Organising Rhetorical Components in Verbal Presentation of Scientific Research Outcomes: A Systematic Scoping Review Текст научной статьи по специальности «Языкознание и литературоведение»

https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.18490

Organising Rhetorical Components in Verbal Presentation of Scientific Research Outcomes: A Systematic Scoping Review

Marina Ivanova 1 , Nataliya Mekeko 1 , Nadezhda Arupova 2®

Citation: Ivanova M., Mekeko N., & Arupova N. (2023). Organising rhetorical components in verbal presentation of scientific research outcomes: A systematic scoping review. Journal of Language and Education, 9(4), 169-179. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.18490

Correspondence:

Marina Ivanova,

e-mail: ivanova_ma@pfur.ru

Received: August 03, 2023 Accepted: December 15, 2023 Published: December 30, 2023

1 Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russian Federation

2 MGIMO University, Moscow, Russian Federation

ABSTRACT

Background: The rhetorical structure of various genres of written scientific communication has been extensively covered in articles by contemporary researchers from different countries. However, the rhetorical structure of oral scientific presentations accompanying the presentation and defence of graduation theses, scientific research, and others has not received the same level of detailed study and attention. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of presenting conducted research significantly influences the degree and depth of its further acceptance by the readership. Purpose: to summarise the literature on the rhetorical structure of verbal presentation of scientific research results accompanied by a presentation.

Materials and Methods: We conducted a search of the Scopus bibliographic database on March 2nd, 2023, and carried out a related grey literature search on March 27th, 2023. We screened the titles and abstracts of the retrieved records. From these records, we extracted demographic characteristics related to the rhetorical structure of oral presentations representing scientific research results. Following this, we extracted passages from empirical studies that described empirically derived moves and steps in speeches during oral presentations. These moves and steps were summarised and presented in the form of a universal matrix for the oral presentation of scientific research results

Results: In the result of the search request 63 articles were found. Having screened all the papers we revealed that only 11 of them met our predetermined inclusion criteria. All these papers were journal research articles. It is worth stating that the majority of the studies were dedicated to rhetorical structure in written presentation of scientific research outcomes and there is a lack of papers related to moves and steps of verbal presentation of scientific research outcomes.

Conclusion: This systematic scoping review identified the moves and steps highlighted by authors in the reviewed articles within the oral speech accompanying the presentation of scientific research results to an audience. This matrix can be used to construct a more effective oral presentation of scientific research outcomes. Limitations of the work include the restriction to English language articles and the fact that the methodological quality of the articles included in our extraction was not assessed.

KEYWORDS

academic verbal presentation, academic oral presentation, moves and steps, rhetorical structure, rhetorical component

INTRODUCTION

Rhetorical structure of various genres of written scholarly communication has gained vast popularity and received the attention of many researchers. To investigate the rhetorical structure of different

genres of written scholarly communication many researchers concentrate on the genre-based approach developed by Swales (Swales, 1990; Swales, 2004). Researchers have thoroughly explored the rhetorical structure of moves and steps in various genres of scholarly communi-

cation, illuminating their most effective architecture through the lens of different scientific disciplines' scope (Tikhonova et al., 2023a; Tikhonova et al., 2023b). Recently, there has been a growing focus on examining the rhetorical structures within various sections of academic articles, particularly research papers, across different disciplines. Studies have been conducted to identify and detail the specific moves and steps in sections such as abstract (Gobekci, 2023; Galaidin & Bednarova-Gibova, 2003; Zibalas & SinkQniene, 2019; Abdol-lahpour & Gholami, 2019), introduction (Lu et al., 2021; Aleshinskaya, 2023), and results and discussion (Tikhonova et al., 2023; Thanajirawat & Chuea-nongthon, 2022; Zivkovic, 2022; Amirian et al., 2008; Al-Shujairi & Al-Manaseer, 2022). Additionally, some research has been devoted to understanding the rhetorical organisation of academic book reviews (Mot-ta-Roth, 1998; Junqueira, 2013; Sandova, 2018), with Zivkovic (2022) specifically investigating the rhetorical structure of university lecture introductions.

Academic written works and their oral presentations represent two interlinked yet distinct facets of academic communication. Oral presentation, a crucial spoken genre in this field, is a vital skill for both early researchers and experienced academics. It involves the presentation of well-structured and coherent research ideas, issues, and findings to both specialised and general audiences. In such presentations, researchers are given a platform to share observations, introduce hypotheses, display and interpret study results, or summarise existing knowledge and upcoming research trajectories in their field (Alexandrov & Hennerici, 2012).

