在國際會議上進行學術論文發表被認為是研究生面臨的最大挑戰之一。過去研究偏重於探究有助於成功學術論文發表的基本要素（即必要性），少有研究將需求分析 (Needs Analysis, NA, Hutchinson & Waters, 1987) 的另外兩個面向-- 研究生的缺乏性和需求性—納入考量。此外，過去研究很少分析有來自不同領域（即硬科學與軟科學）研究生的需求。因此，本研究之目的以需求分析(NA)來探討研究生的需求（即必要性、缺乏性、需求性），並比較來自不同領域研究生的需求。本研究的參與者包含來自硬科學和軟科學各五名越南學生。主要的研究工具為口頭報告和半結構化訪談以及簡報投影片。本研究以Morell（2015）提出的系統功能語言學（SFL）和多模式框架收集和分析資料，研究結果：發表論文當下相互影響的因素是軟科學和硬科學研究生的共同必要面對的需求。雖然在兩個領域之間存在了必要性、需求性以及缺乏性之間的差異。此外，英語語言能力被認為是在學術論文發表中，是否能充分利用不同模式關鍵且首要因素。本研究發現對於特定用途英語（ESP）教育的理論和實務有重要的貢獻，尤其對於不同領域研究生在研討會學術論文發表有具體的啟發。

Giving academic presentations at international conferences is considered as one of the biggest challenges for graduate students. Much has examined to necessary elements contributing to successful conference presentations. However, scarce research has taken the lacks and wants of graduate students’ needs into consideration (Hutchinson and Waters, 1987). Few studies have investigated the needs analysis (NA) of graduate students from different disciplines. To address these gaps, this present study employed the NA approach to prove into the needs (i.e., necessities, lacks, and wants) of graduate students and to compare and contrast their needs stemming from different disciplines. Five Vietnamese from hard sciences and five from soft sciences utilized verbal reports and semi-structured interviews along with PowerPoint slides as data source. Data were collected and analyzed based on the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and multimodal framework proposed by Morell (2015). The findings showed that stage-oriented factors were the common necessities for graduate students in soft and hard sciences. While differences in necessities, wants, and lacks were found between the two disciplines, English language proficiency was considered as the key overarching factor for making good use of the different modes in conference presentations. Important theoretical and pedagogical implications are drawn for research and education in general and curriculum designs for meeting the needs of presenters of different disciplines in particular.

Arancón, P. R. (2013). The use of SFL genre theory for the analysis of students’ writing skills in ESP. Volumen Monográfico, 245-262.
Avraamidou, L., & Osborne, J. (2009). The Role of Narrative in Communicating Science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), 1683-1707. doi:10.1080/09500690802380695
Baker, J. P., Goodboy, A. K., Bowman, N. D., & Wright, A. A. (2018). Does teaching with PowerPoint increase students' learning? A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 126, 376-387. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.003
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034701
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.
Brown, J. D. (2009). Foreign and Second Language Needs Analysis The Handbook of Language Teaching. Chichester, U.K.; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bunton, D. R. (1998). Report linguistic and textual problems in Ph. D and M. Phil theses: An analysis of genre moves and metatext Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Hong Kong.
Carey, J. (2014). Different Approaches to Multimodality In J. Carey (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 31-43). London: Routledge.
Carrell, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (2001). Variations in learning, motivation, and perceived immediacy between live and distance education classrooms. Communication Education, 50(3), 230-240. doi:10.1080/03634520109379250
Cassily, C., & Eija, V. (2002). A multi-semiotic genre: The conference slide show In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 169-210). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Chang, Y.-Y. (2012). The use of questions by professors in lectures given in English: Influences of disciplinary cultures. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 103-116. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.002
Charles, C., & Ventola, E. (2002). A multi-semiotic genre: The conference slide show. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 169-210). Frankurt: Peter Lang.
