electrical engineering undergraduate laboratory reports [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:163 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73461.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 09 Feb 2022

Views

Reviewer Report 20 Jun 2022

Donnie Tulud, Graduate School and Department of English Language and Literature, University of Southern Mindanao, Cotabato, Philippines

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.77113.r139566

This article aims to examine the genre of Engineering Laboratory Reports (ELR) introduction section written by Electrical Engineering Undergraduates in a higher learning institution. The aims of this study are to identify the rhetorical moves and combinations of move patterns used by engineering students to write the introduction section of ELR. However, there are several issues that I want to clarify specifically with the following parts:

Introduction

Though the writer has presented the problems well, still; this part lacks related concepts and studies that could substantiate the current study so as to establish the research gap. In here, the writer can provide pieces of information to make the study more problematic. Thus, it is necessary for the writer to use other studies as reference that have explored other research introduction as corpora.

Methods

Why did you not consider the framework of JOHN SWALES which is the CARS model in analyzing the introduction, since you made mention of CARS model in your introduction? I believe the CARS model in describing introduction is much more comprehensive than Ngowu. Swale's model should also be considered because his framework might also generate a more comprehensive result. It can also be a confluence of these two models to see if the two have similar or different move or steps in presenting the research introduction.

Results

The meat of determining move structure is through identifying linguistic markers that realize the move or steps. Therefore, in presenting the results, the writer should include salient linguistic markers that realize each step and move. Also, the writer, should also get the frequency of each move and step to determine what move is obligatory, optional, non-evident and conventional. By doing such, the reader will know the most common moves being used and neglected in writing research introduction. Moreover, it is recommended to provide samples from the corpora on how these moves and steps are realized and presented in Engineering Laboratory Reports (ELR) introduction section written by Electrical Engineering Undergraduates

Overall, the research paper is excellent in terms of presentation and overall findings. However, there is just a need to add more literature and related studies to give substance to the problem and establish the gap. As mentioned, there is a need to add linguistic features to the analyses so that it would be easier for the readers to identify characteristics of each move and step.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Genre analysis and discourse analysis

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 27 Apr 2023

Veeramuthu Veerappan, Faculty of Applied Communication, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia

27 Apr 2023

Author Response

Dear Dr Donnie,
Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments given.

List of Amendments :
Details of amendment made in the manuscript. ... Continue reading Dear Dr Donnie,
Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments given.

List of Amendments :
Details of amendment made in the manuscript. Only a paraphrased and simplified version of the revision was added in the manuscript. The full text was not reported in the manuscript due to word limitation.

Introduction

Reviewer 2

The writer can provide pieces of information to make the study more problematic. Thus, it is necessary for the writer to use other studies as reference that have explored other research introduction as corpora.

Revision with justification:

There are several related concepts and studies that could substantiate the current study and establish the research gap. Analysis of genre in academic writing has received a lot of attention (Swales, 1990; Bhatia, 1993; Hyland, 2000). Finding the norms, expectations, and communication goals of certain discourse groups is the task of genre analysis (Swales, 1990), and offers a theoretical framework to analyze the genre of ELR introductions. Writing skills in engineering education has been the focus of studies, and it has been determined that engineering students have difficulty writing clearly (Larson & Murray, 2008; Lunsford, 2012). Notable studies (Swales, 1990; Hyland, 2000; Samraj, 2002) have been conducted on the moves and writing styles employed in academic writing. The concept and framework bridge the research gap for all the reason stated above, making this study significant and relevant.

There may be a few causes for the recent lack of attention paid to this subject. Research in the field of engineering education has switched its attention to other areas, namely the use of technology in teaching and learning, assessment procedures, or diversity and inclusion in engineering classrooms. Moreover, the material already available on ELR introduction sections may be deemed sufficient and complete. In addition, the scant attention paid to this field in recent years may also have been a result of a lack of funding or other resources for research in this field.

Methods

Reviewer 2

Why did you not consider the framework of JOHN SWALES which is the CARS model in analyzing the introduction, since you made mention of CARS model in your introduction?

Justification

This study adopted Ngowu's framework because it is better suited to meet the study's objectives and unique research problems. The Ngowu's framework has been adopted or accepted in the field of engineering education research. The intention was also to apply and test this framework for assessing the introduction section of ELRs. It's also possible that the study compared the findings after using both frameworks for their analysis, but this may be beyond the scope of this study and could be recommended for future study. Generally, the choice of framework depends on various criteria, including the research topic, aims, and the researcher's experience and skill with the framework. Since the research was conducted on all IMRDC sections of ELR, Ngowu (1997) framework was found to be more suitable.

Results

Reviewer 2

Therefore, in presenting the results, the writer should include salient linguistic markers that realize each step and move.

Also, the writer, should also get the frequency of each move and step to determine what move is obligatory, optional, non-evident and conventional.

Response

Thank you for your comments on our study. We appreciate your feedback and have carefully considered your suggestions. Regarding the lack of linguistic markers in our study, we acknowledge that these are important in analyzing the introduction section of Engineering Laboratory Reports (ELRs). However, we focused on identifying the rhetorical moves and move patterns used by engineering students in writing the introduction section of ELRs. The linguistic markers are not included as they have been published in a previous study (DOI: 10.2991/978-2-494069-61-9_24
and https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/cless-22/125980201

We agree that combining the framework used in our study with the linguistic markers identified in previous research could provide a more comprehensive analysis of ELRs. Therefore, we plan to consider incorporating these markers in future research to enhance the analysis of ELRs. We appreciate your suggestions and feedback, and we will make sure to incorporate them into future research.

Thank you for your feedback. We agree that providing samples from the corpora on how the moves and steps are realized in the introduction section of ELR would have been useful for the readers. We have categorised the type of moves to obligatory, conventional and optional in the revision. However, due to the limited word count of the journal, we had to prioritize providing more significant information on the study's aims, methodology, and findings. Therefore, we hope that the description of the methodology used, and the findings of the study provided in this manuscript will be sufficient for readers to understand the study's contribution to the field.
Dear Dr Donnie,
Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments given.

List of Amendments :
Details of amendment made in the manuscript. Only a paraphrased and simplified version of the revision was added in the manuscript. The full text was not reported in the manuscript due to word limitation.

Introduction

Reviewer 2

The writer can provide pieces of information to make the study more problematic. Thus, it is necessary for the writer to use other studies as reference that have explored other research introduction as corpora.

Revision with justification:

There are several related concepts and studies that could substantiate the current study and establish the research gap. Analysis of genre in academic writing has received a lot of attention (Swales, 1990; Bhatia, 1993; Hyland, 2000). Finding the norms, expectations, and communication goals of certain discourse groups is the task of genre analysis (Swales, 1990), and offers a theoretical framework to analyze the genre of ELR introductions. Writing skills in engineering education has been the focus of studies, and it has been determined that engineering students have difficulty writing clearly (Larson & Murray, 2008; Lunsford, 2012). Notable studies (Swales, 1990; Hyland, 2000; Samraj, 2002) have been conducted on the moves and writing styles employed in academic writing. The concept and framework bridge the research gap for all the reason stated above, making this study significant and relevant.

There may be a few causes for the recent lack of attention paid to this subject. Research in the field of engineering education has switched its attention to other areas, namely the use of technology in teaching and learning, assessment procedures, or diversity and inclusion in engineering classrooms. Moreover, the material already available on ELR introduction sections may be deemed sufficient and complete. In addition, the scant attention paid to this field in recent years may also have been a result of a lack of funding or other resources for research in this field.

