




































 Payant & Hardy 1 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

The Dynamic Rhetorical Structures of TESOL Conference Abstracts 

 

Caroline Payant 

University of Idaho 

 

Jack A. Hardy 

Emory University 

 

Abstract 

 

In English Language Teaching (ELT), conferences have developed into valuable venues for both 

researchers and practitioners to learn and share their knowledge bases. Attending and presenting 

at academic conferences has become an important form of scholarship and professional 

development for researchers, in-service teachers, and pre-service teachers. In the field of ELT, the 

TESOL International Convention and Language Expo is a highly prestigious event but, for those 

wanting to present, highly competitive. The conference abstract is the basis of being granted 

permission to present at such conferences and, as such, is a critical gate-keeping genre. The goal 

of the present empirical study is to examine rhetorical features of successful conference abstracts 

(N=16) with the hope that the results will help teachers write their own conference proposals. 

Using genre analysis (Swales, 1990), the rhetorical structures of conference abstracts for TESOL 

2014 were collected and annotated for rhetorical moves and steps following Halleck and Connor 

(2006). This detailed analysis uncovered rhetorical patterns common to all conference abstracts. 

Despite this, variations within proposals were identified in terms of number of moves and specific 

sequencing. Guidance and tips for novice writers are presented, and connections are made to local 

TESOL affiliates, such as BC TEAL. 

 

Introduction 

 

Academic conferences offer important opportunities for current and future language 

professionals to learn from experts in the field and to share novel research. As such, the 

conference abstract (CA), which is used to grant permission to present at such conferences, is a 

critical gate-keeping genre. Despite recent efforts to unpack the stylistic and rhetorical features 

of successful CAs (see, e.g., Egbert & Plonsky, 2015; Swales & Feak, 2009), for many novice 

writers this genre remains enigmatic. Consequently, presenting original research at reputable 

academic conferences may remain inaccessible. With the goal of helping novice researchers and 

teachers write their own conference proposals, this study explores the genre of successful CAs 

previously accepted for the TESOL International Convention and Language Expo.  The findings 

may benefit not only novice and experienced teachers interested in joining the discourse 

community, but also graduate students of TESOL who seek to learn about CAs. 

 

Literature Review 

 

Conferences: Professional development opportunities 

 

In the field of English Language Teaching (ELT), conferences have developed into valuable 

venues for both researchers and practitioners. Attending and presenting at academic conferences 



 Payant & Hardy 2 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

has become an important form of scholarship and professional development that can lead to 

employment, promotion, and tenure (Halleck & Connor, 2006). Within the TESOL organization, 

there are more than 100 independent affiliates worldwide (TESOL, 2016a), and many host their 

own conferences for language educators. In British Columbia, for instance, the Association of 

British Columbia Teachers of English as an Additional Language (BC TEAL) hosts an annual 

conference, as well as smaller regional conferences, that provide spaces for educators to 

converse and research various dimensions of the profession. These venues also offer valuable 

experiences for local and regional communities in TESOL to address issues in teaching and 

policy. In addition to these affiliate conferences, TESOL hosts an annual conference for its 

worldwide membership, the TESOL International Convention and Language Expo (henceforth 

the TESOL Convention), which attracts more than 6,500 language professionals each year 

(TESOL, 2016b). This convention offers teachers, researchers, and administrators opportunities 

to interact and make important connections with each other and to expand the pedagogical and 

theoretical knowledge bases of the field.  

 

Training and professional development opportunities are critical for English language 

pre-service teachers, in particular graduate students of TESOL. This relevance is reflected in 

TESOL’s standards for certificate programs and professional development of teacher-learners.  

These standards, which cover three areas of professional development (i.e., organization and 

program management, curriculum and instruction, and candidate standards), highlight the need 

for TESOL candidates to provide evidence of professional learning and growth through engaged 

participation at conferences (TESOL, 2016c). Professional development is not reserved for 

teacher-learners, however. Instead, in-service instructors must also make a concerted effort to 

stay up-to-date with developments in language theories and pedagogical practices and be open to 

revisiting their own practices. One way to keep abreast of such changes is to regularly read 

published research articles. Unfortunately, matters of time and interest may prevent practitioners 

from actively searching for written research. Conference attendance, on the other hand, offers 

comparable benefits and may provide even more direct connection to an attendee’s regular 

teaching practices.  

 

Simply attending a conference, however, may continue to place in-service teachers in a 

more peripheral role in the professionalization of the field. Teachers, we believe, should be 

supported in presenting their own research-based practices derived from classroom experiences, 

thus adding to the overall knowledge of the field and legitimizing their work. In addition to these 

honest and virtuous reasons, there are also practical reasons for justifying active participation.  

Within academia, costs associated with conferences are often covered only when a proposal is 

accepted (Halleck & Connor, 2006; Kaplan, Cantor, Hagstrom, Kamhi-Stein, Shiotani, & 

Zimmerman, 1994).  Moreover, giving a paper at an internationally recognized conference 

increases the educator’s professional status, and he or she becomes a fuller legitimate participant 

in that given community as a result (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Kaplan, et al., 1994). 

 

Having described the importance of presenting in academic conferences, we must also 

recognize that those who would benefit most may be unfamiliar with how to enter into this 

discourse community. In fact, the reality is that relatively few are granted the opportunity to 

present at the TESOL Convention. In 2013, for instance, the acceptance rate was only 26% (L. 

