AW-Module 2: From Broad Interest to Researchable Proposal

⚡️ Aligning purpose, audience, problem, questions, scope, and APA presentation

A successful research proposal turns curiosity into a plan that another person can understand, evaluate, and follow. This week moves from the ethical foundation of academic writing to the practical work of defining a focused inquiry. Students examine the purposes and audiences of academic texts, identify the major sections of a research proposal, and learn to narrow a broad subject into a manageable topic. The central challenge is alignment: the problem statement, purpose, research question, scope, title, preliminary sources, and timeline should all point in the same direction. Students will also establish an APA-formatted document and use reverse outlining to see how a model proposal is organized. By the end of the week, the proposal should not merely announce an interesting topic; it should explain what will be examined, why it matters, and how the planned work can be completed responsibly.

Essential Questions

1. How does a broad interest become a focused, researchable, and manageable academic project?

2. What makes the parts of a research proposal logically aligned?

Guiding Questions

1. How do purpose, audience, and academic register shape a proposal?

2. What information belongs in the problem statement, purpose statement, and research question?

3. How can scope and feasibility prevent a project from becoming too broad?

4. What APA and planning elements should be established before drafting continues?

Learning outcomes

• Explain how purpose, audience, register, and text type influence academic writing choices.

• Identify the typical structural components of an academic paper and a research proposal.

• Narrow a broad subject into a specific and feasible research topic.

• Draft an aligned working title, rationale, problem statement, purpose statement, research question, and scope.

• Prepare a preliminary APA reference list, timeline, and AI Planning Appendix for the Unit I proposal.

Key concepts and vocabulary

Term	Working definition
Purpose	The specific reason a text is written and the action or understanding it is intended to produce.
Audience	The readers whose knowledge, expectations, and needs shape the text.
Academic register	The level and style of language conventionally used in scholarly communication.
Research problem	A clearly described issue, gap, difficulty, or unanswered question that justifies inquiry.
Purpose statement	A concise statement of what the proposed project intends to investigate or accomplish.
Research question	A focused, answerable question that guides the collection and analysis of information.
Scope	The boundaries of the project, including population, context, concepts, and time frame.
Rationale	The explanation of why the topic and proposed inquiry matter.
Reverse outline	An outline created from an existing text to reveal its actual structure and function.
APA setup	The document formatting, citation, and reference conventions required by APA style.

Main chapter content

Academic writing as purposeful communication

Academic writing is not defined only by formal vocabulary. It is a form of communication shaped by a specific purpose, an informed audience, evidence, and recognizable conventions. A proposal is written to persuade readers that a planned inquiry is worthwhile, focused, and feasible. That purpose influences every choice. The writer must provide enough context for the reader to understand the problem, but should not attempt to write the entire literature review. The writer must show awareness of existing knowledge, but should not pretend that the results are already known. The tone should be confident enough to present a clear plan and cautious enough to avoid unsupported claims.

Audience awareness helps determine what must be explained. In this course, likely readers include instructors, peers, and future researchers in English language teaching. These readers understand general academic concepts but may not know the local context, the specific student population, or the institutional problem. Effective proposals therefore define specialized terms, identify the setting, and explain why the inquiry matters. Academic register supports this purpose through precise wording, complete sentences, appropriate transitions, and an objective but not impersonal tone. The writer can state a reasoned position without sounding absolute.

Seeing the whole academic paper

The syllabus introduces the typical structure of an academic paper: title page, abstract, introduction or literature review, methodology, results and discussion, conclusion, and references. A research proposal represents an earlier stage of this process. It explains what the researcher plans to study and how the project might proceed. Because no results exist yet, the proposal focuses on the problem, rationale, purpose, research question, scope, preliminary literature, and timeline. Understanding the full paper helps students see where the proposal leads and why early decisions matter.

Model analysis should focus on function rather than labels alone. A reverse outline can be created by writing a brief note beside each paragraph: establishes context, identifies a problem, reviews a key source, states the purpose, presents a question, limits the scope, or describes the timeline. This reveals whether the document develops logically. It also shows that headings do not guarantee organization. A section called “Problem Statement” may still be ineffective if it contains only general background. Reverse outlining gives students a concrete way to compare the intended structure with the structure readers actually encounter.

Narrowing a topic through a sequence of decisions

Broad topics such as technology in education, motivation, inclusion, or academic writing are starting points, not researchable projects. Narrowing requires a sequence of boundaries. A student might begin with technology in English language teaching, then focus on generative AI, undergraduate writing, a particular course, a defined group of students, and a specific concern such as transparent revision practices. Each boundary makes the project more manageable and changes the kinds of sources needed.

