Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Journal

Assessing Grammatical Cohesive Devices in the Findings and Discussion of Research Articles by Graduate Students

English Education Journal · Vol. 12 No. 3 (2022) · pp. 427–436

DOI
10.15294/eej.v12i3.61116
ISSN
2087-0108, 2502-4566
Published
2022-12-22
Publisher
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Language
eng

Abstract

Writing research articles is a 'tradition' conducted by students in every learning activity in higher education. This study aimed to analyze the use of grammatical cohesive devices found in the findings and discussion of research articles written by graduate students of English Education. Discourse analysis was employed as the research design and a descriptive qualitative approach was utilized to elaborate the analysis. Qualitative data in the form of text consisting of sentences and clauses containing cohesion were the primary data in this research. The data were obtained through observation and documentation by conducting a preliminary study, collecting the research articles, and verifying the data. The data were analyzed by identifying, classifying, describing, and drawing conclusions. The results of the study showed that the students employed all four types of grammatical cohesive devices in the findings and discussion of research articles. The most dominant grammatical cohesive device utilized by the students was reference and conjunction with total use of 2367 and 955 respectively. There was an apparent margin gap between the dominantly used devices and the least employed devices as there were only 5 occurrences of substitution and 12 occurrences of ellipsis. In conclusion, the students preferred to use only two types of grammatical cohesive devices while neglecting the utilization of the other types. Moreover, this study will hopefully provide suggestions for students on how to use grammatical cohesive devices and additional guides for teachers in teaching students on how to compose a well-organized research paper.

Collaboration network of the authors

40 authors · 154 co-authorship links · showing the 40 most connected

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Sri Wuli FitriatiAffiliation unknown15
Dwi RukminiAffiliation unknown15
Warsono WarsonoAffiliation unknown10
Suwandi SuwandiAffiliation unknown9
Abdurrachman FaridiAffiliation unknown7
Mursid SalehAffiliation unknown7
Rudi HartonoAffiliation unknown7
Issy YuliasriAffiliation unknown5
Widhiyanto WidhiyantoAffiliation unknown5
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAffiliation unknown5
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAffiliation unknown4
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAffiliation unknown3
Henrikus Joko YuliantoAffiliation unknown3
Zulfa SakhiyyaAffiliation unknown3
Abdurrahman FaridiAffiliation unknown3
SRI WAHYUNIAffiliation unknown2
Putri AnggraeniAffiliation unknown2
Ahmad SofwanAffiliation unknown2
Latifa Ika SariAffiliation unknown2
Sri Wuli FitriatiAffiliation unknown2
Agung Ginanjar AnjaniputraAffiliation unknown1
Aprilian Ria AdistiAffiliation unknown1
Lina ardiyantiAffiliation unknown1
Hermin Anggrianing TyasAffiliation unknown1
Eka Putri Dea Ayu MaharaniAffiliation unknown1
Moh. Ilhami HakimAffiliation unknown1
Dwi AngganiAffiliation unknown1
M. Syaeful Rizki UAffiliation unknown1
Amalia RahmawatiAffiliation unknown1
Daniela Elivas HastunarAffiliation unknown1
Warsono -Affiliation unknown1
Dery Tria AgustinAffiliation unknown1
Bambang Ruby SugiartoAffiliation unknown1
Puspa WijayantiAffiliation unknown1
Hendro KuncoroAffiliation unknown1
Ika MirantiAffiliation unknown1
Muhammad Ari SaputraAffiliation unknown1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

Metadata source: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej/oai, first harvested 5 Nov 2026, last seen 5 Nov 2026.
Original metadata (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en-US">Assessing Grammatical Cohesive Devices in the Findings and Discussion of Research Articles by Graduate Students</dc:title>
	<dc:creator>Akbar, Khasanah Palupi</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Mujiyanto, Januarius</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Sutopo, Djoko</dc:creator>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en-US">Writing research articles is a 'tradition' conducted by students in every learning activity in higher education. This study aimed to analyze the use of grammatical cohesive devices found in the findings and discussion of research articles written by graduate students of English Education. Discourse analysis was employed as the research design and a descriptive qualitative approach was utilized to elaborate the analysis. Qualitative data in the form of text consisting of sentences and clauses containing cohesion were the primary data in this research. The data were obtained through observation and documentation by conducting a preliminary study, collecting the research articles, and verifying the data. The data were analyzed by identifying, classifying, describing, and drawing conclusions. The results of the study showed that the students employed all four types of grammatical cohesive devices in the findings and discussion of research articles. The most dominant grammatical cohesive device utilized by the students was reference and conjunction with total use of 2367 and 955 respectively. There was an apparent margin gap between the dominantly used devices and the least employed devices as there were only 5 occurrences of substitution and 12 occurrences of ellipsis. In conclusion, the students preferred to use only two types of grammatical cohesive devices while neglecting the utilization of the other types. Moreover, this study will hopefully provide suggestions for students on how to use grammatical cohesive devices and additional guides for teachers in teaching students on how to compose a well-organized research paper.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en-US">Universitas Negeri Semarang</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2022-12-22</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:type xml:lang="en-US">Peer-reviewed Article</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/61116</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/eej.v12i3.61116</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en-US">English Education Journal; Vol 12 No 3 (2022): September 2022; 427-436</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2087-0108</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2502-4566</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/eej.v12i3</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/61116/23220</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2022 English Education Journal</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>