Every form of communication aims for effectiveness, meaning it should help the communicator achieve their objectives (Kourkouta & Papathanasiou, 2014). Likewise, a scientific oral presentation, recognized as a genre within academic communication, possesses specific goals it seeks to accomplish (Kaur & Mohamad Ali, 2017). A primary objective of a scientific oral presentation is to engage the audience, convey knowledge and ideas with clarity and logic, and ensure the audience comprehends the research effectively. Success in such presentations hinges not just on the content but also significantly on the presenter's ability to structure the information engagingly (Watson, 2014). Employing rhetorical moves and steps effectively can enhance the presentation performance, allowing for a seamless transition through the introduction of the research context, clarification of the message, and fostering a connection between the presenter and the audience.

However, the rhetorical structure of verbal scholarly communication such as speech following presentation during defence of graduation theses, performance of scientific research results at conferences, and others has not received the same level of detailed study and attention as written forms of scientific communications (Chang & Huang, 2015; Kaur & Mohamad Ali, 2017; Ducasse & Brown, 2023).

The purpose of the current review is to summarise the literature on the rhetorical structure of a verbal presentation of scientific research results accompanied by a presentation. The Systematic Scoping Review was selected as the most representative and objective tool for defining the scope of the research on the stated issue, allowing for the synthesis of extracted data into a new dataset (Raitskaya & Tikhonova, 2020).

METHOD

Transparency Statement

We performed a literature search in Scopus databases and conducted a systematic scoping review as per the guidelines of the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). The following methods were used for the search and the study selection.

Search Strategy

Search Sources

The search was performed between March 2 and 27, 2023. For the search outcomes of Google Scholar, only the first 100 results were considered, as, beyond the first 100 entries, the search results were quickly losing match and relevancy to the topic of the review. In addition to the search on the databases, we also screened the reference lists of the included studies to find additional relevant studies.

Search Terms

We defined the search terms from the available literature and by referring to the experts in the fields. The search strings used in this study are the following: "rhetorical structure of an oral presentation", "oral presentation structure", "oral presentation structure", "rhetorical moves of an oral presentation", "moves in an oral presentation", "oral presentation moves".

Search Eligibility Criteria

We considered studies published in English from 2018 to 2023. The reliance on research published in English is due to the transformation of academic English into the lingua franca of scientific communication (Tikhonova et al., 2023b). The choice of language, therefore, does not narrow down the pool of articles, but rather maximises its expansion and provides the opportunity to gain a comprehensive view of the research issue (Raitskaya & Tikhonova, 2019). Studies for all types from any discipline captured by our search were included. Our results comprised research articles and excluded preprints, commentaries and other non peer reviewed articles. No restrictions were imposed on the country of publication. For more details see Table 1.

Population

Concept

Context

Language

Time period

Types of sources

articles

Geographic Any location None

Eligibility Criteria

Study Selection

Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies identified in the search and made initial flagging for inclusion and exclusion. The flagging was then verified by a third reviewer. The studies that passed the title and abstract screening were shortlisted for the full-text reading phase to perform study selection. Any disagreement between the reviewers was investigated and resolved through discussion and consensus.

Data Extraction

We prepared a purpose-built form for data extraction. Table 2 presents the data extraction form. The entries for the form were pilot-tested using ten relevant studies to extract the data accurately. Two reviewers independently performed the data extraction according to this form. Any disagreement between the two reviewers was resolved through discussion and consensus.

The need to obtain a focused description of moves and steps in a verbal presentation of scientific research results predetermined the exclusion of all sources that do not describe moves and steps

The aim of the research is to summarise the literature on the rhetorical structure of a verbal presentation of scientific research results

Due to the essence of academic communication to focus on higher educational institutions

Due to the conversion of academic English into the lingua franca of scientific communication

To obtain the data from the newly published sources we focus on 5-year period

To analyse empirically derived moves and steps in speeches during oral presentations.

The objective is to gain an international perspective on the phenomenon

Data Synthesis

Following the data extraction from the selected studies, we employed a narrative synthesis approach. Initially, we categorised the studies based on the identified moves and steps within them. Utilising the moves and steps highlighted by the researchers whose articles were included in the review, we synthesised these elements into a universal matrix. This matrix facilitates the most effective presentation of scientific research results. The data synthesis process was conducted and organised using MS Excel.

