MAE909 The Culture and Conventions of Academic Writing

Assignment Guidelines
August 2025

1. Class participation (Individual) (10%)

This assessment component requires you to
 be fully prepared for class by completing all assigned readings before class; and
 participate actively in classroom activities.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
A+/A/A- Fully prepared for class; demonstrated very active engagement with classroom activities
B+/B/B- Prepared for class; demonstrated active engagement with classroom activities
C+/C Only partially prepared for class; demonstrated limited engagement with classroom activities
D+/D Not prepared for class; demonstrated minimal engagement with classroom activities

2. Post-course reflection (Individual) (25%)

You are encouraged to keep a reflective journal for this course and engage in ongoing reflection on the
question “what is ‘good’ academic writing” throughout the course. In the post-course reflection, draw on your
ongoing reflective notes, if any, as well as your pre-course reflection derived from a classroom activity in
Session 1, and share your insight about what “good” academic writing is in 1,000 words.

Note that there is no right or wrong answer for this task. The focus of the assessment is on the depth of
reflection, the insight shared, as well as the quality of writing.

There is no need to include citations in the written reflection; however, if you do include citations, make sure
you limit the references to a maximum of five. The 1,000-word limit does not include references.

Deadline: 4 November 2025, 6 pm

Submit your assignment in Word format via Turnitin on Blackboard. Name your file using the following
format: YourName_reflection (e.g. IcyLee_reflection).

Sign the ELL assignment cover sheet to indicate that the submitted work has not been plagiarized. Upload it
to Post-course reflection cover sheet.

NB: The post-course reflection must be based on your own personal experience and learning, and it must be
written in your own words without relying on AI-generated content.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
A+/A/A- High quality reflection, which is very insightful and well-written

B+/B/B- Good quality reflection, which shows good insight and is generally well-written

C+/C Some attempt at reflection, but primarily descriptive in nature; writing contains quite a number of
flaws in terms of language use and organization
D+/D A purely descriptive response with no attempt at reflection; unsatisfactory writing in terms of
language use and organization

3. Student presentation (Group) (20%)

In your group, select a prominent researcher in the field of academic writing and prepare an oral presentation
that includes the following:
1. Provide a brief overview of the researcher’s academic background and major contributions. (3 minutes)

1
2. Select a representative journal article by the researcher. Explain why you chose this article, summarize its
main argument and key concepts or frameworks, and discuss how it connects to the researcher’s broader
body of work. (6 minutes)
3. Critically engage with the researcher’s perspective by applying a key concept or framework to a real-life
academic writing context—for example, your own writing, a peer’s work, a published article, or a situation
involving the teaching and learning of academic writing. Show how the concept or framework helps to
interpret, evaluate, or improve academic writing—or the teaching and learning of academic writing—in
that context. (6 minutes)
4. Pose a provocative question to the audience based on the researcher’s view (e.g. Does genre pedagogy
stifle student voice?), and facilitate a short discussion or a live Q&A. (5 minutes)

Total time – 20 minutes

Presentation date: 14 October 2025

A representative from each group should upload the selected article by 7 October 2025 and the PowerPoint
slides before class on 14 October 2025 to the “Assignment” section on Blackboard.

Please name the file using the following format:

Group X_Selected Researcher’s Name
(e.g., Group 1_Ken Hyland)

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Criteria A+/A/A- B+/B/B- C+/C D+/D