Clyne, M. (1991). The Sociocultural Dimension: The Dilemma of the German-speaking Scholar. In H. Schröder (Ed.), Subject-oriented Texts (pp. 49-68). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Cunningsworth, A. (1983). Needs analysis—A review of the state of the art. System, 11(2), 149-154. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(83)90025-8
Dang, T. N. Y. (2018). The nature of vocabulary in academic speech of hard and soft-sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 69-83. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.03.004
DeGangi, G. A. (2017). Chapter 3 - Anxiety Disorders: How to Calm the Anxiety Cycle and Build Self-Confidence. In G. A. DeGangi (Ed.), Pediatric Disorders of Regulation in Affect and Behavior (Second Edition) (pp. 117-149): Academic Press.
Deroey, K. L. B. (2012). What they highlight is…: The discourse functions of basic wh-clefts in lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 112-124. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.002
Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2012). Just remember this: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 31(4), 221-233. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.001
Douglas, D. (2017). Introducing Needs Analysis and English for Specific Purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 48, 71-73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.04.003
Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Raters' orientation to interaction. Language Testing, 26(3), 423-443. doi:10.1177/0265532209104669
Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, N. (2000). Language for business: effective needs assessment, syllabus design and materials preparation in a practical ESP case study. English for Specific Purposes, 19(3), 291-296. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00029-5
Eija, V., Celia, S., & Susan, T. (2002). Bern, Switzerland.
Eija, V., Celia, S., & Susan, T. (2002). The language of conference Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Farkas, D. K. (2009). Managing three mediation effects that influence PowerPoint deck authoring. Technical Communication, 56(1), 28-38.
Flectcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimeida principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 117-133). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fourney, A., Terry, M. A., & Mann, R. (2010). Gesturing in the wild: understanding the effects and implications of gesture-based interaction for dynamic presentations. Paper presented at the BCS HCI.
Frober-Adamo, M. (2002). Humor in oral presentations: What’s the joke? In E. Ventalo, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The languague of conferencing (pp. 211-226). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Giardiello, F. M. (2006). Powerful PowerPoint presentations. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 64(3), 393-394. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2006.05.020
Goldfarb, N. M., ODonovan, S., & Southworth, C. (2017). How important is body language to public speaking. Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices, 13.
Gralla, P. (2010). U.S. army discovers PowerPoint makes you stupid. Retrieved from http://blogs.computerworld.com/16006/powerpoint_makes_you_stupid
Grech, V. (2018). WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Optimisation of PowerPoint presentations and skills. Early Human Development, 125, 53-56. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.06.006
Gürbüz, H., Kiso lu, M., Erkol, M., & Kahraman, S. (2010). The effect of PowerPoint presentations prepared and presented by prospective teachers on biology achievement and attitudes toward biology. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3043 – 3047.
Hallett, T. L., & Faria, G. (2006). Teaching with Multimedia: Do Bells and Whistles Help Students Learn? Journal of Technology in Human Services, 24(2-3), 167-179. doi:10.1300/J017v24n02_10
Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. In J. Webster (Ed.), On Grammar. London: Continuum
Hardin, E. E. (2007). Presentation Software in the College Classroom: Don't Forget the Instructor. Teaching of Psychology, 34(1), 53-57. doi:10.1080/00986280709336652
Hashemi, M., & Hokmabadi, M. (2011). Effective English Presentation and Communication in an International Conference. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 2104-2111. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.409
Hincks, R. (2005). Measures and perceptions of liveliness in student oral presentation speech: A proposal for an automatic feedback mechanism. System, 33(4), 575-591. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.04.002
Hincks, R. (2010). Speaking rate and information content in English lingua franca oral presentations. English for Specific Purposes, 29(1), 4-18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.004
Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An inverstigation of the strcuture of research article disscussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 321-337.
Hood, S., & Forey, G. (2005). Introducing a conference paper: Getting interpersonal with your audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(4), 291-306. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.003
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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.06.004
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes. A Learning-Centered Approach. (pp. 53-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2009). Specific Purpose Programs. In H. L. Michael & J. D. Catherine (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching.