RESULTS

Search Results and Demographic Characteristics

Our bibliographic database search yielded a total of 63 results. After applying keyword restrictions, 11 documents remained for consideration. Figure 1 illustrates the flow of

Table 1

Eligibility Criteria

Criterion

Inclusion

Exclusion

Justification

Studies describing the rhetorical structure of a verbal scientific presentation

All studies that fell outside the defined scope of research were excluded from the review

Studies, including journal articles, which discuss explicitly moves and steps in a verbal presentation of scientific research results

Studies relating to a verbal presentation of scientific research results at a university

English

Studies which do not relate to the description of the rhetorical structure of a verbal presentation of scientific research results

Studies outside the university context and not related to the rhetorical structure of a verbal presentation of scientific research results

Non English

Year 2018-2023

Before 2018

1 .Peer-reviewed journal

1.Non peer-reviewed sources

records and articles throughout the review process. The initial search produced 63 records. From these, we excluded 52 records during the initial screening due to various reasons: duplicates (n = 13), inability to access full-text documents (n = 5), or irrelevance to the research topic (n = 34).

In our research, we screened 11 titles and abstracts sourced from our search strategy. The majority of these publications were journal articles and reviews. Among the 11 scrutinised in detail, only 5 were selected for full-text examination

describing the rhetorical structure of oral academic presentations through moves and steps, while 6 were excluded as they did not meet our inclusion criteria. The excluded 6 records fell into two categories: irrelevance to the purpose of this review (5 records), and non-English publication language (1 record). The 5 chosen sources, published from 2018 to 2023, featured contributions from authors across 3 countries. These sources were selected based on their relevance to the rhetorical structure of oral presentation of the research results. No increase in publications mention-

Table 2

Key Information Extracted from the Articles

Publication details Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Article 4 Article 5

Study title Communicating A Genre-Based Rhetorical Struc- The Rhetorical Three minute the-

disciplinary knowl- Investigation of the ture Mastery of Structure of Stu- sis presentations as

edge to a wide Introduction Sec- Tertiary Students' dents' Presentation an academic genre:

audience in 3MT tions of Academic Speech: Challeng- in Speaking Class A cross-disciplinary

presentations: Oral Presentations es and Possible study of genre

How students en- Solutions moves

gage with populari-

sation of science

Authors Feng (Kevin) Jiang Kuldip Kaur Syafryadin Heryanti Novitasari Guangwei Hu, Yan-

Xuyan Qiu Mei-Yuit Chan Syafryadin hua Liu

Afida Mohamad Ali Andy Makhrian Dedi Sofyan

Dian Eka Chandra

Wardhana

Year of publication 2022 2019 2023 2022 2018

Publication type Research article Research article Research article Research article Research article

Name of the journal Discourse Studies Asian Journal of Studies in English ENGLISH FRAN- Journal of English

University Educa- Language and CA: Academic for Academic Pur-

tion (AJUE) Education Journal of English poses

Language and

Education

Origin / Country of China Malaysia Indonesia Indonesia China

origin

Purpose of the research to investigate the to compare the to explore the stu- to find the rhe- to establish the

rhetorical organi- rhetorical structure dents' mastery of torical structure rhetorical moves of

sation of moves (i.e. of the introduc- rhetorical structure of Move and Step the 3MT genre and

discoursal units tion sections of in making a speech, which are often their instantiation

serving various academic oral their challenges, found in the Speak- across broad disci-

coherent commu- presentations and potential ing for Presenta- plinary groupings

nicative functions from two differ- solutions. tion class. (i.e., hard/soft and

in text) in 80 3MT ent fields, namely pure/ applied) to

presentations from English language explore factors

six disciplines. and Administrative shaping generic

Sciences. variation.