Methods

Reviewer 2

Why did you not consider the framework of JOHN SWALES which is the CARS model in analyzing the introduction, since you made mention of CARS model in your introduction?

Justification

This study adopted Ngowu's framework because it is better suited to meet the study's objectives and unique research problems. The Ngowu's framework has been adopted or accepted in the field of engineering education research. The intention was also to apply and test this framework for assessing the introduction section of ELRs. It's also possible that the study compared the findings after using both frameworks for their analysis, but this may be beyond the scope of this study and could be recommended for future study. Generally, the choice of framework depends on various criteria, including the research topic, aims, and the researcher's experience and skill with the framework. Since the research was conducted on all IMRDC sections of ELR, Ngowu (1997) framework was found to be more suitable.

Results

Reviewer 2

Therefore, in presenting the results, the writer should include salient linguistic markers that realize each step and move.

Also, the writer, should also get the frequency of each move and step to determine what move is obligatory, optional, non-evident and conventional.

Response

Thank you for your comments on our study. We appreciate your feedback and have carefully considered your suggestions. Regarding the lack of linguistic markers in our study, we acknowledge that these are important in analyzing the introduction section of Engineering Laboratory Reports (ELRs). However, we focused on identifying the rhetorical moves and move patterns used by engineering students in writing the introduction section of ELRs. The linguistic markers are not included as they have been published in a previous study (DOI: 10.2991/978-2-494069-61-9_24
and https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/cless-22/125980201

We agree that combining the framework used in our study with the linguistic markers identified in previous research could provide a more comprehensive analysis of ELRs. Therefore, we plan to consider incorporating these markers in future research to enhance the analysis of ELRs. We appreciate your suggestions and feedback, and we will make sure to incorporate them into future research.

Thank you for your feedback. We agree that providing samples from the corpora on how the moves and steps are realized in the introduction section of ELR would have been useful for the readers. We have categorised the type of moves to obligatory, conventional and optional in the revision. However, due to the limited word count of the journal, we had to prioritize providing more significant information on the study's aims, methodology, and findings. Therefore, we hope that the description of the methodology used, and the findings of the study provided in this manuscript will be sufficient for readers to understand the study's contribution to the field.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 27 Apr 2023

Veeramuthu Veerappan, Faculty of Applied Communication, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia

27 Apr 2023

Author Response

Dear Dr Donnie,
Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments given.

List of Amendments :
Details of amendment made in the manuscript. ... Continue reading Dear Dr Donnie,
Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments given.

List of Amendments :
Details of amendment made in the manuscript. Only a paraphrased and simplified version of the revision was added in the manuscript. The full text was not reported in the manuscript due to word limitation.

Introduction

Reviewer 2

The writer can provide pieces of information to make the study more problematic. Thus, it is necessary for the writer to use other studies as reference that have explored other research introduction as corpora.

Revision with justification:

There are several related concepts and studies that could substantiate the current study and establish the research gap. Analysis of genre in academic writing has received a lot of attention (Swales, 1990; Bhatia, 1993; Hyland, 2000). Finding the norms, expectations, and communication goals of certain discourse groups is the task of genre analysis (Swales, 1990), and offers a theoretical framework to analyze the genre of ELR introductions. Writing skills in engineering education has been the focus of studies, and it has been determined that engineering students have difficulty writing clearly (Larson & Murray, 2008; Lunsford, 2012). Notable studies (Swales, 1990; Hyland, 2000; Samraj, 2002) have been conducted on the moves and writing styles employed in academic writing. The concept and framework bridge the research gap for all the reason stated above, making this study significant and relevant.

There may be a few causes for the recent lack of attention paid to this subject. Research in the field of engineering education has switched its attention to other areas, namely the use of technology in teaching and learning, assessment procedures, or diversity and inclusion in engineering classrooms. Moreover, the material already available on ELR introduction sections may be deemed sufficient and complete. In addition, the scant attention paid to this field in recent years may also have been a result of a lack of funding or other resources for research in this field.

Methods

Reviewer 2

Why did you not consider the framework of JOHN SWALES which is the CARS model in analyzing the introduction, since you made mention of CARS model in your introduction?

Justification

This study adopted Ngowu's framework because it is better suited to meet the study's objectives and unique research problems. The Ngowu's framework has been adopted or accepted in the field of engineering education research. The intention was also to apply and test this framework for assessing the introduction section of ELRs. It's also possible that the study compared the findings after using both frameworks for their analysis, but this may be beyond the scope of this study and could be recommended for future study. Generally, the choice of framework depends on various criteria, including the research topic, aims, and the researcher's experience and skill with the framework. Since the research was conducted on all IMRDC sections of ELR, Ngowu (1997) framework was found to be more suitable.

Results

Reviewer 2

Therefore, in presenting the results, the writer should include salient linguistic markers that realize each step and move.

Also, the writer, should also get the frequency of each move and step to determine what move is obligatory, optional, non-evident and conventional.

Response

Thank you for your comments on our study. We appreciate your feedback and have carefully considered your suggestions. Regarding the lack of linguistic markers in our study, we acknowledge that these are important in analyzing the introduction section of Engineering Laboratory Reports (ELRs). However, we focused on identifying the rhetorical moves and move patterns used by engineering students in writing the introduction section of ELRs. The linguistic markers are not included as they have been published in a previous study (DOI: 10.2991/978-2-494069-61-9_24
and https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/cless-22/125980201

We agree that combining the framework used in our study with the linguistic markers identified in previous research could provide a more comprehensive analysis of ELRs. Therefore, we plan to consider incorporating these markers in future research to enhance the analysis of ELRs. We appreciate your suggestions and feedback, and we will make sure to incorporate them into future research.

Thank you for your feedback. We agree that providing samples from the corpora on how the moves and steps are realized in the introduction section of ELR would have been useful for the readers. We have categorised the type of moves to obligatory, conventional and optional in the revision. However, due to the limited word count of the journal, we had to prioritize providing more significant information on the study's aims, methodology, and findings. Therefore, we hope that the description of the methodology used, and the findings of the study provided in this manuscript will be sufficient for readers to understand the study's contribution to the field.
Dear Dr Donnie,
Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments given.

List of Amendments :
Details of amendment made in the manuscript. Only a paraphrased and simplified version of the revision was added in the manuscript. The full text was not reported in the manuscript due to word limitation.

Introduction

Reviewer 2

The writer can provide pieces of information to make the study more problematic. Thus, it is necessary for the writer to use other studies as reference that have explored other research introduction as corpora.

Revision with justification:

There are several related concepts and studies that could substantiate the current study and establish the research gap. Analysis of genre in academic writing has received a lot of attention (Swales, 1990; Bhatia, 1993; Hyland, 2000). Finding the norms, expectations, and communication goals of certain discourse groups is the task of genre analysis (Swales, 1990), and offers a theoretical framework to analyze the genre of ELR introductions. Writing skills in engineering education has been the focus of studies, and it has been determined that engineering students have difficulty writing clearly (Larson & Murray, 2008; Lunsford, 2012). Notable studies (Swales, 1990; Hyland, 2000; Samraj, 2002) have been conducted on the moves and writing styles employed in academic writing. The concept and framework bridge the research gap for all the reason stated above, making this study significant and relevant.

There may be a few causes for the recent lack of attention paid to this subject. Research in the field of engineering education has switched its attention to other areas, namely the use of technology in teaching and learning, assessment procedures, or diversity and inclusion in engineering classrooms. Moreover, the material already available on ELR introduction sections may be deemed sufficient and complete. In addition, the scant attention paid to this field in recent years may also have been a result of a lack of funding or other resources for research in this field.