Researcher Highly informative Informative Somewhat Very limited or
Overview overview with overview with key informative unclear overview;
(Background, relevant and well- background and overview, but lacks important
career, key organized details contributions, missing key background and
contributions) about the mostly well- background or contribution
researcher’s organized. contributions. details.
background,
career, and
impact on the
field.
Selection & Article is well- Article is relevant; Article is relevant Article appears
Rationale for aligned with the rationale is clear but rationale is randomly chosen
Article researcher’s core and appropriate. weak or or lacks relevance
work; rationale underdeveloped. and rationale.
for selection is
compelling and
clearly justified.
Summary of Article Comprehensive Accurate Partial summary Incomplete or
(Main argument, and accurate summary with with limited detail inaccurate
key concepts, summary of key most key ideas or unclear summary; little or
connection to ideas, with clear included and connection to no understanding
broader work) links to the some connection broader work. of the article’s key
researcher’s to broader work. points.
broader work.
Critical Key concept Key concept Basic attempt to Concept is poorly
Engagement applied applied apply concept, but applied or not
through insightfully to a appropriately to a link to real applied at all;
Application well-chosen, real relevant context; context or key lacks relevance to
(Application of key writing-related shows sound idea is weak or writing context.
2
 concept to a real- context; understanding. unclear.
life academic demonstrates
writing context) deep
understanding
and critical
engagement.
Question and Thought- Good question Question is Question is
Q&A/Discussion provoking linked to the loosely unclear,
question directly researcher’s connected to unrelated, or
linked to the ideas; discussion the researcher’s missing; little or
researcher’s or Q&A is ideas; limited no audience
ideas; highly generally engagement in engagement.
engaging engaging. discussion or
facilitation of Q&A.
audience
discussion or
Q&A.
Presentation Very clear, Clear and Delivery is Unclear,
Skills and confident, well- coherent uneven or disorganized
Delivery paced, and delivery with occasionally delivery; difficult
coherent generally good unclear; some to follow or
delivery with pacing and issues with poorly timed.
effective use of structure. timing or
visuals (if used). organization.

Some prominent researchers:

 Mary Jane Curry
 John Flowerdew
 Nigel Harwood
 Guangwei Hu
 Ken Hyland
 Therese Lillis
 Paul Kei Matsuda
 Brian Paltridge
 Sue Starfield
 John Swales
 Christine Tardy
 Others

NB: Please sign up for your group’s chosen researcher for the presentation by 30 September 2025 using the
Google Doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jMLqZWpWwcwjcGFdoz3OmiwK3Z9GBvFTkqlHh6k3des/edit?
usp=sharing
The group presentation must be based on your own work rather than from Generative AI.

4. Research proposal (Individual) (45%)

This assessment component assesses your ability to:
 identify and articulate a topic within the field of academic writing research that the discourse community
would consider worthy of investigation;
 write an introduction and literature review in which you contextualize the proposed research project and
argue for the need for the research study that you are proposing;
 locate relevant sources and critically discuss them in a clear and appropriate manner; and
 propose a workable methodology that will enable your research questions to be addressed effectively.

3
BEFORE WRITING – IDENTIFICATION OF A RESEARCH TOPIC:
Choose a research topic that investigates some aspects of the culture and conventions of academic
writing. The topic can be related to any significant issue covered in the MAE909 course, arising from
classroom input, discussions, course readings, and/or out-of-classroom tasks. You are also free to choose a
research topic on some aspect of academic writing / academic that we have not covered in the course.
You have to demonstrate that the topic fills an important gap and is able to contribute new knowledge to
the research field. Choose a methodology that suits the purpose of the proposed study.

NB: Please make sure that you clear your research topic with me by 17 October 2024. Note too that your
choice of topic will be taken into account in the grading of this assignment, and that there will be bonus
points for assignments that identify a genuinely interesting, current, and under-researched topic within the
field of academic writing research.

REQUIRED SECTIONS:
(1) Title of your proposed research study
The title should concisely capture the focus of your proposed research project.

(2) Abstract (maximum 120)

Include an abstract of no more than 120 words. This should include a brief statement of the aim of your
proposed research project and why your proposed research is necessary and/or of interest to the
discourse community, as well as the methodology of the study.

(3) Introduction and review of literature (Length: 1500 - 1700 words)

The largest portion of your research proposal assignment will be an introduction and literature review that
together effectively introduce your proposed research topic, contextualize the study, and justify your choice of
topic. This should read roughly like the introduction and literature review of a research article that you might
find in an academic journal.

In writing your introduction and literature review, keep in mind the following:
 You should write this research proposal with the discourse community of academic writing researchers
as the target audience. This means that sufficient contextualization and good orientation are crucial.
Don’t assume that your target readers know who you are or the context of your proposed study. (For
instance, you can’t refer to “Paper 2 of the GP exam” or “College English Test Band 4” in the first
sentence of your introduction and expect your readers to understand it.)