Moves description 1.Orientation 2.Ra- 1 .Listener orienta- 1.Introduction 1.Introduction: 1 .Orientation

tionale 3.Purpose tion 2.Content A - listener orien- 2.Rationale

4.Methods 5.Re- 2.Content Orien- 3.Closing tation 3.Framework

sults 6.Implication tation B - content orienta- (The authors claim

7.Termination tion that it is the least

2.Body frequent move)

3.Conclusion 4.Purpose

5.Methods

6.Results

7.Implication

8.Termination

Steps description

Type of presentation

3MT (Three-minute thesis) presentations

Step 1A Greeting - Step 1A. Greeting -

the audience the audience

Step 1B Reciting Step 1B. Reciting

Prayer Prayer

Step 1C Introduc- Step 1C. Introduc-

ing oneself / other tion of oneself /

speakers another speaker

Step 1D. Leading

Step 2A Leading the audience into

audience into the content

content Step 1E. Announc-

Step 2B Announc- ing the topic of the

ing topic of oral oral presentation

presentation Step 1F. Outlining

Step 2C Outlining structure/ Indicat-

structure / Indicat- ing scope

ing scope Step 2A. Hortatory/

narration

Step 3A. Summa-

rising the points/

conclusion

Step 3B. Sugges-

tion

Step 3C. Invite

question

Step 3D. Thank you

Introduction Tertiary Students' Undergraduate

Section of Oral Speech students' oral pres-

Presentation entations

Three Minute Thesis (3MT) presentations

Figure 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Flow Diagram Summarising Study Selection

ing rhetorical structure was observed from 2018 to 2023, as detailed in Table 3. Specifically, these 5 sources directly described the rhetorical structure of oral presentations of scientific research findings, with journal articles constituting^ % of this subset.

Rhetorical Structure of Oral Academic Presentations Following Students' Thesis Outcomes

Our scoping review on rhetorical structure of verbal academic presentations showed some differences in terms of describing the number of rhetorical moves. Here we can observe two sets of moves in oral academic performances: a detailed set of moves with a broader classification of moves and a shortened set of moves with a limited number of moves. One more obvious fact that attracts attention is that rhetorical moves are divided into steps in only two out five articles. Another observation that should be mentioned is related to the fact that one out five work describes moves just in the introductory part of oral academic presentations while others focus on moves of the whole speech. The volume of moves and steps outlined by the authors is given in Table 4.

Detailed Rhetorical Structure of Oral Presentation

The models developed by Hu & Liu (2018) and Jiang & Qiu (2022) offer a comprehensive moveset for oral academic presentations, focusing solely on moves without incorporating steps. In their framework, each move is designed to fulfil

Table 3

Demographic Characteristics of the Sources

specific functions in the presentation, creating a clear and effective flow of information. These moves are deliberately arranged to guide the presenter through the various stages of the presentation, from introduction to conclusion. By identifying and defining these distinct moves, the authors provide a structured approach to crafting and delivering oral academic presentations, ensuring clarity and engagement throughout the delivery process. The proposed model serves as a valuable tool for researchers and academics, aiding them in conveying their research findings and ideas in a coherent and impactful manner.

Move 1. Orientation: this initial move according to Hu & Liu (2018), Jiang & Qiu (2022) and Kaur et al. (2019), is multifac-eted, serving several key purposes. Primarily, it is designed to captivate the audience's attention. This is achieved by effectively orienting the listeners towards the central research topics, thereby establishing a clear context for the discussion that follows. Additionally, this move is critical in setting up the structural framework of the oral presentation, ensuring that the audience understands the layout and flow of the content to be delivered. It also serves as a preparatory step, laying the groundwork for the subsequent moves in the presentation. This approach ensures that the audience is not only engaged but also well-informed about the direction and scope of the presentation, facilitating a more meaningful and impactful exchange of ideas.

Move 2. Rationale: this move delving into the rationale behind the research (Hu & Liu, 2018; Jiang & Qiu, 2022) is crucial for contextualising the study within its broader field. It involves articulating the motivation behind the research by identifying existing gaps, unresolved challenges, or specific

Sources mentioning rhetorical struc ture of oral presentations (n=11)

Sources used for creation moves and steps unified description for oral presentation(n=5)

Nationality of corre- Malaysia: 3 Malaysia: 1

sponding authors (top

,> Indonesia: 4 Indonesia: 2

China: 2 China: 2

Spain: 1 Sweden: 1

Publication year of 2018 - 2 2018 - 1

sources 2019 - 1 2019 - 1

2020- 2 2020 - 0

2021 - 0 2021 - 0

2022 - 2 2022 - 2

2023 - 3 2023 - 1

Source type Journal article Review Journal article

Table 4

Models of Rhetorical Structure of a Verbal Presentation of Scientific Research Results

Detailed Rhetorical Structure of Oral Presentation Move 1. Orientation

Move 2. Rationale Move 3. Purpose Move 4. Methods Move 5. Results Move 6: Implication Move 7: Termination

Shortened Rhetorical Structure of Oral Presentation Move 1. Introduction:

Step 1. Greeting the audience.