Methods

Reviewer 2

Why did you not consider the framework of JOHN SWALES which is the CARS model in analyzing the introduction, since you made mention of CARS model in your introduction?

Justification

This study adopted Ngowu's framework because it is better suited to meet the study's objectives and unique research problems. The Ngowu's framework has been adopted or accepted in the field of engineering education research. The intention was also to apply and test this framework for assessing the introduction section of ELRs. It's also possible that the study compared the findings after using both frameworks for their analysis, but this may be beyond the scope of this study and could be recommended for future study. Generally, the choice of framework depends on various criteria, including the research topic, aims, and the researcher's experience and skill with the framework. Since the research was conducted on all IMRDC sections of ELR, Ngowu (1997) framework was found to be more suitable.

Results

Reviewer 2

Therefore, in presenting the results, the writer should include salient linguistic markers that realize each step and move.

Also, the writer, should also get the frequency of each move and step to determine what move is obligatory, optional, non-evident and conventional.

Response

Thank you for your comments on our study. We appreciate your feedback and have carefully considered your suggestions. Regarding the lack of linguistic markers in our study, we acknowledge that these are important in analyzing the introduction section of Engineering Laboratory Reports (ELRs). However, we focused on identifying the rhetorical moves and move patterns used by engineering students in writing the introduction section of ELRs. The linguistic markers are not included as they have been published in a previous study (DOI: 10.2991/978-2-494069-61-9_24
and https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/cless-22/125980201

We agree that combining the framework used in our study with the linguistic markers identified in previous research could provide a more comprehensive analysis of ELRs. Therefore, we plan to consider incorporating these markers in future research to enhance the analysis of ELRs. We appreciate your suggestions and feedback, and we will make sure to incorporate them into future research.

Thank you for your feedback. We agree that providing samples from the corpora on how the moves and steps are realized in the introduction section of ELR would have been useful for the readers. We have categorised the type of moves to obligatory, conventional and optional in the revision. However, due to the limited word count of the journal, we had to prioritize providing more significant information on the study's aims, methodology, and findings. Therefore, we hope that the description of the methodology used, and the findings of the study provided in this manuscript will be sufficient for readers to understand the study's contribution to the field.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 04 Apr 2022

Ilyana Jalaluddin, Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.77113.r126416

The authors have discussed the background of the study and methodology in great detail.

The findings manage to give an overall overview of how moves have actually been used in the engineering report. However, the findings lack discussion such as the indication of what it means if the certain steps occur less in the report. The authors only state percentage and perhaps it will be more clear if the authors provide discussion and interpretation of the findings so that readers will have better view of what it means when occurrence is low or high in the report.

Conclusion summarises the whole thing by pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the study. But it is not connected properly to the findings. How or in what way does it mismatch with the university guidelines? What content is lacking here? Perhaps, the authors can explain further on these two matters as it helps to elaborate more about the findings.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Literacy studies, ESL writing skills, Technology and literacy

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 27 Apr 2023

Veeramuthu Veerappan, Faculty of Applied Communication, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia

27 Apr 2023

Author Response
Dear Dr Ilyana,

Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments.

List of Amendments :

Details of amendment made in ... Continue reading
Dear Dr Ilyana,

Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments.

List of Amendments :

Details of amendment made in the manuscript: Only a paraphrased and simplified version of the revision was added in the manuscript. The full text was not reported in the manuscript due to word limitation allowed by publisher.

Reviewer 1

The findings lack discussion such as the indication of what it means if the certain steps occur less in the report. Provide discussion and interpretation of the findings.

The following is added and paraphrased:

The introduction section of the ELR corpus consists of one main move, which is presenting background information, and four subsequent steps: referencing research purposes, providing an overview of the subject under study, referencing theoretical knowledge in the field, and identifying the primary apparatus used to conduct the experiment. The majority of the ELRs examined featured all four processes, but the study also discovered that the sequence and frequency of these steps varied among the ELRs examined. Overall, the study's findings are highly consistent with research on biochemistry articles from earlier studies, showing that this structure is typical in the industry. Therefore, authors in the field of ELR typically start their introductions by giving a general overview of the subject and establishing the background information for their experiment. This indicates ELR writers assume their readers are already familiar with the subject and do not need to provide a thorough introduction.This would imply that ELR writers are especially interested in identifying and resolving distinct issues within their field. This study suggest that ELR writers are more concerned with presenting their own research than they are with summarising earlier work in the same topic.This may also indicate that ELR writers have a keen interest in finding and solving specific research gaps in their area of study. The specific research problem or hypothesis that they provide holds mores significance to ELR writers.When analysing these results, it's critical to keep in mind that the percentages provided only reflect the frequency of each move over the whole ELR corpus and may not necessarily be representative of all introductions in the field. Furthermore, it's likely that the frequency of each motion may differ based on several factors. Yet, these results offer helpful information about the general structure and relevance of introductions in the field of ELR.

Reviewer 1

Conclusion summarises the whole thing by pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the study. But it is not connected properly to the findings.

How or in what way does it mismatch with the university guidelines? What content is lacking here?

Revision made:

The study's conclusion is based on several findings made during the investigation of the ELR corpus. First, the study identified discrepancies between university guidelines and students' final outputs, particularly the exclusion of underpinning theories or important literature reviews. The students require more guidance in comprehending the expectations of the genre and the significance of incorporating background information is corroborated by this study. Additionally, the study revealed that there wasn't enough content in the introduction section of the ELR corpus to give readers a clear understanding of the experiment's topic. This finding is similar to the findings of other studies that students require assistance in honing their writing skills so they can incorporate the relevant details they need to engage with their readers.

Reviewer 1

The findings of the study also confirmed that while experiential learning is a good strategy, it might not always add to the body of knowledge in the engineering area. Collaboration between English for Academic (EAP) practitioners and subject matter experts from the engineering profession is necessary to advance genre-based writing instruction and to determine students' learning needs. Overall, the study's results call for a need for collaborative effort to enhance writing skills as well as the need to support students in comprehending the requirements of the ELR genre.

The study's conclusion highlights various discrepancies between the recommended format for lab reports following the university’s guidelines and the actual report the students' produce. Firstly, the absence of underpinning theories or relevant literature review, which is important to convince readers that the theory guides the current study. Next, there is a lack of sufficient general information to guide and engage readers to the study's purpose and need. These results are consistent with the Faculty’s report guidelines that the introduction section should give a general overview of the subject and the report's purpose and that its content should be sufficiently general to allow readers to easily engage and comprehend the contents of the report.

Hence, the findings specifically found these two discrepancies:

The findings claim that that students frequently neglected to mention the background theories or relevant literature in the introduction section which is crucial because it can be replicated, reproduced, and reapplied to the current study. It is also important to convince the readers that the theory is still valid to be used for their investigation.

Study findings also revealed that the introductions lacked the necessary general information to guide readers through the project's subject matter and provided readers with little information to comprehend the relevance and context of the study.
Dear Dr Ilyana,

Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments.

List of Amendments :

Details of amendment made in the manuscript: Only a paraphrased and simplified version of the revision was added in the manuscript. The full text was not reported in the manuscript due to word limitation allowed by publisher.

Reviewer 1

The findings lack discussion such as the indication of what it means if the certain steps occur less in the report. Provide discussion and interpretation of the findings.