Dyson, personal communication, October 3, 2012). Given this standard for acceptance, 



 Payant & Hardy 3 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

conducting an impressive and new study might not be enough. In fact, the most important gate-

keeping step of the presentation process is the writing of a CA. The CAs are not public 

documents; rather, they are detailed summaries of the proposed research made available only to 

conference reviewers. Thus, knowledge of this genre can be seen as an important form of 

cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986) and/or power (Faber, 1996). Cultural capital includes types of 

knowledge, education, and skills that increase an individual’s status in his or her social 

environments (Bourdieu, 1986). These forms of capital, which are acquired through a process of 

acculturation, are often limited to a small group of academics. As teacher educators and 

supporters of practitioner-led research, we strongly believe that the dissemination of ideas should 

not be conducted primarily by research faculty. Rather, all pre-service and in-service teachers 

should be able to participate in the discourse community and, as a requirement, become 

competent writers of this occluded genre.  For this to happen, accessing proposals and studying 

their rhetorical moves is of primary importance.  

 

Our review of the literature and our own experiences suggest that in-service teachers or 

those aspiring to enter this realm of academia may not receive sufficient guidance on how to 

write CAs. For these reasons, this study examined CA proposals for the TESOL Convention, 

uncovering the core rhetorical features and offering novice applicants explicit explanations of 

this genre. It is our hope to help increase these applicants’ likelihood of being accepted. Before 

describing our data collection and analysis, findings, and suggestions for future writers, we 

provide a review of research that has been conducted on CAs in the fields of applied linguistics 

and TESOL. 

 

Genre Analysis and Conference Proposals 

 

In the field of writing for professional academic purposes, a surge of research has emerged, 

evidenced by the number of book-long publications on writing for academic and specific 

purposes (Candlin, Crompton, & Hatim, 2015; Hyland, 2013; Swales, 2004; Swales & Feak, 

2009, 2012), as well as the publication of reputable journals (e.g., English for Specific Purposes 

and The Journal of English for Academic Purposes). Today, the use of genre-based approaches 

to inform writing courses is a common practice and is associated with several benefits. Hyland 

(2013), for example, maintains that genre-based instruction provides explicit and systematic 

guidance and serves to raise an awareness of various academic genres.  

 

One genre, the research article, has been widely studied. Swales (1990), who closely 

examined research article introductions, began a large area of research on this section, or 

subgenre. To that end, Swales proposed the Create a Research Space (CARS) model for writing 

research introduction articles. He found that introductions tended to follow three rather stable 

rhetorical moves: (1) Establishing a territory, (2) Establishing a niche, and (3) Occupying the 

niche. This motivated significant amounts of research across disciplines and languages (e.g., 

Hirano, 2009; Loi, 2010; Ozturk, 2007; Samraj, 2002; Sheldon, 2012). Although many variations 

on the CARS model have been used (adding moves or steps towards those moves), the central 

theme has remained the same: when initially presenting academic work (e.g., an abstract or an 

introduction), writers often describe what has been done before, what has not yet been done, and 

how the subsequent research will fill that gap. 

 



 Payant & Hardy 4 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

Genre-based research has continued to branch out, moving towards the systematic study 

of other genres, especially occluded genres such as the CA. An occluded genre is one that is 

typically confidential and often not accessible to public viewing (Swales, 1996, 2004). Analyses 

of occluded genres are of particular use because novice members of a discourse community lack 

both receptive and productive experience with occluded genres and “understanding the genres of 

written communication in one’s field is… essential to professional success” (Berkenkotter & 

Huckin, 1995, p. 1). If such a novice wanted to write a CA, for example, she/he may want to 

access examples of successful proposals from which to model. However, samples of conference 

proposals are often not readily available since the TESOL conference programs and many other 

conferences only publish short 50-word descriptions to guide attendees in their selection of 

sessions to attend. In other words, CAs are difficult documents for newer members of this 

discourse community to access. 

 

Perhaps because of the lack of available models, or maybe because there is a desire to 

keep the genre occluded, novice writers do not often receive explicit instruction on how to write 

conference proposals. To date there have been a few publications that have explored the genre of 

CAs for conferences from the field of Applied Linguistics: American Association for Applied 

Linguistics (AAAL) (Kaplan, et al., 1994); Conference on College Composition and 

Communication (CCCC) (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Faber, 1996); TESOL (Halleck & 

Connor, 2006); The British Association for Applied Linguistics; Sociolinguistics Symposium 

(Cutting, 2012); and Second Language Research Forum (SLRF) (Egbert & Plonsky, 2015).  

 

Kaplan, et al. (1994) examined the genre of conference proposals submitted to AAAL. In 

total, 294 abstracts were analyzed for discourse moves. Specifically, their analysis considered the 

CAs’ thematic structure, clause structure, pragmatic moves, propositional organization, and 

lexical cohesion. They found that only half of the proposals included the sequence of 

introduction, methods, results, and conclusions. Interestingly, the methodology section was 

omitted more frequently than the other sections. Drawing on moves for research introductions 

(Swales, 1990) to analyze CAs, they identified four key moves in successful proposals: (1) 

establish the field (79%), (2) summarize previous studies (39%), (3) prepare for present study by 

showing a gap (24%), and (4) introduce the present study (97%). The methodology was present 

in 64% of these CAs and the results in 76%. This seminal study motivated subsequent 

investigations of the CAs of other large conferences. 