Jin, J., Ying Liu, H., & Zhang, Y. (2014). A Research on Students’ Needs for Follow-up Curriculum of College English. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3. doi:https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i1.580
Johns, A. M., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1991). English for Specific Purposes: International in Scope, Specific in Purpose. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 297-314. doi:10.2307/3587465
Kaufman, R. (1994). A needs assessment audit. Performance + Instruction, 33(2), 14-16. doi:doi:10.1002/pfi.4160330205
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, S. (2006). Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international graduate students in non-science and non-engineering fields. English for Specific Purposes, 25(4), 479-489. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.10.001
Kress, G. (1993). Against Arbitrariness: The Social Production of the Sign as a Foundational Issue in Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 169-191. doi:10.1177/0957926593004002003
Kress, G. (2000b). Multimodality. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures (pp. 182-202). Melbourne: Macmillan.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kress, G. (2014). What is mode. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Edward Arnold.
Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London ; New York: Routledge.
Kunkel, K. R. (2004). A research note assessing the benefit of presentation software in two different lecture courses. Teaching Sociology, 32, 188-196.
Lanir, J., Booth, K. S., & Hawkey, K. (2010). The benefits of more electronic screen space on students’ retention of material in classroom lectures. Computers & Education, 55(2), 892-903. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.020
Lanir, J., Booth, K. S., & Tang, A. (2008). MultiPresenter: a presentation system for (very) large display surfaces. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Multimedia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Levasseur, D. G., & Kanan Sawyer, J. (2006). Pedagogy Meets PowerPoint: A Research Review of the Effects of Computer-Generated Slides in the Classroom. Review of Communication, 6(1-2), 101-123. doi:10.1080/15358590600763383
Lin, C.-Y. (2010). ‘… that's actually sort of you know trying to get consultants in …’: Functions and multifunctionality of modifiers in academic lectures. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 1173-1183. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.001
Liu, J.-Y., Chang, Y.-J., Yang, F.-Y., & Sun, Y.-C. (2011). Is what I need what I want? Reconceptualising college students’ needs in English courses for general and specific/academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 271-280. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.09.002
Long, M. H. (2005). Overview: A rationale for needs analysis and needs analysis research. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second Language Needs Analysis (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, T. (2011). Academic listening in the 21st century: Reviewing a decade of research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(2), 79-88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.03.001
Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. London: Routledge.
Matthews, D. (2018). Storyworthy: Engage, Teach, Persuade, and Change Your Life through the Power of Storytelling. California, US: New World Library

May, L. A. (2006). An examination of rater orientations on a paired candidate discussion task through stimulated verbal recall. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing (MPLT), 11(1), 29-51.
McKay, S. L. (2009). Introspective Techniques. In J. Heigh & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguitics: A practical introduction (pp. 220-241). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmilan.
Micheal, G. (2018). Conferencing and Presentation English for Young Academics. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
Morell, T. (2015). International conference paper presentations: A multimodal analysis to determine effectiveness. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 137-150. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.10.002
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309-326. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2
Morton, J. (2009). Genre and disciplinary competence: A case study of contextualisation in an academic speech genre. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 217-229. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.04.005
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design: A sociolinguistic model for defining the content of purpose-specific language programmes. London: Cambridge University Press.
Murphy, J. M., & Baker, A. A. (2015). History of ESL Pronunciation Teaching. In M. Reed & J. M. Levis (Eds.), The Handbook of English Pronunciation: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nesi, H. (2012). Laughter in university lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 79-89. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.12.003
Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and Learning in their Disciplinary Contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405-417. doi:10.1080/0307507022000011525
Nouri, H., & Shahid, A. (2005). The effect of PowerPoint presentations on student learning and attitudes. Global Perspectives on Accounting Education, 2, 53-73.
Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Donnell, M. (2012). Introduction to Systemic Funtional Linguistics for Discourse Analysis. Language, Function and Cognition. Retrieved from http://web.uam.es/departamentos/filoyletras/filoinglesa/Courses/LFC11/LFC-2011-Week1.pdf
O’Halloran, K. L., & Smith, B. A. (2010). Multimodal text analysis. Retrieved from http://multimodal-analysis-lab.org/_docs/encyclopedia/01-Multimodal_Text_Analysis-O'Halloran_and_Smith.pdf
Patience, G. S., Boffito, D. C., & Patience, P. A. (2015). Chapter 7 - Presentations They Will Remember. In G. S. Patience, D. C. Boffito, & P. A. Patience (Eds.), Communicate Science Papers, Presentations, and Posters Effectively (pp. 141-173). Boston: Academic Press.
Querol-Julián, M., & Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2012). Multimodal evaluation in academic discussion sessions: How do presenters act and react? English for Specific Purposes, 31(4), 271-283. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.06.001
Reershemius, G. (2012). Research cultures and the pragmatic functions of humor in academic research presentations: A corpus-assisted analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6), 863-875. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.012
Regennitter, F. J. (2000). Powering up your PowerPoint presentations. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 118(1), 116-120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2000.108983
Richards, K. (2009). Interivews. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguitics: A practical introduction (pp. 182-199). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmilan.
Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2002). Visual discourse in scientific conference papers A genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 19-40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00024-7
Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2012). Oralising text slides in scientific conference presentations: A multimodal corpus analysis. In A. Boulton, S. Carter-Thomas, & E. Rowley-Jolivet (Eds.), Corpus-informed research and learning in ESP: Issues and applications (pp. 137-166): John Benjamins.
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). Genre awareness and rhetorical appropriacy: Manipulation of information structure by NS and NNS scientists in the international conference setting. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), 41-64. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.09.003
Royce, T. (2002). Multimodality in the TESOL Classroom: Exploring Visual-Verbal Synergy. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 191-205. doi:10.2307/3588330
Savoy, A., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Information retention from PowerPoint™ and traditional lectures. Computers & Education, 52(4), 858-867. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.005
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. New York: Routledge.
Shalom, C. (2002). The academic conference: A forum for enacting genre knowledge. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Conferencing. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Sionis, C. (1997). The integration of verbal and non-verbal material in some instances of written scientific discourse. ASp la revue du GERAS, 15, 339-355.
Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint. Comput. Educ., 35(3), 175-187. doi:10.1016/s0360-1315(00)00030-0
Thompson, S. (2002). As the story unfolds: The uses of narrative in reseach presentations. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 147-167). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Tufte, E. R. (2006). The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within, Second Edition: Graphis Pr.
Vassileva, I. (2002). Speaker-audience interaction: The case of Bulgarians presenting in English. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Conferencing (pp. 255-276). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Ventola, E. (2002). Why and what kind of focus on conference presentations. In E. Ventalo, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 15-50). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Vivian, Y. C. L., Ming, L. L., Tong, C. S., & Jin, N. Y. (2013). The Impact of PowerPoint on Undergraduates’ Technical Communication Achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 1088-1092. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.436
Webber, P. (2005). Interactive features in medical conference monologue. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 157-181. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.003
Wecker, C. (2012). Slide presentations as speech suppressors: When and why learners miss oral information. Computers & Education, 59(2), 260-273. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.013
Wennerstrom, A. N. N. (1994). Intonational Meaning in English Discourse: A Study of Non-Native Speakers. Applied Linguistics, 15(4), 399-420. doi:10.1093/applin/15.4.399
West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. Language Teaching, 27(1), 1-19. doi:10.1017/S0261444800007527
Widdowson, H. (1981). English for specific purposes: Criteria for course design. In L. Selinker, E. Tarone, & V. Hanzeli (Eds.), English for Academic and Technical Purposes. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Wolf, G. (1989). Malinowski's ‘context of situation’. Language & Communication, 9(4), 259-267. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(89)90023-2