As interpretation of the research results is also present at the findings and discussion (RD) stage, it is not surprising to note the increase in the attitudinal density at the RD stage. This section can be regarded as a historical recount, that writers report the selected results, which helps to answer the writers’ research questions, and balancing the objectivity with comments on how the findings match the expected outcomes (Bruce, 2001).

Appreciation meanings remain dominant at this generic stage to encode the writers’ comments on the phenomena observed in the object of study using the institutionalised framework, including the effectiveness of the pedagogic practices deployed as in (a), as well as the analysis of the outcomes from the students as in (b) and (c) in the research.

Judgement is also chosen to focus on participants’ behaviour on the course of research, foregrounding “the valuing of character, as it enacted in behaviour” (Hood, 2010, p. 112).

The choice of Affect at this stage is mainly non-authorial, meaning that the Affect values directly quotes the participants’ emotional responses towards the teaching practices and learning outcomes; or quotes from other literature on the responses relevant to the object of study.

(a)	Through our research and its shortcomings [-app], we must acknowledge that the first goal [+app] is very relevant [+app] here.
(b)	The written product successfully [+app] modifies [+app] her free writing by correcting minor errors [+app] and inserting a line describing her best friend’s appearance.
(c)	The above errors [-app] are said to be examples of incomplete [-app] application of grammatical rules. However, it was observed in the study that L1 interference [-app] was also at play in such erroneous [-app] constructions.
(d)	This method allows students to spot [+jud] their own inconsistencies [-jud] and draws attention [+app] to the gap between learners and more competent [+jud] language users.
(e)	Most people ignored [-jud] the teacher and would not listen [-jud] but doze[-jud] or play mobile phone games [-jud].
(f)	This aligns with Hedge (2000), who says that good writers don't worry [+aff] about small lexical details during their first draft of their writing.
(g)	From students’ response, it is easy to find that students were well involved [+aff] and interested [+aff]. They laughed [+aff] after the teacher’s joking question in the end.
(h)	As a result, many teachers were frustrated [-aff] at the gap …, cited by T2 and T3.

 

Attitudinal distribution at the FD stage is thus evident for the effectiveness of the research paper since expert writers would “reconcile objectivity and critique” (Hood, 2010, p.2) to strike a balance between displaying results as objective facts with evaluation and justification of the results with the expected outcomes claimed at the earlier stages. While institutionalising the personalised comments with Appreciation and Judgement, expert writers would also manage to capture the authentic responses from the participants in his or her classroom-based research using Affect resources scarcely.