, ENG1503 Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026 - DUE 20 March 2026
QUESTION 1
The primary target audience of the text is university academics and
institutional decision-makers, although it also speaks to employers and
students as secondary audiences. This is evident from the author’s
repeated use of insider language and perspectives that assume
familiarity with higher education practices, such as references to
assessment design, invigilated examinations, and curriculum structures.
For example, the author discusses how many universities have not
returned to in-person exams after Covid-19, a concern that directly
addresses academics and administrators responsible for assessment
policies. A second clear indicator is the way the author engages with
debates among academic colleagues, explicitly outlining and
responding to arguments made by scholars who support the use of
generative AI. This positions the text within an internal academic
conversation rather than a general public discussion. Thirdly, the
emphasis on the “certification function” of universities and the risk
posed to the credibility of degrees suggests an audience involved in
safeguarding institutional reputation and standards. At the same time,
employers are indirectly addressed through concerns about graduates
holding qualifications that may not reflect real skills, highlighting the
labour market consequences of AI-assisted cheating. Finally, students
are included as a secondary audience through the anecdote about
undergraduates asking where they are supposed to get ideas, which
serves as a warning about the erosion of independent thinking. Overall,
the tone, examples, and arguments strongly indicate an academic
readership concerned with integrity and the future of higher education.
QUESTION 1
The primary target audience of the text is university academics and
institutional decision-makers, although it also speaks to employers and
students as secondary audiences. This is evident from the author’s
repeated use of insider language and perspectives that assume
familiarity with higher education practices, such as references to
assessment design, invigilated examinations, and curriculum structures.
For example, the author discusses how many universities have not
returned to in-person exams after Covid-19, a concern that directly
addresses academics and administrators responsible for assessment
policies. A second clear indicator is the way the author engages with
debates among academic colleagues, explicitly outlining and
responding to arguments made by scholars who support the use of
generative AI. This positions the text within an internal academic
conversation rather than a general public discussion. Thirdly, the
emphasis on the “certification function” of universities and the risk
posed to the credibility of degrees suggests an audience involved in
safeguarding institutional reputation and standards. At the same time,
employers are indirectly addressed through concerns about graduates
holding qualifications that may not reflect real skills, highlighting the
labour market consequences of AI-assisted cheating. Finally, students
are included as a secondary audience through the anecdote about
undergraduates asking where they are supposed to get ideas, which
serves as a warning about the erosion of independent thinking. Overall,
the tone, examples, and arguments strongly indicate an academic
readership concerned with integrity and the future of higher education.