The following is added and paraphrased:

The introduction section of the ELR corpus consists of one main move, which is presenting background information, and four subsequent steps: referencing research purposes, providing an overview of the subject under study, referencing theoretical knowledge in the field, and identifying the primary apparatus used to conduct the experiment. The majority of the ELRs examined featured all four processes, but the study also discovered that the sequence and frequency of these steps varied among the ELRs examined. Overall, the study's findings are highly consistent with research on biochemistry articles from earlier studies, showing that this structure is typical in the industry. Therefore, authors in the field of ELR typically start their introductions by giving a general overview of the subject and establishing the background information for their experiment. This indicates ELR writers assume their readers are already familiar with the subject and do not need to provide a thorough introduction.This would imply that ELR writers are especially interested in identifying and resolving distinct issues within their field. This study suggest that ELR writers are more concerned with presenting their own research than they are with summarising earlier work in the same topic.This may also indicate that ELR writers have a keen interest in finding and solving specific research gaps in their area of study. The specific research problem or hypothesis that they provide holds mores significance to ELR writers.When analysing these results, it's critical to keep in mind that the percentages provided only reflect the frequency of each move over the whole ELR corpus and may not necessarily be representative of all introductions in the field. Furthermore, it's likely that the frequency of each motion may differ based on several factors. Yet, these results offer helpful information about the general structure and relevance of introductions in the field of ELR.

Reviewer 1

Conclusion summarises the whole thing by pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the study. But it is not connected properly to the findings.

How or in what way does it mismatch with the university guidelines? What content is lacking here?

Revision made:

The study's conclusion is based on several findings made during the investigation of the ELR corpus. First, the study identified discrepancies between university guidelines and students' final outputs, particularly the exclusion of underpinning theories or important literature reviews. The students require more guidance in comprehending the expectations of the genre and the significance of incorporating background information is corroborated by this study. Additionally, the study revealed that there wasn't enough content in the introduction section of the ELR corpus to give readers a clear understanding of the experiment's topic. This finding is similar to the findings of other studies that students require assistance in honing their writing skills so they can incorporate the relevant details they need to engage with their readers.

Reviewer 1

The findings of the study also confirmed that while experiential learning is a good strategy, it might not always add to the body of knowledge in the engineering area. Collaboration between English for Academic (EAP) practitioners and subject matter experts from the engineering profession is necessary to advance genre-based writing instruction and to determine students' learning needs. Overall, the study's results call for a need for collaborative effort to enhance writing skills as well as the need to support students in comprehending the requirements of the ELR genre.

The study's conclusion highlights various discrepancies between the recommended format for lab reports following the university’s guidelines and the actual report the students' produce. Firstly, the absence of underpinning theories or relevant literature review, which is important to convince readers that the theory guides the current study. Next, there is a lack of sufficient general information to guide and engage readers to the study's purpose and need. These results are consistent with the Faculty’s report guidelines that the introduction section should give a general overview of the subject and the report's purpose and that its content should be sufficiently general to allow readers to easily engage and comprehend the contents of the report.

Hence, the findings specifically found these two discrepancies:

The findings claim that that students frequently neglected to mention the background theories or relevant literature in the introduction section which is crucial because it can be replicated, reproduced, and reapplied to the current study. It is also important to convince the readers that the theory is still valid to be used for their investigation.

Study findings also revealed that the introductions lacked the necessary general information to guide readers through the project's subject matter and provided readers with little information to comprehend the relevance and context of the study.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 27 Apr 2023

Veeramuthu Veerappan, Faculty of Applied Communication, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia

27 Apr 2023

Author Response
Dear Dr Ilyana,

Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments.

List of Amendments :

Details of amendment made in ... Continue reading
Dear Dr Ilyana,

Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments.

List of Amendments :

Details of amendment made in the manuscript: Only a paraphrased and simplified version of the revision was added in the manuscript. The full text was not reported in the manuscript due to word limitation allowed by publisher.

Reviewer 1

The findings lack discussion such as the indication of what it means if the certain steps occur less in the report. Provide discussion and interpretation of the findings.

The following is added and paraphrased:

The introduction section of the ELR corpus consists of one main move, which is presenting background information, and four subsequent steps: referencing research purposes, providing an overview of the subject under study, referencing theoretical knowledge in the field, and identifying the primary apparatus used to conduct the experiment. The majority of the ELRs examined featured all four processes, but the study also discovered that the sequence and frequency of these steps varied among the ELRs examined. Overall, the study's findings are highly consistent with research on biochemistry articles from earlier studies, showing that this structure is typical in the industry. Therefore, authors in the field of ELR typically start their introductions by giving a general overview of the subject and establishing the background information for their experiment. This indicates ELR writers assume their readers are already familiar with the subject and do not need to provide a thorough introduction.This would imply that ELR writers are especially interested in identifying and resolving distinct issues within their field. This study suggest that ELR writers are more concerned with presenting their own research than they are with summarising earlier work in the same topic.This may also indicate that ELR writers have a keen interest in finding and solving specific research gaps in their area of study. The specific research problem or hypothesis that they provide holds mores significance to ELR writers.When analysing these results, it's critical to keep in mind that the percentages provided only reflect the frequency of each move over the whole ELR corpus and may not necessarily be representative of all introductions in the field. Furthermore, it's likely that the frequency of each motion may differ based on several factors. Yet, these results offer helpful information about the general structure and relevance of introductions in the field of ELR.

Reviewer 1

Conclusion summarises the whole thing by pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the study. But it is not connected properly to the findings.

How or in what way does it mismatch with the university guidelines? What content is lacking here?

Revision made:

The study's conclusion is based on several findings made during the investigation of the ELR corpus. First, the study identified discrepancies between university guidelines and students' final outputs, particularly the exclusion of underpinning theories or important literature reviews. The students require more guidance in comprehending the expectations of the genre and the significance of incorporating background information is corroborated by this study. Additionally, the study revealed that there wasn't enough content in the introduction section of the ELR corpus to give readers a clear understanding of the experiment's topic. This finding is similar to the findings of other studies that students require assistance in honing their writing skills so they can incorporate the relevant details they need to engage with their readers.

Reviewer 1

The findings of the study also confirmed that while experiential learning is a good strategy, it might not always add to the body of knowledge in the engineering area. Collaboration between English for Academic (EAP) practitioners and subject matter experts from the engineering profession is necessary to advance genre-based writing instruction and to determine students' learning needs. Overall, the study's results call for a need for collaborative effort to enhance writing skills as well as the need to support students in comprehending the requirements of the ELR genre.

The study's conclusion highlights various discrepancies between the recommended format for lab reports following the university’s guidelines and the actual report the students' produce. Firstly, the absence of underpinning theories or relevant literature review, which is important to convince readers that the theory guides the current study. Next, there is a lack of sufficient general information to guide and engage readers to the study's purpose and need. These results are consistent with the Faculty’s report guidelines that the introduction section should give a general overview of the subject and the report's purpose and that its content should be sufficiently general to allow readers to easily engage and comprehend the contents of the report.

Hence, the findings specifically found these two discrepancies:

The findings claim that that students frequently neglected to mention the background theories or relevant literature in the introduction section which is crucial because it can be replicated, reproduced, and reapplied to the current study. It is also important to convince the readers that the theory is still valid to be used for their investigation.

Study findings also revealed that the introductions lacked the necessary general information to guide readers through the project's subject matter and provided readers with little information to comprehend the relevance and context of the study.
Dear Dr Ilyana,

Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments.

List of Amendments :

Details of amendment made in the manuscript: Only a paraphrased and simplified version of the revision was added in the manuscript. The full text was not reported in the manuscript due to word limitation allowed by publisher.