 

Berkenkotter and Huckin (1995) considered abstracts submitted to the Conference on 

College Composition and Communication (CCCC). Following their pilot study (1988) they 

collected a corpus of 441 proposals submitted over a three-year span, namely 1989, 1990, and 

1992. They found that excellent proposals typically considered current topics, included a clearly 

defined problem, illustrated insider knowledge, and “projected insider ethos” (p. 102). In 

addition, they identified a predictable sequence: Problem→ Method→ Findings→ Conclusions. 

They found that the Problem could comprise as much as one third to two thirds of the CAs. 

Interestingly, the authors reported that numerous abstracts “barely even mentioned method and 

findings/conclusions” (p. 107). This contrasts with those submitted to AAAL in terms of 

reporting results. Drawing on the same corpus, Faber (1996) further compared the features of 

high-rated and low-rated conference abstracts. Faber identified five components: (1) problem 

statement, (2) methods section, (3) clearly articulated product, (4) presentation objectives, and 



 Payant & Hardy 5 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

(5) a citation section. Findings indicated two features for the high-rated conference proposals: 

problem statement and objective statement. Again, it appears as though methodology, overall, 

was not as salient as the other rhetorical moves. Of interest, citation trends were comparable 

across the higher- and lower-rated abstracts in 1992 and tended to be included in approximately 

half of the proposals. Cutting (2012) examined proposals submitted to the British Association for 

Applied Linguistics conference and to the Sociolinguistic Symposium. While mostly concerned 

with the status of the research (in terms of completeness) at the time of the submission, what has 

been referred to as promissory research (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995, p. 107), they also 

identified important patterns in rhetorical moves. They found that this set of CAs consisted 

primarily of two core sections: introduction and methodology. Conversely, it appeared as though 

results and discussions were, once more, considered less critical for successful proposals.  

 

While a move that describes a study’s results has not been found to be common in 

previous studies of CAs, recent work suggests otherwise. Egbert and Plonsky (2015) studied the 

linguistic and stylistic features of 287 accepted and rejected conference abstracts submitted to the 

2009 SLRF conference. They found that all abstracts contained an introduction, and that those 

with a methodology and results section scored significantly higher than those without. 

Discussions, however, appeared to be omitted most often, confirming patterns observed by 

Cutting (2012). Finally, Egbert and Plonsky’s analysis of linguistic variables led to the 

identification of six variables that were considered significant predictors of success, namely (1) 

number of words, (2) citations, (3) results section, (4) nouns, (5) lack of errors, and (6) first-

person pronouns. 

 

TESOL is the largest professional development opportunity for ELT worldwide. To the 

best of our knowledge, Halleck and Connor (2006) are the only researchers to have examined the 

structure of proposals submitted in 1996 to the TESOL International Convention. This large-

scale study considered a total of 1,911 proposals which were sorted by interest section and type 

of paper (e.g., paper, demonstration, workshop, or colloquium). They found several key moves, 

including Territory, Reporting Previous Research, Gap, Goal, Means 1, Means 2, Outcomes, 

Benefits, Importance, and Competence Claim. Given their focus on CAs submitted to the 

TESOL Convention, the present study adopted their coding scheme, which is clearly 

operationalized in Table 1. Despite being published only recently (in 2006), the corpus is 

approximately 20 years old. Thus, adopting their framework to take a close look at TESOL CAs 

is worthwhile.   

 

Together, these studies suggest that conference proposals are genres marked by 

systematic features; however, these features are susceptible to variations in response to the 

audiences’ expectations and needs, as evidenced by the findings from conference proposals 

submitted to various venues. TESOL, being the largest organization for ELT, boasts an excellent 

reputation. TESOL also organizes the largest professional development event for English 

language educators, the TESOL Convention. TESOL does provide suggestions about their 

expectations for proposals and how those proposals will be evaluated (published annually along 

with the call for proposals). For example, the call for proposals specifies the word limits 

(N=300), a list of talking points a session description should cover, and the rubric that will be 

used to rate the proposals. The practice of making evaluation criteria public has also been 

adopted by many local affiliates, including BC TEAL. Unfortunately, these suggestions are used 



 Payant & Hardy 6 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

universally for all types of presentations at the conference: colloquia, discussion groups, 

roundtable discussions, poster sessions, practice-oriented presentations, research-oriented 

presentations, teaching tips, and workshops. Thus, a language teacher who has experience with 

pedagogically focused presentations may find it difficult to enter into the realm of research-

oriented presentations. Given the desire and, in some contexts, the pressure for teachers to 

contribute to the dissemination of ideas for promotion and funding, it is important for future and 

current teachers to present empirical research at conferences like the TESOL Convention.  