 The conventions of academic writing in English are such that you are expected to be explicit in your
argumentation. (For instance, don’t assume that your readers can infer from the ten studies you
refer to that there is a need for your research. Academic writing in English demands that you
explicitly argue for the need for your research. Refer to journal articles to see how published writers do
this.)

 The literature review is not a neutral re-telling of the history of a field, but a crucial part of the
overall argument of our research paper. In writing your literature review, therefore, make sure that
your voice, your evaluation, and your line of argument are clearly sustained throughout. Ask yourself
regularly as you re-read and revise your assignment: Will it be clear to my reader at this point why I
am reviewing the work of this particular writer? Is this helping me to enhance my argument? Have I
made clear how the various works that I am citing relate to each other?

 Your proposed research questions should be clearly and explicitly articulated at a point that you deem
most appropriate. Without a clear statement of what precisely you aim to find out in your
proposed research, it would be impossible to evaluate whether your proposed methods of
investigation (in the next section) are appropriate.

By the end of your introduction and literature review, your reader should have a clear overview of
what you propose to investigate (including your specific research questions) and the context in which
4
 your proposed research is set, and your readers should be persuaded that your proposed research is
indeed a worthwhile topic to investigate.

(3) Proposed methods (Length: 800 - 1000 words)

In this section, you will propose a workable methodology that will enable your research questions to
be addressed effectively.

In writing this section, keep in mind the following:

 Sub-divide your proposed methods section into sub-sections that focus on different aspects of your
proposed research (e.g., research design, context, participants, data collection methods, data analysis
methods, anticipated problems, and possible actions taken to address the potential problems).
 In addition to describing what you intend to do, remember to also briefly explain the reasons for
your proposed methodological choices.

By the end of this section, your reader should have a clear picture of how you intend to operationalize
and carry out the proposed research study, be convinced that the proposed methods are practical and
feasible, and be persuaded that what you are proposing will effectively enable your research questions
to be addressed.

Compulsory, non-assessed component

On a separate sheet (the final page), include the following:

1. Topic justification and positionality: Explain why this topic is personally meaningful or relevant to
your academic or professional interests. You may also reflect on how your background and
experiences might shape your interest in and approach to the topic.
2. Contextual relevance: Describe how this proposed research would apply to a local, disciplinary, or
institutional context that matters to you.
Length: One page maximum. This section does not count toward the word limit of your research
proposal.

PRESENTATION OF ASSIGNMENT:
 Please adhere to the word limits specified above and include a word count at the end of each
section. The expected length is 2,500 to 3,000 words.
 Please type your assignments on A4 paper, with double-spacing, 1-inch margins on all four sides of
each page, and in Times New Roman 12-point font.

 Please make sure that you include a reference list (single-spaced) in APA style (7th edition) which
contains all (and only) the sources that you cite in your assignment. This reference list should be
attached at the end of your assignment and is not included in the word count.

Submit your assignment in Word format via Turnitin on Blackboard. Name your file in the following format:
YourName_research proposal (e.g., IcyLee_research proposal).

Sign the ELL assignment cover sheet to indicate that the submitted work has not been plagiarized. Also
complete and sign the GenAI declaration sheet. Combine the two sheets into one file and upload it to
Research proposal assignment cover sheet and GenAI cover sheet.

Please note that plagiarism carries a severe penalty. Do ensure that you follow the standard procedures when you use
other people’s ideas in your assignment. Make sure that the similarity level falls within an acceptable range – i.e. below 20%.

CRITERIA FOR GRADING:

(1) Choice of topic – Is the proposed research topic something which researchers in the field of academic
5
 writing research would find current, relevant, and interesting?
(2) Contextualization of the study – Has the study been appropriately and clearly contextualized for the
discourse community of academic writing researchers?
(3) Justification of the proposed study – Is there a persuasive argument for why there is a need for the
proposed research?
(4) Clarity in argumentation – Is there a clear, explicit, and sustained line of argument that runs
consistently throughout the introduction, literature review, and proposed methods?
(5) Choice and handling of sources – Have relevant sources been identified? Is there evidence of evaluation
and critical discussion of the sources?
(6) Formulation of the research questions – Have the research questions been clearly articulated? Is it
clear how the research questions emerge from the introduction and literature review that have been
provided? Is the scope of the research questions appropriate?
(7) Choice of methods – Do the proposed methods seem practical and feasible? Are they clearly explained?
Are they likely to result in the proposed research questions being effectively addressed?
(8) Adherence to the specified word limit – Is a word count included at the end of each section and has
the word limit been adhered to?