Reviewer 1

The findings lack discussion such as the indication of what it means if the certain steps occur less in the report. Provide discussion and interpretation of the findings.

The following is added and paraphrased:

The introduction section of the ELR corpus consists of one main move, which is presenting background information, and four subsequent steps: referencing research purposes, providing an overview of the subject under study, referencing theoretical knowledge in the field, and identifying the primary apparatus used to conduct the experiment. The majority of the ELRs examined featured all four processes, but the study also discovered that the sequence and frequency of these steps varied among the ELRs examined. Overall, the study's findings are highly consistent with research on biochemistry articles from earlier studies, showing that this structure is typical in the industry. Therefore, authors in the field of ELR typically start their introductions by giving a general overview of the subject and establishing the background information for their experiment. This indicates ELR writers assume their readers are already familiar with the subject and do not need to provide a thorough introduction.This would imply that ELR writers are especially interested in identifying and resolving distinct issues within their field. This study suggest that ELR writers are more concerned with presenting their own research than they are with summarising earlier work in the same topic.This may also indicate that ELR writers have a keen interest in finding and solving specific research gaps in their area of study. The specific research problem or hypothesis that they provide holds mores significance to ELR writers.When analysing these results, it's critical to keep in mind that the percentages provided only reflect the frequency of each move over the whole ELR corpus and may not necessarily be representative of all introductions in the field. Furthermore, it's likely that the frequency of each motion may differ based on several factors. Yet, these results offer helpful information about the general structure and relevance of introductions in the field of ELR.

Reviewer 1

Conclusion summarises the whole thing by pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the study. But it is not connected properly to the findings.

How or in what way does it mismatch with the university guidelines? What content is lacking here?

Revision made:

The study's conclusion is based on several findings made during the investigation of the ELR corpus. First, the study identified discrepancies between university guidelines and students' final outputs, particularly the exclusion of underpinning theories or important literature reviews. The students require more guidance in comprehending the expectations of the genre and the significance of incorporating background information is corroborated by this study. Additionally, the study revealed that there wasn't enough content in the introduction section of the ELR corpus to give readers a clear understanding of the experiment's topic. This finding is similar to the findings of other studies that students require assistance in honing their writing skills so they can incorporate the relevant details they need to engage with their readers.

Reviewer 1

The findings of the study also confirmed that while experiential learning is a good strategy, it might not always add to the body of knowledge in the engineering area. Collaboration between English for Academic (EAP) practitioners and subject matter experts from the engineering profession is necessary to advance genre-based writing instruction and to determine students' learning needs. Overall, the study's results call for a need for collaborative effort to enhance writing skills as well as the need to support students in comprehending the requirements of the ELR genre.

The study's conclusion highlights various discrepancies between the recommended format for lab reports following the university’s guidelines and the actual report the students' produce. Firstly, the absence of underpinning theories or relevant literature review, which is important to convince readers that the theory guides the current study. Next, there is a lack of sufficient general information to guide and engage readers to the study's purpose and need. These results are consistent with the Faculty’s report guidelines that the introduction section should give a general overview of the subject and the report's purpose and that its content should be sufficiently general to allow readers to easily engage and comprehend the contents of the report.

Hence, the findings specifically found these two discrepancies:

The findings claim that that students frequently neglected to mention the background theories or relevant literature in the introduction section which is crucial because it can be replicated, reproduced, and reapplied to the current study. It is also important to convince the readers that the theory is still valid to be used for their investigation.

Study findings also revealed that the introductions lacked the necessary general information to guide readers through the project's subject matter and provided readers with little information to comprehend the relevance and context of the study.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 09 Feb 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3	4
Version 3 (revision) 22 Mar 24	read			read
Version 2 (revision) 27 Apr 23			read	read
Version 1 09 Feb 22	read	read

Ilyana Jalaluddin, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia
Donnie Tulud, University of Southern Mindanao, Cotabato, Philippines
Thi Ngoc Phuong Le, University of Foreign Language Studies - The University of Danang, Đà Nẵng, Vietnam
Enrique Sologuren Insúa, Universidad de los Andes, Las Condes, Chile

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

3 Views

26 Apr 2024 | for Version 3

Ilyana Jalaluddin, Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia

3 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

No further comments

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

ESL Writing, Literacy and Technology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

6 Views

16 Apr 2024 | for Version 3

Enrique Sologuren Insúa, Universidad de los Andes, Las Condes, Santiago Metropolitan Region, Chile

6 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Revisions are appropriate. I have no further comments on the article. The observations for improvement have been incorporated.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Applied linguistics; Genre Analysis; Literacy in specialised contexts; Academic and professional writing; Writing in STEM areas.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

16 Views

09 Aug 2023 | for Version 2

Enrique Sologuren Insúa, Universidad de los Andes, Las Condes, Santiago Metropolitan Region, Chile

16 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

The article is clear and comprehensible. It uses a theoretical and methodological framework appropriate to the nature of the object of study.

The specialized bibliography used is complete and sufficient.

The study follows a firmly established tradition in genre theory and provides new knowledge about the discursive rhetorical characteristics of the texts and the difficulties that students manifest in the texture and writing of the text.

The methodology needs to be reinforced. It is necessary to indicate the total number of words in the corpus.

There is also a lack of data on the statistical analytical procedures, i.e. how the data was analyzed to obtain the respective percentages: was a statistical test used, was only descriptive statistics used? The quantitative description procedures need to be made clearer.

In the conclusion the difficulties are presented, but they are not framed within a broader discussion of literacy processes in engineering. In that sense, it is suggested to add a more robust discussion component, either in the results section or in the conclusion section.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Applied linguistics; Genre Analysis; Literacy in specialised contexts; Academic and professional writing; Writing in STEM areas.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

04 Apr 2024

Veeramuthu Veerappan, Learning Institute for Empowerment, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia

Reviewer 2
1. The methodology needs to be reinforced. It is necessary to indicate the total number of words in the corpus.

The corpus consisting N==35 was converted and compiled into pdf and the number of words obtained are 47194.

2. There is also a lack of data on the statistical analytical procedures, i.e. how the data was analyzed to obtain the respective percentages: was a statistical test used, was only descriptive statistics used? The quantitative description procedures need to be made clearer.

This study is qualitatively done. A genre analysis was conducted to determine the moves and steps that occur in the introduction section by adapting the categories outlined by Ref. 1 framework. Prior to using Ngowu’s model, a pilot test was conducted to examine the suitability of this model to the current study on introduction section of EELR. 15 EELRs were selected and examined to determine the match in the description. There were more than 60% match in the categories outlined by the model and EELRs under examination, making it the most suitable analytical framework that can be modified and replicated. The total sample size collected was N=74. These samples were further scrutinized and minimized to select the EELRs that contain the most complete and comprehensive information. Quality of data, amount of information, nature of topic, scope of study, design and method used in a qualitative study are the few factors used in determining sample size. ⁹To control the variable, only EELRs that received distinction grades of 4 and above score over maximum score of 5 awarded by lab instructors were selected to maximise the possibility that it conforms to EE disciplinary standards.The sample size of this study is maintained at N=35 as these samples best represented the EE laboratory genre and reached a saturation level with similar recurring moves and steps. To further validate the data, a semi-structured interview was conducted with an engineering content specialist. According to the subject specialist, the total intake of electrical engineering students in this tertiary institution is not more than 100 students a year and, in each trimester, these students are engaged in writing at least 4 EELRs. [27] stated that the sample size for a qualitative study is influenced by several factors, including the quality of data, scope of the study, nature of topic, information richness from each subject, the qualitative methodology utilized, and the study's design. Thus, the data set of N=35 represents the final year EE student population of this institution. The procedures for conducting move analysis in this study adapted a corpus-based model outlined by Ref. 2 BCU approach. This approach adopted (18) and followed the procedures to determine the rhetorical function and meaning of each move and step of each text, conduct a pilot-coding to test and fine-tune the definitions of move purposes manually by hand, develop a coding protocol with clear definitions and examples of move types and steps, code the full set of texts, with an inter-rater reliability check to confirm a clear understanding of move definitions and realization of moves/steps, revise the coding protocol to resolve any discrepancies revealed by the inter-rater reliability check or newly discovered' moves/steps, and re-coding problematic areas, conduct analysis on move features and other corpus-facilitated analyses and finally describe the corpus of texts in terms of obligatory, conventional or optional move structures.