 

Table 1 

 

Operationalization of categories for conference proposal analysis  

Category Operationalization  

Territory Establishes physical and/or situational context of the activity 

Reporting 

previous research 

(RPR)  

Makes references to previous work, situating the current activity 

Gap 
In relation to theoretical or empirical territory, shows a lack of knowledge 

in the field; serves to motivate the study 

Goal States the aim and/or objective of the activity 

Means 1 
Specifies the methodology, procedures, plans of action, and tasks of the 

project 

Means 2 
Specifies the presentation’s method and procedure—what is to be 

accomplished in a specified amount of time  

Outcomes Presents findings or achievements resulting from the study 

Benefits  
Explains and connects outcomes (intended/projected) to real world 

applications  

Importance claim States the urgent need for the proposed activity  

Competence 

claim 
States the proposer’s credibility  

 

Although Halleck and Connor (2006) attempted to demystify the process of preparing an 

abstract for TESOL’s flagship event, their corpus included information from 1996. Genres are 

dynamic rhetorical structures, and it is important to examine them in various socio-temporal 

contexts. In addition, the majority of studies have identified rhetorical moves but have not 

considered how these moves are organized within a given proposal. With increased attention to 

genre and rhetorical moves, the present study examines whether similar patterns are common 

today in TESOL Convention proposals and further examines the sequencing of such moves for 

research-oriented proposals, namely their internal structure and organization. This was 

accomplished by considering a corpus of CAs (N=16) that were accepted and presented at the 

2014 TESOL Convention in Portland, OR. 

 

With these studies in mind, we formulated three research questions and their respective 

hypotheses: 

 

RQ 1:  To what extent do research-based CAs at the TESOL International Convention 

abide by general requirements stipulated by TESOL specifications? 



 Payant & Hardy 7 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

Hypothesis:  Given the space limits imposed by the submission site, authors will be very close 

to the 300-word proposal limit and the 10-word title limit. 

RQ 2:   What rhetorical moves are present in those proposals? 

Hypothesis:  Given the broad and general session description specifications and the conference 

proposal as an occluded genre, variation of the rhetorical moves is going to be 

salient. However, keeping in mind that the proposals are research-oriented, 

authors will have to discuss their research focus in relation to a perceived gap and 

explain their research design and findings.  

RQ 3:   How are those rhetorical moves organized within given proposals? 

Hypothesis:  Building on previous knowledge of similar genres and established models (i.e., 

CARS, IMRD), the conference proposal should follow a relatively stable pattern. 

 

Methodology 

 

The goal of this small-scale, exploratory study was to identify the structural features, rhetorical 

moves, and internal organization of research-based CA proposals submitted to the TESOL 

International Convention and Language Expo. To obtain a corpus, we turned to the 2014 

program book after the event. In total, 206 research-oriented proposals were included in the 2014 

program book. Via email, we contacted the authors of those presentations who had published 

their email addresses and asked the main authors if they were willing to share their proposals for 

textual analysis. From that pool, we received 16 research-oriented proposals, representing 7.8% 

of all research-based proposals. Despite the relatively small sample size, the positive responses 

would enable a close examination of the structural features and rhetorical moves of research-

oriented proposals, and more importantly, their internal organization from authors spanning 

unique teaching and learning contexts.  

 

 The major focus of our study relies on move analysis, an often-used method in the 

analysis of conference abstracts (e.g., Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Halleck & Connor, 2006; 

Swales & Feak, 2009). For this study, we chose to start with the coding scheme proposed by 

Halleck and Connor (2006) because it also investigated proposals to the TESOL International 

Convention. Using that scheme, each sentence in the session descriptions was assigned one of 

the ten moves (see Table 1). After deliberating on the ten categories, each rater independently 

coded the 16 proposals. Following, Rater 1 and Rater 2 met and an inter-coder reliability of 93% 

was obtained. The discrepancies were discussed and led to an agreement rate of 100%. The next 

section presents the findings of the analysis. 

 

Findings 
 

The overarching goal of the present study was to examine CAs from a specific research forum to 

help demystify an occluded genre for members in the profession. Our analysis examined the 

rhetorical structures of research-based conference proposals submitted to TESOL 2014. Research 

question 1 focused on identifying the total number of words for each proposal as a way to 

determine whether successful proposals abided to the general requirements provided in the call. 

In this sample, the average number of words was 286.6 (SD = 16.9), only 13.4 words below the 

stipulated 300-word limit. This implies that writers take advantage of the space to provide 



 Payant & Hardy 8 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

accurate details of the study. With respect to the titles, the average number of words was 9.3 (SD 

= 1.03) (max: 10 words).  

 

To answer the second research question, we examined the existence and number of 

particular rhetorical moves of the proposals using the coding scheme from Halleck and Connor 

(2006) (see Table 1 for categories). For this, we were concerned with moves rather than 

sentences; therefore, it was possible for proposals to combine multiple moves within a single 

sentence. Our findings showed that the average number of moves per proposal was 10.2. The 

majority of the rhetorical moves fell under three types: in decreasing order of frequency, Means 

1 was the most frequent (n= 28; 17.2%), followed by Establishing Territory (n=26; 16.0%), and 

finally Outcomes (n=24=14.7%) (see Figure 1). In addition, a high percentage of the CAs 

included the following moves: Gaps (n=19; 11.7%) and Goals (n=19; 11.7%).  

 
Figure 1. Distribution of rhetorical moves 

 

As illustrated in Figure 1, it also appears to be common for authors to include the 

Benefits to Attendees (n=15; 9.2%), Reporting on Previous Research (RPR) (n=14; 8.6%), and 

Means 2 (i.e., discussing details of the presentation format) (n=13; 8.2%). The category Benefits 

to Attendees had not been identified in Halleck and Connor (2006). We operationalized this 

move as statements that explicitly explained how the research findings would benefit those who 

attended the session (see examples A and B for sample language). 

 

Example A.  Suggestions for how to interpret students’ journal entries as source of knowledge 

will be discussed, as well as recommendations for working within pre-service 

teachers’ ZPDs. 