A useful narrowing funnel moves through five questions: What general area interests me? What problem within that area is visible or documented? Who or what is affected? In what context does the problem occur? What aspect can be investigated within the available time and resources? The final topic should be neither so broad that the proposal becomes vague nor so narrow that meaningful evidence is unavailable. Feasibility is part of quality. A topic may be important but unsuitable for the semester if it requires access to a population, data, or technical expertise the student does not have.

Aligning the problem, purpose, question, and scope

Alignment means that the main components of the proposal answer related versions of the same inquiry. The problem statement explains what is not working, not known, or not sufficiently understood. The purpose statement tells what the project will investigate. The research question expresses the inquiry in a form that can guide evidence gathering. The scope sets boundaries so the question remains answerable. A mismatch among these parts signals that the project is not yet conceptually stable.

Consider a proposal that identifies low participation in an English-medium course but asks a research question about teachers’ use of digital games. The topic may be related, but the connection is not explicit. The writer should either revise the problem to focus on instructional strategies or revise the question to examine participation. An alignment check can be performed by highlighting repeated key concepts across the title, problem, purpose, and question. Repetition is useful here because consistent terminology shows that the project has one center. Synonyms can be introduced later, but early planning benefits from lexical consistency.

Building the proposal package

The working title should name the main phenomenon and context without promising results. The rationale should explain educational or scholarly significance. The preliminary reference list should include credible sources that help establish the problem and define important concepts. APA formatting should be established at the beginning so that citations and references are added consistently rather than repaired at the end. The timeline should divide the project into realistic stages such as searching, reading, note-taking, drafting, feedback, revision, and submission.

Approved AI use at this stage is limited to planning support. A student may ask for possible ways to narrow a topic or alternative formulations of a question, but the suggestions must be evaluated against the course context and the student’s actual interests. The AI Planning Appendix should include exact prompts and explanations of what was retained or discarded. The week concludes with peer checking for alignment and submission of the Unit I research proposal and related assignments. The strongest proposal will be clear enough that a reader can summarize the project in one sentence and detailed enough that the next steps are visible.

From concepts to this week’s deliverable

The proposal package is strongest when each component narrows the next. The working title names the area and population without making claims that the study has not yet established. The rationale explains why the issue deserves attention. The problem statement identifies a specific condition, tension, or gap rather than merely announcing a broad topic. The purpose statement says what the proposed inquiry will examine, describe, compare, or understand. The research question translates that purpose into an answerable form, while the scope sets realistic boundaries around context, participants, concepts, and time. Preliminary references demonstrate that the topic belongs to an existing scholarly conversation, and the timeline confirms that the proposed work is feasible within the course.

Before submitting Unit I, students should perform an alignment reading rather than editing each section in isolation. Highlight the central concepts in the problem statement and check whether the same concepts appear in the purpose and research question. Ask whether the proposed sources could genuinely help answer the question. Remove promises that exceed the available time or data. Then review the AI Planning Appendix: exact prompts should be recorded, and the student should explain which generated ideas were retained, modified, or discarded. The appendix does not substitute for the proposal; it demonstrates accountable planning. A successful submission should allow a reader to move from title to problem, purpose, question, scope, references, and timeline without encountering a shift in topic or an unexplained new variable.

Suggested weekly learning sequence

A productive learning sequence for this chapter begins with a diagnostic response to the essential question, “How does a broad interest become a focused, researchable, and manageable academic project?” Students should first record an individual answer and then compare it with examples, course criteria, and peer interpretations. A short concept-sorting activity using Purpose, Audience, Academic register, and Research problem can make important distinctions visible before students work on a full draft. The instructor can then model one decision aloud, showing not only the completed example but also the questions, alternatives, and evidence that led to it. Students apply the same process to a small portion of their own project and receive formative feedback before extending the work independently.

The second part of the week should move from practice to production. Students use the guiding questions—“How do purpose, audience, and academic register shape a proposal?” and “What information belongs in the problem statement, purpose statement, and research question?”—as checkpoints while working toward the stated outcomes, especially the ability to explain how purpose, audience, register, and text type influence academic writing choices and to identify the typical structural components of an academic paper and a research proposal. A brief peer conference should focus on one high-impact feature rather than attempting to correct everything at once. Students then revise, annotate the evidence of their decision-making, and complete the week’s deliverable: Working title and rationale; problem statement; purpose; research question(s); scope; preliminary APA references; timeline; Unit I research proposal; AI Planning Appendix. The final five minutes of class can be used for an exit reflection identifying one decision the writer can now justify and one question that must be carried into the next chapter.