Step 2. Introduction of oneself /another speaker.

Step 3. Leading the audience into the content.

Step 4. Announcing the topic of the oral presentation.

Step 5. Outlining structure / Indicating scope.

Move 2. Body or Content:

Step 1. Hortatory / narration.

Move 3. Closing and conclusion:

Step 1. Summarising the points / conclusion.

Step 2. Suggestion.

Step 3. Invite a question.

Step 4. Thank you.

needs that the study aims to address. The effective communication of this move is integral to establishing the significance and urgency of the research. Hence, it helps the audience understand why the research is essential, what specific issues it seeks to tackle, and how it contributes to the field. By clearly highlighting these elements, the presenter sets the stage for a deeper engagement with the audience, fostering an appreciation for the relevance of the research and its potential impact.

Move 3. Purpose: as outlined by Hu & Liu (2018) and Jiang & Qiu (2022) this move focuses on articulating the purpose of the research. In this move, the presenter is expected to clearly define the objectives of the study or pose specific research questions. This move is fundamental to providing the audience with a clear understanding of what the research aims to achieve or uncover. By explicitly stating the research purposes and objectives, the presenter guides the audience's expectations and sets a lucid direction for the presentation. This move is not just about informing the audience but also about framing the research within a specific scope and focus. It helps the audience to align their understanding with the presenter's intentions, creating a roadm-ap for what is to follow in the presentation. Effective communication in this move is crucial for maintaining audience engagement and interest, as it establishes the core inquiry that drives the research.

Move 4. Methods: this fourth move in an oral academic presentation revolves around the presentation of the study's methods. In this section, the presenter explains how the research was conducted. This includes detailing the materials, methods, or approaches used in the study and often justifying why specific choices were made (Hu & Liu, 2018; Jiang & Qiu, 2022). This move is urgent for establishing the credibility and rigour of the research. By elucidating the methodology, the presenter allows the audience to understand the underlying framework of the study, including its experimental design, data collection procedures, and analysis techniques. What is more, justification for the chosen methods is equally important, as it demonstrates thoughtfulness and intentionality in the research design, addressing potential queries or doubts the audience might have regarding the suitability or efficiency of the research methodology. The "Methods move" not only informs but also lends transparency to the research process, allowing the audience to assess the validity and reliability of the results. It is an opportunity for the presenter to reinforce the scientific rigour of their work and to contextualise the findings within the scope of the selected methodologies.

Move 5. Results: as delineated by Hu & Liu (2018) and Jiang & Qiu (2022), this move is focused on presenting the results of the research. In this move, the presenter communicates the findings of the study to the audience. This involves detailing

the outcomes, discoveries, or data that have emerged from the research process. The "Results move" is a pivotal part of the presentation, as it reveals the empirical evidence or data that the research has yielded. It is where the presenter showcases the direct outcomes of their investigative efforts. The results can include quantitative data, qualitative observations, statistical analyses, or any combination of these, depending on the nature of the study. This move is crucial as it provides the audience with concrete information about what the research has uncovered or verified. Moreover, it is the moment when the audience realises if the research questions or hypotheses have been answered or supported. The efficiency of this move lies in how clearly and succinctly the presenter can convey complex data or findings to the audience, making it accessible and understandable. The aim is not just to inform but to engage the audience with the significance of the research findings, setting the stage for the subsequent discussion or conclusion.

Move 6: Implication: Hu & Liu (2018) and Jiang & Qiu (2022) stressed that this move is essential as it extends beyond simply presenting research findings; it involves interpreting these findings, discussing their broader implications, and highlighting the significance of the study and contributions to the field. This move may also include offering recommendations based on the research outcomes. In the "Implication move", the presenter interprets the results, providing an understanding of what these findings mean within the larger context of the field or study area explaining the relevance and impact of their research, connecting the dots between their findings and existing knowledge or practices. By doing so, the presenter situates their study within a broader scholarly conversation, showing its relevance and importance. Moreover, the "Implication move" often includes recommendations or suggestions for future research, practical applications, or policy implications. Overall, the "Implication move" is integral to the presentation as it showcases the impact of the study and provides a vision for its potential future trajectory and application.