3. In the conclusion the difficulties are presented, but they are not framed within a broader discussion of literacy processes in engineering. In that sense, it is suggested to add a more robust discussion component, either in the results section or in the conclusion section.

It is advised that discipline-specific engineers and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) practitioners, such as English writing instructors, work together in response to these findings. Through this partnership, the unique learning needs of engineering students can be identified, and genre-based writing training can be effectively tailored to meet these requirements. Students can improve the quality and clarity of their lab reports as well as better fulfil the requirements stated in the university guidelines by doing this. The investigation found substantial variances between the final report deliverables produced by students and the guidelines set by the university. The absence of pertinent literature evaluations and background theories is one of the most noticeable differences. This shortcoming raises questions about the theoretical underpinnings of laboratory tests. The lack of references to past studies or attempts at replication raises the possibility that undergraduates are handling laboratory experiments quite independently. The experiments may not be as compelling or have a broad application if they lack a theoretical foundation. There appears to be a lack of information provided regarding the experiment and the reasoning behind the apparatus choice. The goal of the experiment and its applicability may not be evident to readers because of this lack of background information.
Moreover, the examination revealed discrepancies from the suggested chronological sequence while writing reports. Such deviation from the recommended structure can make the evaluation procedure more difficult and compromise the reports overall cohesion and clarity. The study also underlined how crucial it is for laboratory reports to have accurate referencing and citations. The contribution of laboratory reports to the larger corpus of knowledge and literature is constrained in the absence of these academic practices. For students to place their experiments in the larger scientific discourse, it is imperative that they comprehend the need to cite prior engineering research and theories. It is important to recognise that this study is limited to electrical engineering ELRs, and the results might not be immediately applicable to other engineering subfields. Future research should consider data triangulation from other sources, including expert validation and interviews, to provide a more thorough knowledge of how various discourse groups approach the drafting of laboratory reports. In the long run, this comprehensive study strategy can deepen our awareness of the reasons for the adoption of writing styles and norms by particular discourse groups and improve our comprehension of literacy processes in engineering.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

13 Views

25 Jul 2023 | for Version 2

Thi Ngoc Phuong Le, University of Foreign Language Studies - The University of Danang, Đà Nẵng, Vietnam

13 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

The article provides a move analysis of the Introduction section of electrical engineering undergraduate laboratory reports based on a corpus of 35 reports, adopting the approach proposed by Biber, Connor, and Upton (2007).

The research findings show that the Introduction section of electrical engineering undergraduate laboratory reports is structured in one move and its four subsequent steps.

The study provides a window into how the introductory section of electrical engineering laboratory reports is organised and how much its organisational patterning comply with or deviate from university guidelines.

There are a few concerns related to the study design and the way the results are interpreted.

It is apparent from the results presentation that the study predicate its move analysis on a pre-existing model built on university guidelines. When this is the case, such an analytical model should be provided.

To ensure the reliability of the data, three coders were involved, including the researcher, an engineering content specialist, and a language instructor. However, it is not quite clear how the collaboration was implemented and what inter-coder reliability coefficient was used and how it was calculated.

Extracted from the corpus should be provided to show content realisation of the move and the steps.

Lack of this information may make it a challenge to replicate the study.

It would be great if insights from electrical engineering instructors who marked the students' reports were incorporated into the analysis and interpretation of the results. It would be interesting to seek their comments on the mismatches between student writing and university guidelines.

Also, reference should be made to the epistemological properties of electrical engineering to explain why the laboratory report in electrical engineering is structured that way.

Finally, the manuscript should be proofread again to get error free.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Genre analysis; move analysis; rhetorical features; phraseology; corpus linguistics; academic writing

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

04 Apr 2024

Veeramuthu Veerappan, Learning Institute for Empowerment, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia

Comments from reviewer 1
Details of amendment made in the manuscript based on reviewers comments

1. It is apparent from the results presentation that the study predicate its move analysis on a pre-existing model built on university guidelines. When this is the case, such an analytical model should be provided.
Revision and/or justification:

The coursework specification guideline was provided to students before they embark into writing ELR which was discussed and agreed with students prior to assigning the lab report task.

Here is the guideline provided by the university:
To provide FOE’s method writing guideline

According to guidelines provided by Faculty of Engineering (FOE) in MMU, the introduction section should contain the following:

An introduction is necessary to give an overview of the overall topic and the purpose of the report.
The motivation to the initialization of the experimental work can be included.
Its content should be general enough to orientate the reader gracefully into the subject materials.

Based on the university guidelines, below are the rhetorical structures required for the introduction section.
1.This section is to discuss the theoretical aspects leading to the experiment.
2.Typically, this involves the historical background of the theories published in the research literature and the questions or ambiguities arose in this theoretical work.
3.Citations for the sources of information should be given in one of the standard bibliographic formats (for example, using square brackets with the corresponding number [2] that points to the List of References).
4.Explore this background to prepare the readers to read the main body of the report.
5.It should contain sufficient materials to enable the readers to understand why the set of data are collected, and what are the salient features to observe in the graph, charts and tables presented in the later sections.
6.Depending on the length and complexity of the report, the introduction and the theoretical background may be combined into one introductory section (FOE)

2. To ensure the reliability of the data, three coders were involved, including the researcher, an engineering content specialist, and a language instructor. However, it is not quite clear how the collaboration was implemented and what inter-coder reliability coefficient was used and how it was calculated

As to address the trustworthiness of this study, a coding protocol was developed with definitions and examples for mandatory, conventional and optional moves and an inter-coder reliability check was conducted among three coders., consisting firstly the researcher, secondly an engineering content specialist and thirdly a language expert to determine disagreement or discrepancies and the coding protocol was revised. A coding scheme was developed to identify rhetorical moves and steps in introduction section and also to control the variability in the analysis that guide all coders. There were three coders involved in the development and modification of the coding scheme who is the researcher himself, secondly an engineering content specialist and thirdly a language instructor. The reason for including two other coders apart from the researcher is to ensure inter-coder reliability. The second and third coders were trained to read two similar samples of EELR’s and identify the moves and steps in the Introduction section.
Cohen & Kappa coefficient, a statistical measure that takes into consideration random agreement betweenagreement between coders, was used to evaluate intercoder reliability. To determine the degree of agreement above and beyond what would be predicted by chance, kappa statistics were computed. An online calculator was used to calculate Kappa statistics by comparing the coded data for a subset of the EELRs from all three coders. Following their separate codes for the subset of reports, the coders got together to discuss their consensus and differences. Each coder then went on to rate nine more reports. With a coefficient of 0.91, the Kappa coefficient obtained from this analysis demonstrated a high degree of agreement. This supports the validity of the study’s conclusions and shows a high level of dependability in the coding procedure.