🗓️ Wednesday (11:00 AM - 1:00 PM)

🗓️ Thursday (12:00 PM - 1:00 PM)

🗓️ Friday (10:00 AM - 12:00 PM)

Today, we write our Unit I Initial Research Proposal.

• 🗓️ Example elements with a justification:

  1. Working Title

  Challenges in Using Peer Feedback to Revise Academic Writing Among University EFL Students

  Why this title works:
  The title identifies the main phenomenon (peer feedback and revision), the skill area (academic writing), and the general population (university EFL students). It does not claim that peer feedback is effective or ineffective before the topic has been investigated.

  ---

  2. Researchable Problem

  Some university students studying English as a foreign language receive peer feedback on their writing but have difficulty deciding how to use that feedback when revising their drafts.

  Why this is researchable:
  The problem is more specific than a broad topic such as peer feedback or academic writing. It identifies:

  • Who: university EFL students

  • What: difficulties using peer feedback

  • Where: academic writing

  • Specific focus: revision of written drafts

  ---

  3. Rationale

  Peer feedback is frequently used in language-writing courses because it allows students to receive comments from classmates and participate actively in the revision process. However, receiving feedback does not necessarily mean that students know how to interpret or apply it. Understanding the difficulties students experience when using peer comments could help writing instructors design clearer peer-review activities and provide students with better strategies for evaluating and applying feedback.

  Main idea:
  This research matters because understanding the problem could improve writing instruction and peer-review practices.

  ---

  4. Problem Statement

  Peer review can provide university EFL students with additional perspectives on their writing before they submit a final draft. However, students may receive suggestions that are unclear, overly general, contradictory, or difficult to apply. Students may also be uncertain about whether they should accept or reject a classmate’s recommendation. As a result, peer feedback may not always lead to meaningful revision. More focused inquiry is needed to understand the difficulties university EFL students experience when interpreting and applying peer feedback during academic writing.

  The problem statement establishes:

  • the context;

  • the specific difficulty;

  • who experiences the problem; and

  • why the issue deserves further investigation.

  ---

  5. Purpose Statement

  The purpose of this proposed inquiry is to explore the difficulties university EFL students experience when interpreting and applying peer feedback while revising academic writing.

  Alignment check:
  The purpose directly addresses the problem. It does not introduce a new population, skill, or variable.

  ---

  6. Research Question

  What difficulties do university EFL students experience when interpreting and applying peer feedback during the revision of academic writing?

  A possible secondary question could be:

  What types of peer feedback do students perceive as most useful or difficult to apply during revision?

  For an initial proposal, however, one focused research question may be sufficient.

  ---

  7. Scope

  The proposed inquiry will focus on university students learning English as a foreign language in an English-language or English-language-teaching program. The investigation will concentrate specifically on students’ experiences with written or oral peer feedback used to revise academic writing.

  The project will not attempt to examine all forms of writing feedback. Teacher feedback, automated writing evaluation, grading practices, and generative AI feedback will remain outside the primary scope unless they are necessary for understanding the central problem.

  Possible participants, if an empirical component is later developed, could include university EFL students who have previously participated in peer-review activities.

  Scope boundaries:

  • Population: university EFL students

  • Context: university academic writing

  • Phenomenon: peer feedback

  • Specific process: revision

  • Excluded areas: teacher feedback, automated feedback, AI-generated feedback, and unrelated language skills

  ---

  8. Preliminary Research and Writing Timeline - just an example

  Stage	Planned Work
  Stage 1	Refine the research problem, purpose, research question, and scope.
  Stage 2	Identify keywords and search terms related to peer feedback, academic writing, EFL students, and revision.
  Stage 3	Locate and evaluate relevant scholarly literature.
  Stage 4	Read selected sources and take organized research notes.
  Stage 5	Develop the annotated bibliography required in Unit III.
  Stage 6	Identify recurring themes, relationships, agreements, and disagreements across the literature.
  Stage 7	Organize the literature review by themes rather than by individual sources.
  Stage 8	Draft the literature review independently.
  Stage 9	Revise for argument, synthesis, coherence, cohesion, APA conventions, and academic English.
  Stage 10	Proofread and submit the final literature review.