Example B.  We will offer strategies we have used to improve literacy skills and promote a 

culture of reading among learners and allow time for others to share their own 

barriers and breakthroughs. 

 

The two least important identified moves included Benefits to the Field (n=3; 1.7%) or 

Importance Claim (n=2; 1.2%). Finally, in this data set, Competence Claim was never identified. 

Thus, with the exception of these last three categories, it becomes clear that a majority of CAs 

28
26

24

19 19

15 14 13

3 2

17.2 16.0 14.7
11.7 11.7

9.2 8.6 8.0

1.8 1.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Raw

number

Percentage



 Payant & Hardy 9 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

include a range of categories evidenced by the similar distributions across several categories (i.e., 

range between 17.2% and 8%). 

 

In drafting a CA proposal, it is not uncommon for authors to exclude a given move. Thus, 

in addition to the global picture of the moves, we examined which of the moves were included in 

each proposal. This type of analysis provides some indication of the most valued rhetorical 

moves for CAs. To calculate these percentages, we divided the total number of writers who used 

a given category at least once by the total number of proposals, namely 16. As illustrated by 

Figure 2, no single move was used by all 16 participants. Nevertheless, two moves were present 

in the majority of the proposals: Gap was used by 87.5% of the writers (n=14), and Means 1 was 

used by 81.3% of the writers (n=13). This is evidence that it is beneficial to show the value of 

your work in terms of advances in our field and to clearly describe the research procedures that 

were followed. The third most important move was Establishing Territory, which was used by 

75% of the writers (n=12). Interestingly, the analysis also revealed that Outcomes was not a 

move common to all writers. Only nine participants (56%) included a discussion of the 

Outcomes, which could be a result of submitting proposals before having completed the 

research.  Finally, Benefits to the Field and the Importance Claim were discussed by only two 

writers (12.5%).  

 
Figure 2. Percentage of moves used by each individual writer 

 

Finally, to further uncover the prominence of these moves in the proposals, we compared 

the raw number of moves (Figure 1) and compared these to the individual writers’ practices 

(Figure 2). Recall that Means 1, Territory, and Outcomes were the most frequent in terms of raw 

numbers, as illustrated in Figure 1. In this data set, 28 moves were coded as Means 1 and, 

interestingly, 13 of the 16 writers included this move whereby they explained the process that 

guided their research. Thus, there appears to be some implicit agreement for authors to include 

this information and dedicate a rather large portion of the abstract to describing the approach and 

methods that informed the research. The high frequency of Establishing Territory also appeared 

to be consistent with the individual writer’s practices: 26 moves distributed across 12 writers.  

 

Some diverging patterns were observed. We found that the inclusion of Outcomes is 

irregular in this data set such that only nine writers, or 56.3%, talked about the study’s results. 

This low percentage for Outcomes stands in stark contrast with the raw count of this rhetorical 

move, namely n=24. It appears as though fewer writers give specific information about the 

81.25
75

56.25

87.5

68.75 68.75
62.5

50

12.5 12.5

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100

Percentage



 Payant & Hardy 10 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

findings, which could be a result of submitting promissory abstracts (Swales & Feak, 2009). In 

other words, when authors have yet to complete the research, they avoid this and focus instead 

on Benefits to the Attendees. However, when the research is complete, clear results are shared. 

Another inconsistency lies in the Gap: while the rhetorical move Gap was utilized by 14 writers, 

the total raw number of this move was a mere 19. In other words, successful writers understand 

the value of addressing the empirical gap in their proposal and appear to be able to address this 

concisely. In terms of the least common moves, we found that Benefits to the Field and 

Importance Claim were not used often and were limited to two writers. As mentioned previously, 

the Competence Claim was not identified in this data set. This analysis confirms that there are 

more and less important features for individuals to consider when crafting their CAs.  

 

The third research question examined the internal organization of the CAs’ rhetorical 

moves. The analysis focused on the beginning three and concluding three moves of each CA 

proposal. This microanalysis was viable given the smaller sample size. Importantly, all tokens, 

rather than move type, were taken into account (i.e., if Proposal #1 followed a 1-1-2-3-4-4 

sequence, the first three moves were thus 1-1-2).  

 

One prominent pattern was identified for the opening statement: Move #1. Only three 

possible Move #1s surfaced: (1) Establishing Territory, (2) Reporting Previous Research, and (3) 

Gap. The most frequently used initial move was Territory (n=11), which was followed by 

Reporting Previous Research (n=4). Only one participant started the proposal with Gap (See 

Figure 3). With Move #2, similar moves were also included; however, greater variation was 

identified. For example, in addition to Establishing Territory (n=5), Reporting Previous Research 

(n=2), and Gap (n=7), some proposals included the Goal (n=2). Of the five CAs with 

Establishing Territory as their Move #2, four of these had already used this move for Move #1 

and followed this, in Move #3, with Gap (n=3), Establishing Territory (n=1), or Reporting 

Previous Research (n=2). In sum, from the analysis of Move #1 and Move #2, the most 

important rhetorical moves are Establishing Territory, Reporting Previous Research, Gap, and 

Goal. As for Move #3, only three writers included Means 2 and one included Means 1. Quickly, 

we start to notice variation in how the introduction of this genre can be organized.  