3. Extracted from the corpus should be provided to show content realisation of the move and the steps.Lack of this information may make it a challenge to replicate the study

To depict how the texts are analysed, the extracts of text from EELR corpus which show moves and steps are exemplified. The move and steps are identified such as (M1S1 means Move 1 Step 1). The extracted text used for exemplification is bolded and italicised to show the differences in analysis. Example:

Move 1
Presenting Background Information
Move 1 Step 1
Reference to research purposes
-To verify Thevenin’s Theorem.
-To verify Superposition Theorem.

Please refer to manuscript for detailed exemplification.

4. It would be great if insights from electrical engineering instructors who marked the students' reports were incorporated into the analysis and interpretation of the results. It would be interesting to seek their comments on the mismatches between student writing and university guidelines.

The insights of the engineering content specialists towards students’ compliance to university report writing guidelines based on semi-structured interviews are discussed in method and result sections. The mismatches highlight the existing gaps in writing this genre.

5. Also, reference should be made to the epistemological properties of electrical engineering to explain why the laboratory report in electrical engineering is structured that way.

11 new references on epistemological properties of electrical engineering studies studies are discussed and added:

26. Caglak, S. (2017). Does hands-on science practices make an impact on achievement in science? A meta-analysis. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 3(1), 69-87
27. . Mertler, C. A. & Charles, C. M. (2005). Introduction to educational research.(5th Edition). Boston: MA: Pearson
28. Winberg, C., Winberg, S., Jacobs, C., Garraway, J., & Engel-Hills, P. (2016). ‘I take engineering with me': epistemological transitions across an engineering curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(4), 398-414.
29. Baillie, Caroline, and Rita Armstrong. 2013. “Crossing Knowledge Boundaries and Thresholds: Challenging the Dominant Discourses Within Engineering Education.” In Engineering Education for Social Justice: Critical Explorations and Opportunities, edited by Juan Lucena, 135–152. Dordrecht: Springer
30. Carstensen, Anna-Karin, and Jonte Bernhard. 2008. “Threshold Concepts and Keys to the Portal of Understanding: Some Examples from Electrical Engineering.” In Threshold Concepts Within the Disciplines, edited by Ray Land, Jan H. F. Meyer, and Jan Smith, 143–154. Rotterdam: Sense
31. Garrison, Lari, Daniel M. Amos, Reed Stevens, and Andy Jocuns. 2007. “Engineering as Lifestyle and a Meritocracy of Difficulty: Two Pervasive Beliefs among Engineering Students and Their Possible Effects.” Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition of the American Society for Engineering Education, Honolulu, HI. https://peer.asee.org/2791.
32. McKenna, Ann, Jeffrey Froyd, C. Judson King, Thomas Litzinger, and Elaine Seymour. 2011. “The Complexities of Transforming Engineering Higher Education: Report on Forum on Characterizing the Impact and Diffusion of Transformative Engineering Education Innovations.” https://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=52358
33. McKenna, Ann, Jeffrey Froyd, and Thomas Litzinger. 2014. “The Complexities of Transforming Engineering Higher Education: Preparing for Next Steps.” Journal of Engineering Education 103 (2): 188–192. doi:10.1002/jee.20039
34. Beck, John, and Michael F. D. Young. 2005. “The Assault on the Professions and the Restructuring of Academic and Professional Identities: A Bernsteinian Analysis.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 26: 183–197. doi:10.1080/0142569042000294165.
35. Bernstein, Basil. 2000. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research and Critique. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
36. Stiwne, Elinor Edvardsson, and Thomas Jungert. 2010. “Engineering Students’ Experiences of Transition from Study to Work.” Journal of Education and Work 23 (5): 417–437. doi:10. 1080/13639080.2010.515967.
37. Gumaelius, L., Skogh, I. B., Matthíasdóttir, Á., & Pantzos, P. (2024). Engineering education in change. A case study on the impact of digital transformation on content and teaching methods in different engineering disciplines. European Journal of Engineering Education, 49(1), 70-93

6. Finally, the manuscript should be proofread again to get error free.

The manuscript is thoroughly proofread for content, language and grammar. Changes are tracked.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

15 Views

20 Jun 2022 | for Version 1

Donnie Tulud, Graduate School and Department of English Language and Literature, University of Southern Mindanao, Cotabato, Philippines

15 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Genre analysis and discourse analysis

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

27 Apr 2023

Veeramuthu Veerappan, Faculty of Applied Communication, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia

Dear Dr Donnie,
Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments given.

List of Amendments :
Details of amendment made in the manuscript. Only a paraphrased and simplified version of the revision was added in the manuscript. The full text was not reported in the manuscript due to word limitation.

Introduction

Reviewer 2

The writer can provide pieces of information to make the study more problematic. Thus, it is necessary for the writer to use other studies as reference that have explored other research introduction as corpora.

Revision with justification:

There are several related concepts and studies that could substantiate the current study and establish the research gap. Analysis of genre in academic writing has received a lot of attention (Swales, 1990; Bhatia, 1993; Hyland, 2000). Finding the norms, expectations, and communication goals of certain discourse groups is the task of genre analysis (Swales, 1990), and offers a theoretical framework to analyze the genre of ELR introductions. Writing skills in engineering education has been the focus of studies, and it has been determined that engineering students have difficulty writing clearly (Larson & Murray, 2008; Lunsford, 2012). Notable studies (Swales, 1990; Hyland, 2000; Samraj, 2002) have been conducted on the moves and writing styles employed in academic writing. The concept and framework bridge the research gap for all the reason stated above, making this study significant and relevant.

There may be a few causes for the recent lack of attention paid to this subject. Research in the field of engineering education has switched its attention to other areas, namely the use of technology in teaching and learning, assessment procedures, or diversity and inclusion in engineering classrooms. Moreover, the material already available on ELR introduction sections may be deemed sufficient and complete. In addition, the scant attention paid to this field in recent years may also have been a result of a lack of funding or other resources for research in this field.

Methods

Reviewer 2

Why did you not consider the framework of JOHN SWALES which is the CARS model in analyzing the introduction, since you made mention of CARS model in your introduction?

Justification

This study adopted Ngowu's framework because it is better suited to meet the study's objectives and unique research problems. The Ngowu's framework has been adopted or accepted in the field of engineering education research. The intention was also to apply and test this framework for assessing the introduction section of ELRs. It's also possible that the study compared the findings after using both frameworks for their analysis, but this may be beyond the scope of this study and could be recommended for future study. Generally, the choice of framework depends on various criteria, including the research topic, aims, and the researcher's experience and skill with the framework. Since the research was conducted on all IMRDC sections of ELR, Ngowu (1997) framework was found to be more suitable.

Results

Reviewer 2

Therefore, in presenting the results, the writer should include salient linguistic markers that realize each step and move.

Also, the writer, should also get the frequency of each move and step to determine what move is obligatory, optional, non-evident and conventional.

Response

Thank you for your comments on our study. We appreciate your feedback and have carefully considered your suggestions. Regarding the lack of linguistic markers in our study, we acknowledge that these are important in analyzing the introduction section of Engineering Laboratory Reports (ELRs). However, we focused on identifying the rhetorical moves and move patterns used by engineering students in writing the introduction section of ELRs. The linguistic markers are not included as they have been published in a previous study (DOI: 10.2991/978-2-494069-61-9_24
and https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/cless-22/125980201

We agree that combining the framework used in our study with the linguistic markers identified in previous research could provide a more comprehensive analysis of ELRs. Therefore, we plan to consider incorporating these markers in future research to enhance the analysis of ELRs. We appreciate your suggestions and feedback, and we will make sure to incorporate them into future research.