  ---

  9. Academic Integrity Declaration

  I confirm that I developed and wrote this initial research proposal independently. I did not use generative artificial intelligence to generate, plan, draft, revise, edit, or evaluate any part of the proposal.

  ---

• 🗓️ Example initial research proposal

  Challenges in Using Peer Feedback to Revise Academic Writing Among University EFL Students

  1. Researchable Problem

  University EFL students often receive peer feedback as part of academic writing activities. However, some students may have difficulty understanding, evaluating, or applying their classmates’ suggestions when revising their drafts. The researchable problem therefore concerns how university EFL students experience and respond to difficulties when using peer feedback during revision.

  2. Rationale

  Peer feedback can encourage students to participate actively in the writing and revision process. However, receiving comments from classmates does not necessarily mean that students understand how to use those comments effectively. Exploring students’ experiences can provide insight into the kinds of feedback they find useful, confusing, or difficult to apply. Such information may help writing instructors design more effective peer-review activities.

  3. Problem Statement

  I wish to learn more about peer feedback in university EFL academic writing because I want to know how students experience and respond to difficulties when interpreting and applying peer comments during revision in order to better understand how peer-review activities can support meaningful revision and inform more effective academic writing instruction.

  4. Purpose Statement

  The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore university EFL students’ experiences with interpreting and applying peer feedback while revising academic writing. Particular attention will be given to the difficulties students encounter and how they make decisions about classmates’ suggestions. The study will seek to understand students’ perspectives rather than measure the effectiveness of peer feedback statistically.

  5. Research Questions

  1. How do university EFL students describe their experiences with peer feedback during the revision of academic writing?

  2. What difficulties do university EFL students experience when interpreting and applying peer feedback?

  3. How do university EFL students decide whether to accept, modify, or reject peer feedback when revising their writing?

  6. Qualitative Research Design

  The proposed study will use a qualitative exploratory research design because the purpose is to understand students’ experiences, perceptions, and decision-making processes. Data could be collected through semi-structured interviews with university EFL students who have participated in peer-review activities. Interview questions would encourage participants to describe specific experiences with receiving and using peer feedback. The responses could then be analyzed thematically to identify recurring experiences, challenges, and patterns.

  7. Possible Participants and Context

  Possible participants would be university students learning English as a foreign language who have experience participating in peer-review activities. Participants could come from an English-language or English-language-teaching program in which academic writing forms part of their coursework. A small purposive sample would be appropriate because qualitative research seeks detailed accounts of participants’ experiences rather than statistical representation. Participation would depend on access, availability, and the requirements of the later research project.

  8. Scope

  The study will focus specifically on peer feedback used during the revision of academic writing by university EFL students. It will examine students’ experiences interpreting, evaluating, and responding to comments from classmates. Teacher feedback, automated writing evaluation, grading practices, and generative AI feedback will remain outside the primary scope. These boundaries will keep the proposed inquiry focused and manageable.

  9. Preliminary Research and Writing Timeline - optional

  The first stage will involve refining the research problem, purpose, research questions, and qualitative design. Subsequent stages will include locating scholarly literature, developing the annotated bibliography, and identifying themes relevant to peer feedback and writing revision. If an empirical component is conducted, the researcher would then prepare interview questions, collect qualitative data, and identify themes in participants’ responses. The final stages would involve developing and revising the literature review and other required course work.

  10. Academic Integrity Declaration - use this example

  I confirm that I developed and wrote this initial research proposal independently. I did not use generative artificial intelligence to generate, plan, draft, revise, edit, or evaluate any part of the proposal. I understand that scholarly articles and a reference list are not required for this initial proposal. Sources will be located, evaluated, and incorporated during later stages of the research process.

• 🗓️ What to submit:

  • My working title reflects the focus of my proposed inquiry.

  • I identified a specific researchable problem rather than only a broad topic.

  • My rationale explains why the problem matters.

  • My problem statement clearly establishes the issue and context.

  • My purpose statement responds directly to the problem.

  • My research question(s) are focused, researchable, and aligned with the purpose.

  • My scope establishes realistic boundaries for the project.

  • My timeline identifies logical next stages in the research and writing process.

  • I understand that no scholarly articles or references are required for this initial proposal.

  • I completed the proposal without using generative AI.

  • The writing reflects my own academic voice, thinking, and decisions.

  • I reviewed the proposal for B2+ academic English, spelling, punctuation, coherence, and formatting.

  • I included the Academic Integrity Declaration.