 

  
Figure 3. Internal organization of openings of conference proposals. In the vertical axis, the 

numbers indicate the following: 1=Territory; 2=RPR; 3=Gap; 4=Goal; 5=Means 1; 6=Means 2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

Move #1 Move #2 Move #3

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16



 Payant & Hardy 11 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

In addition to examining the initial sequence, the analysis considered how the writers 

concluded their proposals. For this, the final three moves were taken into account (see Figure 4).  

Overall, the antepenultimate was dominated by Outcomes (n=7) and, to a lesser extent, Means 1 

(n=4). While variation was identified, more predictability arose with the two final moves. The 

penultimate moves included Outcomes (n=8) and Benefits to the Attendees (n=8), whereas the 

final move was identified as Benefits to the Attendees (n=9) and followed by Means 2 (n=3) or 

Outcomes (n=3).  

 

 
Figure 4. Internal organization of final components of CAs.  In the vertical axis, the numbers 

indicate the following: 1= Territory; 2=RPR; 3=Gap; 4=Goal; 5= Means 1; 6=Means 2; 

7=Outcomes; 8= Benefits; 9=Importance claim 

 

In sum, when drafting a CA proposal, the opening and ending appear to follow rather 

predictable moves. Once the author has established the territory and/or discussed the gap, they 

conclude with a consideration of what their studies have to offer in terms of the outcomes and 

how attending the session, despite its having a focus on research, will benefit the audience 

members and their pedagogy. 

 

Discussion 

 

In academia, there are numerous genres that writers need to master to become legitimate 

participants in their respective fields. However, many genres are occluded and thus, for novice 

writers, remain enigmatic. In the field of second language (L2) writing, awareness of this is 

growing and, increasingly, publications are emerging that serve to guide and mentor novice 

writers (Candlin, Crompton, & Hatim, 2015; Hyland, 2013; Swales, 2004; Swales & Feak, 2009, 

2012). In ELT, we see the practice of sharing one’s experiences as a valuable part of professional 

development. We also believe that many research-based conference presentations are given by 

graduate faculty, often long-removed from the language classroom. Knowledge about teaching 

needs to include the voices of practitioners who focus on language teaching on a daily basis. The 

goal of the present study was to examine the genre of CAs to ensure that a greater number of 

novice or experienced teachers contribute to the knowledge base and to encourage pre-service 

teachers to think about what linguistic tools they need to enter the realm of conferences. Overall, 

we found evidence that successful CAs include, rather frequently, the following moves: Means 1, 

Establishing Territory, and Outcomes.  Further, CAs tend to open with specific moves, namely, 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Move #X Move #Y Move #Z

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16



 Payant & Hardy 12 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

Establishing Territory, Reporting Previous Research, and Gap, and conclude with a discussion of 

the Outcomes and Benefits to the Attendees. In the proceeding section, we review these findings 

in light of previous research and offer clear recommendations for writing a research-based CA 

proposal for TESOL. 

 

With our first question, we sought to uncover the structural features that make up the CA. 

For this, we examined the average number of words. With the word limit of 300 for TESOL 

CAs, we found that successful proposals closely align to the recommended length, a finding that 

mirrors previous studies (Egbert & Plonsky, 2015; Halleck & Connor, 2006). This suggests that 

novice writers should utilize the recommended lengths in order to clearly explain their research 

and the contents of the actual presentation. As suggested by Swales and Feak (2009), this genre 

is promotional and serves to “sell your work” (p. 43). With the lengthier (yet organized and 

error-free) proposals, reviewers are better positioned to understand the research and its potential 

contribution. Halleck and Conner (2006), the only study referring to the TESOL Convention, 

identified that successful proposals were longer than rejected proposals, with mean numbers of 

230.8 words and 202.5 words, respectively1. Egbert and Plonsky (2015) also identified a positive 

relationship between the length of the method and results section. These findings echo findings 

from L2 writing research. Specifically, in numerous L2 writing studies, one feature often 

associated with higher scores is in fact length of compositions (Jarvis, Grant, Bikowski, & Ferris, 

2003; Grant & Ginther, 2000). Thus, in drafting research-based CAs for TESOL, it is 

recommended to utilize the allotted space.  

 

 The second goal was to examine whether the dominant moves proposed by Halleck and 

Connor (2006) would continue to make up the conference proposal abstract for the TESOL 

Convention, written nearly 20 years ago. In this sample of accepted CAs, we identified three 

frequent moves: Means 1, Territory, and Outcomes. These moves accounted for approximately 

50% of the proposals’ contents. However, when looking at the individual writers and their 

choices of rhetorical moves, we found that the more frequent moves to comprise conference 

proposals were Gap followed by Means 1 and Establishing Territory. The Outcomes were 

discussed by approximately half of the participants. These findings provide partial support for 

Halleck and Connor (2006), who found that Means 1 was very salient in their data set (89%). 

The next most common moves identified in their research were Goal (78%) and Means 2 (66%). 

Importantly, Gap was only included in 55% of the proposals (compared to 88% in the present 

data set). This discrepancy in Gap could be symptomatic of changes in and growth of ELT as a 

field. By identifying a gap, authors are informing the reviewers that they can communicate their 

ethos and “project more of an insider persona” of this well-established field through their 

knowledge of this genre (Berkenkotter, & Huckin, 1995, p. 111).  

 

These findings have clear implications for novice writers. First, there is a need and 

expectation for writers to be presenting Means 1 within the allotted space. When writing a 

research proposal for TESOL, it appears to be of utmost importance to clearly discuss the 

research design that guided the study, as this reflects the writer’s ability to clearly convey the 

novelty of their work and their knowledge of key research techniques. Therefore, after reading 

the proposal, the evaluator should quickly be able to answer the question “How did you examine 

your topic?” When interpreting the TESOL rubrics, when it reads that a proposal will refer 

                                                           
1 At the time of their study, guidelines indicated a one-page limit. 



 Payant & Hardy 13 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

“specifically to the appropriate theory, practice, and/or research on which the presentation is 

based in a detailed, thorough, and comprehensible manner” (TESOL, 2015), writers must be very 

explicit and dedicate a significant amount of space to this information. It follows that Means 1 

should present the setting, the data collection process, and instruments used to conduct the study.  

 

The second important move identified in this study is the establishment of territory. 

Establishing Territory allows writers to demonstrate their knowledge of the theoretical domains 

and shows their legitimacy as writers and scholars to the CA reviewers. Through the inclusion of 

this move, reviewers may gain trust in the writer’s credentials. Compared to Halleck and Connor 

(2006) and their 1996 corpus, it appears as though this feature has grown in importance over 

time. A possible explanation is that the field of ELT has expanded considerably and, to be taken 

seriously by the discourse community, writers need to show how their study fits into the larger 

context. Thus, as a writer, one should be able to answer the question “How does this study fit 

within the larger empirical context?” Therefore, if the situation or territory of the activity is well 

presented, it is much easier to determine whether this research is novel and of relevance to the 

audience, a dimension that can be evaluated in terms of criteria number 1 in the TESOL rubric: 

currency, importance, and appropriateness of a topic to the field.  

 

With respect to the move Outcomes, the findings of this research are interesting. On the 

one hand, the raw frequency of this move was very high; however, only half of the participants 

actually included this move in their proposal. One possible explanation is that proposals for 

TESOL are often written before the studies are completely finished, and some writers may not be 

in a position to discuss the findings. Rather, in the ones that did not include a discussion of the 

outcomes, the writers tended to include a discussion of the benefits for the attendees. This 

finding appears to support the idea that many conference proposals are written before the study is 

actually completed, as identified in Cutting (2012) and Berkenkotter and Huckin (1995). 

Therefore, it may not be as important to discuss the findings; rather, writers may increase the 

strength of their proposal by focusing on projected outcomes in terms of attendee benefits.   

 

Finally, the gap was not frequent in raw numbers. However, we do see that the gap was 

discussed by nearly all the participants. This finding shows the importance of highlighting what 

the study is contributing. One of the categories on the TESOL rubrics is titled “currency, 

importance, and appropriateness of topic to the field.” When a gap in the field is identified, it 

becomes easier to convince the audience that the topic is “cutting-edge, immediately relevant, 

ground- breaking, or significant to the field” (TESOL, 2016). Thus, while it may not be 

necessary to spend much time on this dimension, it appears as though it is valued.  

 

The third contribution of this study lies in the analysis of the internal patterns of CAs. 

Despite uncovering some variance, there are rather stable initial and final moves. Earlier studies 

suggested that CAs would follow a pattern of Introduction→ Method→ Results→ 

Discussion/Conclusion. This micro-analysis highlighted the internal components of these 

introductions (i.e., Territory, Report Previous Research, Gap) and uncovered what concluding 

moves are critical for a practitioner-oriented audience, namely Outcomes and Benefits for the 

Attendees. It is this last category that we feel may help authors “sell” their work, since teachers 

will see the connections between theory and practice.   

 



 Payant & Hardy 14 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

Before turning to explicit tips for new proposal writers, the limitations of the study 

should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. The current paper reports a 

small-scale research project, and our intention was not to make any generalization of these 

results to other conferences. Building on the current study, future research is warranted to 

examine a larger number of abstracts and could be expanded to include interviews with the 

authors in order to understand their processes while drafting CAs.  
 

Guidance for Proposal Writers 

 

The current study provides some valuable insights and serves to guide novice writers in the 

process of writing a research-oriented CA.  

 

Identifying a gap and research topic 

 

Before engaging in the process of writing your CA proposal, it is important that you identify a 

topic that is relevant and current to practitioners in varied contexts. To start imagining what is 

worthy of future research, we suggest that you peruse the conference program from the last two 

to three years and search for topics that are starting to emerge and/or topics that continue to draw 

attention. To identify topics particularly important to your geographical area, also consider the 

local affiliates’ program book from a previous year (e.g., BC TEAL). Once you have identified a 

research topic and decided to do the research, immediately start thinking about presenting at 

TESOL. With the research underway, look at the theme for TESOL and let this theme guide you 

in drafting an original title that will catch the readers’ attention and interest.  

 

Realistic goals 

 

In your proposal, you want to identify the gap that your research fills and discuss the means. 

When introducing the Means 1, be realistic and clear. One useful way to conceptualize this is to 

follow the categories included in the methodology section of an empirical study (i.e., 

participants, settings, instruments, procedure, coding). In addition, be sure that you can cover 

what you set out to do within the time allocation (typically 45-minute sessions). Also, show 

relevance of your research to other contexts. For instance, although you might be teaching 

English in British Columbia, explain how your research could benefit an English teacher 

working in Japan. You can do this by stating what the audience will get from attending your talk 

(i.e., Benefits to the Attendees).  