(9) Control of academic language and conventions – Have academic discourse conventions been adhered
to? Is the language use fluent? Has a consistent referencing style been used? Have all instances
of borrowing from other sources been appropriately referenced?

Deadline: Tuesday, 11 November 2025, 6 p.m. (no extension)

Late submissions
If there is a compelling reason for submitting your assignment late, please write or talk to me before the
deadline, and provide a detailed explanation. Unless genuine extenuating circumstances exist, and prior
approval has been granted for a deadline extension, late assignments will be penalized. Assignments that
are late by up to 7 calendar days will incur a downgrade of up to one letter grade. For assignments that are
late by more than 7 calendar days but within 14 calendar days, an additional deduction of up to one letter
grade will be applied. Assignments that are late for more than 14 calendar days will not be accepted.

DON’TS of Generative AI Use in Your Research Proposal

You must not use GAI tools to:
 ❌ Source or fabricate citations (GAI may generate fake or inaccurate references)

 ❌ Paraphrase, summarize, or synthesize academic sources on your behalf

 ❌ Write any part of your proposal, including the literature review, methodology, or rationale
 ❌ Reword or improve the language of your writing with the intention of avoiding academic responsib
ility
 ❌ Generate research questions or titles without your own critical judgment
 ❌ Edit or revise content to the extent that it replaces your own authorial control or intellectual contr
ibution

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Component A+/A/A- B+/B/B- C+/C D+/D

Choice of topic Very current, Current, relevant and Somewhat current, Not current, relevant
relevant and interesting relevant and and interesting

6
 interesting interesting
Introduction The study is The study is The study is The study is neither
appropriately contextualized and inadequately contextualized nor
contextualized and justified, and a contextualized and justified; the statement
justified, and a very reasonably clear justified; the of purpose is unclear or
clear statement of statement of purpose statement of purpose missing.
purpose is included. is included. is not clearly
articulated.
Literature review Information is Information is Information is Information is gathered
gathered from a wide gathered from a gathered from more from only a few
variety of research- variety of research- than a few sources, sources, and there are
based sources and is based sources and but there may be some major issues with
clearly organized in a organized in a logical some issues with organization and
logical structure. structure. Research organization, or relevance. Research
Research questions questions are relevance. The questions are present
are clearly stated, reasonably clear, research questions but may not be very
focused, relate to focused and related are somewhat clear focused or related to
themes in the to the literature but may not be the literature review.
literature review, and review, addressing a completely related to The research gap is not
address a significant research gap. the literature review. indicated.
research gap. The research gap is
not clear.
Method The method section The method section is The method section is The method section is
is very clearly written reasonably clear and somewhat clear, but present but is
and contains a has the most important significantly deficient in
detailed description information on the information is missing information about the
of the research research design, from the research research design,
design, context, context, participants, design, context, context, participants,
participants, data data collection, and participants, design of data collection, and
collection, and data data analysis the study, data data analysis
analysis procedures. procedures. collection, and data procedures.
Anticipated problems Anticipated problems analysis procedures. Anticipated problems
and possible and possible solutions Anticipated problems and possible solutions
solutions to address to potential problems and possible solutions are not included.
potential problems are examined. are considered but
are thoroughly lack in-depth
addressed. exploration.
Use of source Relevant sources are Relevant sources are Not all sources are Source use is minimal,
texts identified, with identified, with relevant, with some with very limited
strong evidence of evidence of attempts at evidence of evaluation
evaluation and evaluation and critical evaluation and critical and critical discussion.
critical discussion of discussion of the discussion.
sources. sources.
Writing quality Writing is very clear Writing is clear and Writing is somewhat Writing is acceptable in
and organized in a generally well clear and organized terms of
coherent manner. organized. Uses but could be comprehensibility but
Uses formatting formatting improved. Uses there are major flaws in
conventions conventions with formatting terms of accurate use
flawlessly. minor flaws. conventions with of language,
minor or major flaws. organization, and
formatting.