Move 7: Termination: This move is primarily focused on concluding the presentation effectively. Hu & Liu (2018) and Jiang & Qiu (2022) suggest that a key aspect of the "Termination move" is to express gratitude towards the audience for their attention and participation. It is a formal and courteous way to bring the presentation to a close, acknowledging the audience's presence and engagement. This move helps in leaving a lasting, positive impression, and signifies respect and appreciation for the audience's time and interest in the research being presented.

Shortened Rhetorical Structure of Oral Presentation

Heryanti et al. (2022) and Syafryadin et al. (2023) proposed a trinary moveset consisting of following moves:

Move 1. Introduction: Heryanti et al. (2022) and Syafryadin et al. (2023) are unanimous with Hu & Liu (2018) and Jiang & Qiu (2022) in terms of Introduction move functions. Kuldip et al. (2019) and Heryanti et al. (2022) also proposed following rhetorical steps of the move "Orientation":

Step 1. Greeting the audience.

Step 2. Introduction of oneself /another speaker.

Step 3. Leading the audience into the content.

Step 4. Announcing the topic of the oral presentation.

Step 5. Outlining structure / Indicating scope.

Move 2. Body or Content: Heryanti et al. (2022) sees body or content section as a single-step and claims it is to be "Hortatory / narration".

Move 3. Closing and conclusion: Heryanti et al. (2022) divided the last move into four steps:

Step 1. Summarising the points / conclusion.

Step 2. Suggestion.

Step 3. Invite a question.

Step 4. Thank you.

DISCUSSION

Our study aimed to summarise the literature on the rhetorical structure of oral presentations of scientific research results, accompanied by a presentation. We found that there is a lack of well-developed rhetorical structures for different genres of oral scientific communication. There is no universal pattern that comprises the same set of moves and steps within a specific part of the presentation. Research like Kaur & Ali (2017) has shown that the rhetorical structure of oral presentations varies across different contexts, such as conference presentations, lectures, and classroom presentations. Most research primarily focused on specific parts of the presentation (introduction, body, or conclusion) rather than the entire presentation. Similarly, Kaur et al. (2019) also concentrated on the introduction of oral presentations, highlighting the significance of this section, possibly due to the ease of applying Swalesian moves to these parts. However, the lack of a clearly defined rhetorical structure for different genres of oral scientific communication hinders the deep understanding of each section significance by novice researchers.

Analysing rhetorical structures from selected sources revealed that authors typically differentiate between two sets

of moves and steps. Our detailed rhetorical structure, based on Hu & Liu (2018) and Jiang & Qiu (2022), does not contain steps but uses a significant number of moves to cover system-forming moments of the oral presentation and establish perception landmarks for the audience. In contrast, a shortened rhetorical structure is characterised by fewer moves but compensates by including steps that form a system of signposts. Moreover, some moves within different sections have been generalised; for instance, moves and sub-moves in the Termination section, initially described in Seliman's model (1996), were more detailed.

Researchers have noted culturally and nationally specific steps in the rhetorical structure of oral presentations. Singh and Ali (2019), for instance, highlighted the need to include reading a prayer as a separate step after greeting the audience. They even provided recommendations on properly structuring this step: the presenter should invite the audience to say a prayer before starting the presentation. While these steps are crucial within certain national cultures, in the context of global scholarly communication, such nuances may diminish the effectiveness of information reception by the audience.

Both models we constructed based on sources in our review represent a further step in studying the rhetorical structure of oral scientific discourse. Kaur & Ali (2017), in their critical review, concluded that moves across various sections of oral presentations, whether obligatory or optional, were inconclusive as a pattern. Such studies are undoubtedly important as they stimulate scientific discussion on the issue, but it is crucial to ensure that the academic community moves forward rather than continually summarising axiomatic truths. Kaur & Ali (2017) set the tone for understanding the need to establish universal models for constructing rhetorical structures. It is important to build such models based on a clear understanding of the function of each genre of oral scientific communication. This will achieve maximum transparency and functionality in presenting information and ensure audience attention and a lively question-and-answer session.

We agree with Ducasse & Brown's (2023) view that oral presentation tasks cannot be described as a "genre» in the same way as academic writing. Oral academic discourse involves engaging the audience in discussion, and, moreover, these presentations have their language restrictions and structure requirements (Yusoff, 2010). Each field has its rules for presentation delivery. Their structure, however, reflects the IMRAD structure of research articles (Zappa-Hollman, 2007).