 

The language 

 

Your proposal should be 300 words and should include a variety of moves. Also, many writers 

fail to write clearly and concisely. The proposal readers are reading many proposals and if they 

have to guess what you are going to do, they will lose interest. Use clear constructions to present 

each of the moves. 

 

  



 Payant & Hardy 15 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

The internal organization 

 

The small corpus uncovered variation in the organization of the various CAs. However, some 

critical moves appear to be expected in a relatively stable order. Drawing on the present study’s 

findings, CAs should include the following moves early on: Establishing Territory, Reporting 

Previous Research, Gap, and, optionally, Goal. This is illustrated in the Sample Proposal 1.  

 

Sample Proposal 1.: Initial rhetorical moves 

 

Despite the fact that international undergraduate students have been the most 

studied population in the field of Second Language Writing […] (Territory), our 

knowledge of […] is still limited (Gap). In addition, surprisingly little is known 

about […] (Gap).  
 

The writers may consider ending their CA with a consideration of the outcomes (or anticipated 

outcomes), and importantly, the benefits for the practitioners and researchers who will be in 

attendance (see Samples 2 and 3).  

 

Sample Proposal 2.: Concluding rhetorical moves 

The presentation will highlight findings that cast light on differences regarding 

[…] (Means 2). Implications regarding the types of support that might be 

beneficial for these student populations will be discussed, and relevant 

applications for […] (Benefits to the Attendees). 

 

Sample Proposal 3.: Concluding rhetorical moves 

Results reveal Saudi L1 reading practices and beliefs about […] (Outcomes).  In 

addition to sharing our findings, we will (a) offer strategies we have used to 

improve literacy skills and promote a culture of reading among Saudi learners of 

English […] (Benefits to the Attendees). 

 

Conclusion 

 

Learning to write in a new genre is always a daunting task. In some cases, the benefits for 

uncovering the mystery of writing successful CAs are of great importance: for many, 

participating in professional development opportunities, such as presenting at conferences, 

translate into greater professional experiences and positioning (promotions and tenure). While 

knowledge of genres can be seen as a form of cultural capital, we believe that all aspiring 

scholars should have access to knowledge of genres. By demystifying the process of writing a 

successful CA, the field of ELT may experience an explosion of classroom-based research led by 

classroom teachers.     

 

  



 Payant & Hardy 16 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

References 

 

Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: 

Cognition/culture/powere. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and 

research for the sociology of education (pp. 46-58). Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing 

Group. 

Candlin, C. N. Crompton, P. & Hatim, B. (2015). Academic writing step by step: A research-

based approach. Equinox. 

Cutting, J. (2012). Vague language in conference abstracts. Journal of English for Academic 

Purposes, 11, 283-293. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.004 

Egbert, J. & Plonsky, L. (2015). Success in the abstract: Exploring linguistic and stylistic 

predictors of conference abstract ratings. Corpora, 10 (3), 291-313. doi: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0079 

Faber, B. (1996). Rhetoric in competition: The formation of organizational discourse in 

conference on college composition and communication abstracts. Written 

Communication, 13(3), 355-384. doi:10.1177/074108839601300300 

Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 

writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 123–145. doi: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00019-9 

Halleck, G. B., & Connor, U. (2006). Rhetorical moves in TESOL conference proposals. Journal 

of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 70-86. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2005.08.001 

Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison 

between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 240-

250. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2009.02.001  

Hyland, K. (2013). Teaching and researching writing. London: Routledge. 

Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D., & Ferris, D. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly 

rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing,12(4), 377-403. doi: 

10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001 

Kaplan, R. B., Cantor, S., Hagstrom, C., Kamhi-Stein, L. D., Shiotani, Y., & Zimmerman, C. B. 

(1994). On abstract writing. Text, 14(3), 401-426. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1994.14.3.401  

Loi, C. K. (2010). Research article introductions in Chinese and English: A comparative genre-

based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 267-279. 

doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.09.004  

Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: 

Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25-38. doi: 

10.1177/0033688215609230  

Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for 

Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1-17. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00023-5  

Sheldon, E. (2011). Rhetorical differences in RA introductions written by English L1 and L2 and 

Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 238-251. 

doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004 

Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. 

Vantola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 

45–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.004
http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0079
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00019-9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.02.001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1994.14.3.401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.09.004
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00023-5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004


 Payant & Hardy 17 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 1-17 

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. Ann Arbor, MI: 

University of Michigan Press. 

Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and 

skills (3 ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 

TESOL International Association. (2015). Call for retrieved November 22, 2015, from 

http://www.tesol.org/convention2015/education-br-sessions/tesol-2016-call-for-

participation 

TESOL International Association. (2016a). Affiliates–Regional Organizations. Retrieved March 

16, 2016, from https://www.tesol.org/connect/affiliates-regional-

organizations/worldwide-affiliate-directory 

TESOL International Association. (2016c). International Convention. Retrieved March 16, 2016, 

from http://www.tesol.org/attend-and-learn/international-convention 

TESOL International Association. (2016c). Standards. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from 

http://www.tesol.org/advance-the-field/standards 

 

 

 

The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

Copyright rests with the authors. 

https://www.tesol.org/connect/affiliates-regional-organizations/worldwide-affiliate-directory
https://www.tesol.org/connect/affiliates-regional-organizations/worldwide-affiliate-directory
http://www.tesol.org/attend-and-learn/international-convention
http://www.tesol.org/advance-the-field/standards
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

