Hi this is my academic writing major essay worth 60% of my overall grade, please help me get a good grade on this I really really do appreciate it thank you so much. As you can see below, there are 3 questions that they provided us to choose from, each questions relate to a certain lecture which I have uploaded as well. from this lectures there are recommended readings and required readings which the lecturers like us to refer to if possible.
Write an essay on one of the following topics: Question 1 1. Why do academics focus on reliability in writing and how does this relate to principles of observation? In your response to this question, you should make reference to features of academic writing discussed in the unit –see Brick et al. on reliability. You should also use a number of examples from academic articles to illustrate your key points. *Lecture 8 Answer from lecturer “What I am referring to are the ideas set out in lecture 8 and introduced by Hanson and Chalmers in the required readings. In summary, I am talking about how the observable world can be revealed from a range of perspectives including different theoretical perspectives. What we know affects what we see.” Required Reading: Chalmers, A 2013 ‘Science as knowledge derived from the facts of experience’, What is this thing called science?, 4th edn, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, 2013, pp. 1-17. Hanson, N R 1958, ‘Observation’, Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science, Cambridge UP, Cambridge, pp. 4-24. Recommended Reading: Graves, H 1995, ‘Rhetoric and reality in the process of scientific enquiry’, Rhetoric Review, 14(1), pp. 106-25. Goode, E, & Ben-Yehuda, N 2009, ‘Enter the moral panic’, Moral panics: The social construction of deviance, 2nd edn, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 21-33. Question 2 2. Why is it important to analyse the relationship between texts and images when studying academic writing? Address this question using examples of academic writing (journal articles and books) that contain images or diagrams. In addition to analysing the structure of the images, you should examine how they are both framed by the text and presented as evidence. *Lecture 9 Required Reading: Kress, G R & Van Leeuwen, T 2006, ‘Narrative representations: Designing social action’, Reading images: the grammar of visual design, 2nd edn, Routledge, London & New York, pp. 45-78. Recommended Reading: Bateman, John 2014, ‘Text-Image Relationships in Perspective’, Text and Image, Taylor and Francis, pp. 5-29. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/lib/monash/detail.action?docID=1699268 Boeriis, M & van Leeuwen, T 2017, ‘Vectors’, in O Seizov and J Wildfeuer (ed.) New Studies in Multimodality : Conceptual and Methodological Elaborations, Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, pp. 15-35. Lemke, J L 1998, ‘Multiplying meaning: visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text’, Reading Science, Routledge, London, pp. 87-113. Martinec, R & Salway, A 2005, ‘A system for image–text relations in new (and old) media’, Visual Communication, 4(3), pp. 337–371. Question 3 3. What role does stance play in academic writing and how does it vary across the disciplines? To answer this question, it is important that you provide many examples of types of stance (hedges, boosters, attitude markers, etc.) from journal articles and books written within different academic disciplines. *Lecture 7, (Ken Hyland) Hyland, K 2013, ‘Instructional discourse’, in K Hyland (ed.), Discourse Studies Reader: Essential Excerpts, Bloomsbury, London, pp. 195-221. Graff, G & Birkenstein, C 2010, ‘“And yet”: distinguishing what you say from what they say’, They say, I say: the moves that matter in academic writing, 2nd edn, WW Norton, New York and London, pp 68-77. Nygaard, L 2015, ‘The “I” in (social) science’, Writing for scholars: a practical guide to making sense & being heard, 2nd edn, Sage, Los Angeles, pp. 34-57. WORDS WORK: Academic skills for University ATS1297 - Academic Writing Lecture Seven: Academic Voice * Writing in response to others * debate Academic writing requires that authors respond to existing debates and previous works * What ‘others say’ The writer must learn to respond to what other people say, this should be: linked to the writer’s own position on a debate presented early in the essay to indicate the essay’s direction lucid and without distracting detail (Graff and Birkenstein p. 21). The debate can be introduced in a number of ways: an anecdote or quotation a summary of the state of the field (Graff and Birkenstein pp. 20-22) a reference to a key writer an indication of findings through the description of a disputed concept * Introducing debate - example ‘The common refrain that is heard in elementary discussions of quantum mechanics is that a physical object is in some sense both a wave and a particle, with its wave nature apparent when you measure a wave property such as wavelength, and its particle nature apparent when you measure a particle property such as position. But this is, at best, misleading and, at worst, wrong’ (Stenger cited in Gillen 157). * Summary and disputed concept ‘The common refrain that is heard in elementary discussions of quantum mechanics is that a physical object is in some sense both a wave and a particle, with its wave nature apparent when you measure a wave property such as wavelength, and its particle nature apparent when you measure a particle property such as position. But this is, at best, misleading and, at worst, wrong’ (Stenger cited in Gillen 157). Reference to debate Summary of opposing claim Counter claim * Responding to possible critics ‘Unrelenting skeptics might compare the dark matter of today with the hypothetical, now defunct “ether”, proposed centuries ago as the weightless, transparent medium through which light moved. […] But dark matter ignorance differs fundamentally from ether ignorance. While ether amounted to a placeholder for our incomplete understanding, the existence of dark matter derives not from mere presumption but from the observed effects of gravity on visible matter.’ (Tyson and Goldsmith cited in Gillen 171). Opposing group Summary of opposing position Contention * Using data to link to a debate Common debate structures: ‘The results of X contradict/refute Y’s conclusion that …… X’s findings call into question the widely accepted theory that ……’ Not necessarily oppositional ‘Our data support/confirm/verify the work of X by showing that …… By demonstrating ……, X’s work extends the findings of Y. Our data are consistent with X’s hypothesis that’ (Gillen p. 165) * Personal voice * Using ‘I’ * Brick, Herke and Wong (pp. 17-18) argues that we can still use the personal pronoun ‘I’ in academic writing to: set out the structure of an essay or article ‘My presentation has four parts’ to state forcefully how the writer’s opinion differs from others working in the field (p. 17). ‘Some people, like myself,’ ‘I believe that the scholarship’ to indicate and explain the academic’s relationship to the research (p. 18). ‘I previously believed’ ‘My illness was the starting point for reconsidering research in cancer care’ Setting out a position – indicating stance Personal voice can be used to highlight the author’s position: ‘Researchers have different attitudes about this scientific debate. Some people, like myself, are fascinated to find that the very issues that grip us today were clearly discussed and argued 100 years ago – with insightful observations about the directions psychology should take. Other people find historical statements to be either obviously irrelevant (because there were no computer models back then) or merely expressions of opinion (because they are often philosophical). I agree that the weight of the argument should rest, where possible, on the models and methods of today. Nevertheless, I believe that the scholarship of cognitive science and AI needs to be improved, and this entails at least laying out the historical trends and opposing camps. My presentation has four parts’ (Clancey p. 46). * * Stance What language features contribute to a position in academic writing? * Creating Flow through stance ‘One way in which the reaction to plagiarism may be regarded as a moral panic is the disproportionality between the ‘threat’ and the reaction to it. Bowden (1996) argues that plagiarism is a serious problem and has become incredibly widespread due to the availability and ‘ease’ of copy/paste technology. However, it is difficult to be sure how much of a problem plagiarism is in universities now. Some studies (Walker, 2010) suggest that up to 30% of students in a group of 528 students plagiarised ‘to some extent’ in their written work, while other studies have suggested much lower figures of deliberate ‘cheating’ (Sheard et al. 2002). Hayes and Introna (2005) suggest that the lower figure is probably more accurate, as the higher figures are based on wide definitions of plagiarism. Wide definitions of plagiarism define ‘poor’ or inadequate referencing’ as the same thing as ‘cheating’ or plagiarism with the intent to deceive the marker about who actually wrote the essay. As a result, surprisingly plagiarism is not as significant a problem as some people think, and clearly doesn’t need as much attention and concern as it gets. Many lecturers are in fact extremely worried about the amount of time taken up in trying to detect and deal with plagiarism (Sutherland-Smith, 2005).’ (Johnson 2015) * Framing and Linking language * ‘One way in which the reaction to plagiarism may be regarded as a moral panic is the disproportionality between the ‘threat’ and the reaction to it. Bowden (1996) argues that plagiarism is a serious problem and has become incredibly widespread due to the availability and ‘ease’ of copy/paste technology. However, it is difficult to be sure how much of a problem plagiarism is in universities now. Some studies (Walker, 2010) suggest that up to 30% of students in a group of 528 students plagiarised ‘to some extent’ in their written work, while other studies have suggested much lower figures of deliberate ‘cheating’ (Sheard et al. 2002). Hayes and Introna (2005) suggest that the lower figure is probably more accurate, as the higher figures are based on wide definitions of plagiarism. Wide definitions of plagiarism define ‘poor’ or inadequate referencing’ as the same thing as ‘cheating’ or plagiarism with the intent to deceive the marker about who actually wrote the essay. As a result, surprisingly plagiarism is not as significant a problem as some people think, and clearly doesn’t need as much attention and concern as it gets. Many lecturers are in fact extremely worried about the amount of time taken up in trying to detect and deal with plagiarism (Sutherland-Smith, 2005).’ (Johnson 2015) In academic writing, the most commonly used framing language includes: Hedges Reporting verbs Linking language Less common: Boosters Attitude markers Stance and position The writer does not just present information, s/he position themselves relative to other voices. Hyland refers to this as stance, or the way: ‘academics annotate their texts to comment on the possible accuracy or credibility of a claim, the extent they want to commit themselves to it, or the attitude they want to convey to an entity, a proposition, or the reader’ (Hyland 2005, p. 178) *