A limitation of our study is the relatively modest number of sources used to construct the two models described. The majority of articles in our sample only mentioned the rhetorical structure of oral presentations without exploring moves and steps in detail. Nevertheless, the actual picture

of researchers' interest in the topic is crucial, allowing us to assess the prospects for the development of discursive studies. Even such a limited sample enables us to track the evolution of the topic. The limited sample size prevented us from using data visualisation software, due to the lack of sufficient data.

OONCLUSION

The goal of this systematic scoping review was to consolidate and analyse the existing literature on the rhetorical structure of verbal presentations of scientific research results, specifically those accompanied by a presentation. Our findings reveal the presence of two distinct models of moves and steps in verbal presentations, particularly in the context of defence sessions where a universal rhetorical model is absent. Additionally, we were able to identify both obligatory and optional moves, which, while following a linear process, exhibit flexibility similar to other genres of academic discourse. This gathered information not only paves the way for future research in this area but also has practical implications. It can assist students in developing proficiency in oral presentations, thereby enhancing their success in academic environments. The insights gained from this review contribute to a deeper understanding of effective communication strategies in academic settings, emphasising the significance of adaptability and strategic organisation in delivering impactful presentations.

Considering the identified limitations in existing research on the rhetorical structure of academic oral presentations, there are several essential directions for future research. First, there is a need for exploration of different sections of presentations, closely tied to the functionality of the specific genre of verbal presentation. Additionally, exploring novice and peer contexts is crucial, focusing on the rhetorical structure in academic settings where both the presenters and the audience are students or novices. This approach can reveal insights into how early researchers develop and use rhetorical strategies. Performing cross-cultural studies is also important to investigate how cultural differences impact the rhetorical structure of academic presentations, which would be valuable in understanding global variations in academic communication. Another significant area is tracking technology integration to examine how the use of digital tools and multimedia in presentations affects the rhetorical structure and audience engagement. Lastly, investigating virtual and hybrid formats is pertinent, especially with the rise of virtual and hybrid academic events, to understand how these formats influence rhetorical structures and audience engagement. These research areas would contribute significantly to a more nuanced understanding of rhetorical structures in academic verbal presentations, catering to a variety of contexts and disciplines.

DECLARATION OF COMPETITING INTEREST

None declared.

AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTION

Marina Ivanova: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Project administra-

REFERENCES

tion; Resources; Writing - original draft; Writing - review & editing.

Nataliya Mekeko: Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Supervision; Writing - original draft.

Nadezhda Arupova: Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Resources; Writing - original draft; Writing - review & editing.

Abdollahpour, Z., & Gholami, J. (2019). Rhetorical structure of the abstracts of medical sciences research articles. Prensa Medica Argentina, 105(2), 114. https://doi.org/10.47275/0032-745X-114

Al-Shujairi, Y. B. J., & Al-Manaseer, F. A.-J. (2022). Backgrounding the discussion section of medical research articles. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 12(1), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2022.121008

Aleshinskaya, E. V. (2023). Rhetorical structure of research paper introductions in computer science: A comparative analysis. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 9(3), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2023-9-3-0-4

Alexandrov, A. V., & Hennerici, M. G. (2013). How to prepare and deliver a scientific presentation. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 35(3), 202-208. https://doi.org/10.1159/000346077

Amirian, Z., Kassaian, Z., & Tavakoli, M. (2008). Genre analysis: An investigation of the discussion sections of applied linguistics research articles. The Asian ESP Journal, 4(1), 39-63.

Chang, Y.-J., & Huang, H.-T. (2015). Exploring TED talks as a pedagogical resource for oral presentations: A corpus-based move analysis. English Teaching & Learning, 39, 29-62. https://doi.org/10.6330/ETL.2015.39A02

Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A. (2023). Rhetorical relations in university students' presentations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjeap.2023.101251

Galaidin, A., & Bednarova-Gibova, K. (2023). Research article abstract, rhetorical structures, authorial voice, cross-disciplinary analysis, linguistics, economics. Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies, 40(1), 35-60. https://doi.org/10.15290/CR.2023.40.1.02

Gobekci, E. (2023). Rhetorical structure and linguistic features of research article abstracts in the humanities: The case of Lithuanian, English, and Russian. Taikomoji Kalbotyra, 19, 33-56. https://doi.org/10.15388/Taikalbot.2023.19.4

Hu, G., & Liu, Y. (2018). Three minute thesis presentations as an academic genre: A cross-disciplinary study of genre moves. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjeap.2018.06.004

Jiang, F. (Kevin), & Qiu, X. (2022). Communicating disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience in 3MT presentations: How students engage with popularization of science. Discourse Studies, 24(1), 115-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456211037438

Junqueira, L. (2013). A genre-based investigation of applied linguistics book reviews in English and Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(3), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjeap.2013.05.001

Kaur, K., & Ali, A. M. (2017). Exploring the genre of academic oral presentations: A critical review. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7, 152. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijaleLv.7n.1p.152

Kaur, K., Mohamad Ali, A., Chan, M.-Y., & Tan, H. (2019). A genre-based investigation of the introduction sections of academic oral presentations. Asian Journal of University Education, 15(2), 94. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v15i2.7559

Kourkouta, L., & Papathanasiou, I. V. (2014). Communication in nursing practice. Materia Socio-Medica, 26(1), 65-67. https://doi.org/10.5455/msm.2014.26.65-67

Lu, X., Casal, J. E., Liu, Y., Kisselev, O., & Yoon, J. (2021). The relationship between syntactic complexity and rhetorical move-steps in research article introductions: Variation among four social science and engineering disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 52, 101006. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjeap.2021.101006

Motta-Roth, D. (1998). Discourse analysis and academic book reviews: A study of text and disciplinary cultures. In J. F. Coll, I. Fortanet, J. C. Palmer, & S. Posteguillo (Eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes (pp. 29-48). Universitat Jaume I.

Novitasari, H., Syafryadin, & Sofyan, D. (2022). The Rhetorical Structure of Students' Presentation in Speaking Class. ENGLISH FRANCA: Academic Journal of English Language and Education, 6(2), 263-290. http://dx.doi.org/10.29240/ef.v6i2.5451

Raitskaya, L.K., & Tikhonova, E.V. (2019). Multilingualism in Russian journals: A controversy of approaches. European Science Editing, 45(2), 41. https://doi.org/10.20316/ESE.2019.45.18024

Raitskaya, L.K., & Tikhonova, E.V. (2020). An overview of reviews as a trend maker in the field. Higher Education in Russia, 29(3), 37-57. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57

Sandova, J. K. (2018). Rhetorical structure of English and Czech academic book reviews. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 15(3), 202.

Seliman, S. (1996). The genre and the genre expectations of engineering oral presentations related to academic and professional context [Unpublished Dissertation, University of Stirling]. Sterling.

Syafryadin, Makhrian, A., & Wardhana, D. E. C. (2023). Rhetorical structure mastery of tertiary students' speech: Challenges and possible solutions. Studies in English Language and Education, 10(1), 266-279.

Thanajirawat, Z., & Chuea-nongthon, C. (2022). Move and text analysis of the discussion section in humanities and social sciences research articles. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 217-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911531

Tikhonova, E. V., Kosycheva, M. A., & Golechkova, T. Yu. (2023a). Research article discussion moves and steps in papers on medicine: Academic literacy and respect for readers. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 97-128. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2023-9-2-0-6

Tikhonova, E.V., Kosycheva, M.A., & Golechkova, T.Yu. (2023b). Establishing rapport with the reader: Engagement markers in the discussion section of a research article. Integration of Education, 27(3), 354-372. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.112.027.202303.354-372

Watson, J. A.(2014). Screening TED: A rhetorical analysis of the intersections of rhetoric, digital media and pedagogy [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College]. Louisiana.

Yusoff, M. (2010). Analysing communication competence in oral presentations: Engineering students experiences. Journal of Human Capital Development, 3(1), 99-117.

Zappa-Hollman, S. (2007). Academic presentations across post-secondary contexts: The discourse socialisation of non-native English speakers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(4), 455-485. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.4455

Zibalas, D., & Sinkuniene, J. (2019). Rhetorical structure of promotional genres: The case of research article and conference abstracts. Discourse and Interaction, 12(2), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2019-2-95

Zivkovic, B. (2022). British and Montenegrin university lecture introductions: A corpus-based study of their rhetorical structure. Iberica, (43), 103-128. https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.43.103