Thank you for your feedback. We agree that providing samples from the corpora on how the moves and steps are realized in the introduction section of ELR would have been useful for the readers. We have categorised the type of moves to obligatory, conventional and optional in the revision. However, due to the limited word count of the journal, we had to prioritize providing more significant information on the study's aims, methodology, and findings. Therefore, we hope that the description of the methodology used, and the findings of the study provided in this manuscript will be sufficient for readers to understand the study's contribution to the field.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

18 Views

04 Apr 2022 | for Version 1

Ilyana Jalaluddin, Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia

18 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Literacy studies, ESL writing skills, Technology and literacy

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

27 Apr 2023

Veeramuthu Veerappan, Faculty of Applied Communication, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia

Dear Dr Ilyana,

Thank you for the feedback provided. Below are our revision based on each comments.

List of Amendments :

Details of amendment made in the manuscript: Only a paraphrased and simplified version of the revision was added in the manuscript. The full text was not reported in the manuscript due to word limitation allowed by publisher.

Reviewer 1

The findings lack discussion such as the indication of what it means if the certain steps occur less in the report. Provide discussion and interpretation of the findings.

The following is added and paraphrased:

The introduction section of the ELR corpus consists of one main move, which is presenting background information, and four subsequent steps: referencing research purposes, providing an overview of the subject under study, referencing theoretical knowledge in the field, and identifying the primary apparatus used to conduct the experiment. The majority of the ELRs examined featured all four processes, but the study also discovered that the sequence and frequency of these steps varied among the ELRs examined. Overall, the study's findings are highly consistent with research on biochemistry articles from earlier studies, showing that this structure is typical in the industry. Therefore, authors in the field of ELR typically start their introductions by giving a general overview of the subject and establishing the background information for their experiment. This indicates ELR writers assume their readers are already familiar with the subject and do not need to provide a thorough introduction.This would imply that ELR writers are especially interested in identifying and resolving distinct issues within their field. This study suggest that ELR writers are more concerned with presenting their own research than they are with summarising earlier work in the same topic.This may also indicate that ELR writers have a keen interest in finding and solving specific research gaps in their area of study. The specific research problem or hypothesis that they provide holds mores significance to ELR writers.When analysing these results, it's critical to keep in mind that the percentages provided only reflect the frequency of each move over the whole ELR corpus and may not necessarily be representative of all introductions in the field. Furthermore, it's likely that the frequency of each motion may differ based on several factors. Yet, these results offer helpful information about the general structure and relevance of introductions in the field of ELR.

Reviewer 1

Conclusion summarises the whole thing by pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the study. But it is not connected properly to the findings.
How or in what way does it mismatch with the university guidelines? What content is lacking here?

Revision made:

The study's conclusion is based on several findings made during the investigation of the ELR corpus. First, the study identified discrepancies between university guidelines and students' final outputs, particularly the exclusion of underpinning theories or important literature reviews. The students require more guidance in comprehending the expectations of the genre and the significance of incorporating background information is corroborated by this study. Additionally, the study revealed that there wasn't enough content in the introduction section of the ELR corpus to give readers a clear understanding of the experiment's topic. This finding is similar to the findings of other studies that students require assistance in honing their writing skills so they can incorporate the relevant details they need to engage with their readers.

Reviewer 1

The findings of the study also confirmed that while experiential learning is a good strategy, it might not always add to the body of knowledge in the engineering area. Collaboration between English for Academic (EAP) practitioners and subject matter experts from the engineering profession is necessary to advance genre-based writing instruction and to determine students' learning needs. Overall, the study's results call for a need for collaborative effort to enhance writing skills as well as the need to support students in comprehending the requirements of the ELR genre.

The study's conclusion highlights various discrepancies between the recommended format for lab reports following the university’s guidelines and the actual report the students' produce. Firstly, the absence of underpinning theories or relevant literature review, which is important to convince readers that the theory guides the current study. Next, there is a lack of sufficient general information to guide and engage readers to the study's purpose and need. These results are consistent with the Faculty’s report guidelines that the introduction section should give a general overview of the subject and the report's purpose and that its content should be sufficiently general to allow readers to easily engage and comprehend the contents of the report.

Hence, the findings specifically found these two discrepancies:

The findings claim that that students frequently neglected to mention the background theories or relevant literature in the introduction section which is crucial because it can be replicated, reproduced, and reapplied to the current study. It is also important to convince the readers that the theory is still valid to be used for their investigation.
Study findings also revealed that the introductions lacked the necessary general information to guide readers through the project's subject matter and provided readers with little information to comprehend the relevance and context of the study.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Nwogu KN: The medical research paper: Structure and function. Engl. Specif. Purp. 1997; 16(2): 119–138. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Biber D, Connor U, Upton TA: Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. John Benjamins Publishing; 2007; (Vol. 28. ).

[3] 3. Swales J: Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990

[4] 4. Masoud MI: Writing a laboratory report for senior electrical engineering courses: Guidelines and recommendations. Proceedings of 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON 2017. [7942870] IEEE Computer Society. 2017; (pp. 340–346). Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Parkinson J: The student laboratory report genre: A genre analysis. Engl. Specif. Purp. 2017; 45: 1–13. Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Kalaskas AB: Science lab report writing in postsecondary education: Mediating teaching and learning strategies between students and instructors (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University).2013.

[7] 7. Bhatia VK: Integrating products, processes and participants in professional writing. Candlin CN, Hyland K, editors. Writing: Texts, Process and Practices. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.; 1999a.

[8] 8. Bhatia VK: Applied Genre Analysis: A MultiPerspective Model. Ibérica. 2002; 4: 3–19.

[9] 9. Morse JM: Determining sample size. Qual. Health Res. 2000; 10: 3–5. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Beer D, McMurrey D: A guide to writing as an engineer. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1997.

[11] 11. Lannon JM: Technical Writing. 6th ed.New York: HarperCollins College Publishers; 1993.

[12] 12. Flowerdew L: The problem-solution pattern in apprentice vs. professional technical writing: An application of appraisal theory. Aston G, Bernardini S, Stewart D, editors. Corpora and language learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2004; (pp. 125–135).

[13] 13. Flowerdew L: Corpus-based analyses of the problem–solution pattern: A phraseological approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2008.

[14] 14. McKenna B: How engineers write: An empirical study of engineering report writing. Appl. Linguis. 1997; 18(2): 189–211. Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Hopkins A, Dudley-Evans T: A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. Engl. Specif. Purp. 1988; 7: 113–121. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Kanoksilapatham B: A corpus-based investigation of scientific research articles: Linking move analysis with multidimensional analysis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.2003.

[17] 17. Kanoksilapatham B: Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. Engl. Specif. Purp. 2005; 24: 269–292.

[18] 18. Kanoksilapatham B: Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. 2007; 73–119.

[19] 19. Veerappan V, Ahmad M, Aris M, et al.: Genre Analysis of Introduction Section in Electrical Engineering Undergraduate Laboratory Reports. figshare. Dataset. 2021. Publisher Full Text

Genre analysis of introduction section in electrical engineering undergraduate laboratory reports

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Results and discussion

Move 1: Presenting background information

Move 1 Step 1: Reference to research purposes

Move 1 Step 2: Giving an overview of the topic under study

Move 1 Step 3: Reference to theoretical knowledge in the field.

Move 1 Step 4: Stating the main apparatus used to conduct the experiment

Combination of move patterns in Introduction section

Table 1. Model for Introduction section of ELR

Conclusion

Data availability

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated