Week 1 — Reading a Writing Situation: One Message, Three Readers

Assignment 1 of the term — read a writing situation with the five questions, sort a draft's changes, and explain the idea to someone who has never taken a writing course.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based analysis. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Writing Studio practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together on one small set of messages.

The task

This week's shared example is the food-drive message set, an illustrative set of messages written for this course and attributed to no one. A club member signed up to run the sign-up table at the club's food drive, held at a community center, and then was called in for a work shift; another club member who ran the table last year agreed to cover it. Three versions of the news went out: Version A, a text to a friend in the club (27 words); Version B, an email to the club leader (61 words); and Version C, a note to the community center's events committee (74 words). Chapter 1 prints all three in full.

Between its first draft and its final form, Version C went through this change log, listed here in mixed order:

• (a) Added a comma after "Because of a work commitment".
• (b) Cut a sentence complaining about the work schedule.
• (c) Fixed a misspelling of "roster".
• (d) Moved the roster request from the first sentence to the end, after the reason.
• (e) Combined two short sentences about the table into one.
• (f) Added the sentence naming who will take the writer's place.
• (g) Rewrote the main point from "I can't do it" to a request to update the posted roster.

The writer's path through the writing process for Version C was: invention, drafting, invention again (to find out who keeps the roster), drafting, revision, editing, reflection.

Work these four problems, and show how you reached each one:

1. In the food-drive message set, the text to a friend (Version A) has 27 words and the note to the events committee (Version C) has 74 words. How many more words does Version C use than Version A?
2. The rhetorical triangle has three corners (writer, audience, subject), and two of them, writer and audience, are also among the five questions. How many of the five questions does the triangle leave out?
3. Sort the seven changes in the committee note's change log into revision and editing. How many of the seven changes are revision changes?
4. The committee note's path through the writing process records 7 stage visits across the 5 stages. How many of those visits were returns to a stage already visited?

Beside each answer, add one brief explanation:

• Problem 1: name two of the five questions (writer, audience, purpose, genre, context) whose answers differ between Version A and Version C, and for each one point to the words in Version C that the difference explains.
• Problem 2: read the running draft's Stage 1 topic, "our college's phone policy in lecture classes", through purpose, genre, and context; say why the faculty senate's curriculum committee needs each answer; and name what the draft still lacks.
• Problem 3: using one revision change and one editing change from the log, explain the difference between revision (ideas, focus, structure) and editing (sentences and surface), and say why revision comes first.
• Problem 4: explain what it means that the writing process is recursive, using the loop back to invention in Version C's path.

Explain it to a non-expert

A friend who has started a new job tells you their emails to their manager keep going unanswered, and asks, "Why does it matter how I word it? The information is the same." Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains the five questions in everyday words, applies at least two of them to your friend's emails, and names one limit, such as that the five questions are a classroom model and real situations can be messier. Explain any course term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible; this message is scored with Problem 4.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a younger cousin who asks why a scholarship essay needs a second draft when spell-check found no errors. Model answer: "Spell-check fixes the surface, which is editing, but it can't tell you whether the essay says the right thing to the people choosing who gets the money. Revising means rereading the whole essay as those readers would and asking whether your strongest story comes first. Do that big pass before you polish any sentences, or you may polish a paragraph you end up cutting. There's no single right way to revise, but a reader's eyes catch what spell-check can't."

Use that pattern for your friend, with your own wording and examples.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief explanations, and your message to the friend before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show your counts and your sort when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one answer or explanation, even if your first attempt was strong.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the analysis or the message for you. If it praises you without pointing to anything you wrote, or offers to rewrite your sentences, decline and ask it what evidence it sees.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful writing coach for a first-year English Composition course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about a writing situation. Do not write my assignment for me, do not rewrite my sentences, do not invent work I did not show, and never invent a quotation or a source.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The data: the food-drive message set, an illustrative set of messages attributed to no one. A club member who signed up to run the sign-up table at a food drive was called in for a work shift; another member agreed to cover it. Version A, a text to a friend, has 27 words; Version B, an email to the club leader, has 61 words; Version C, a note to the community center's events committee, has 74 words. Version C's change log, in mixed order: (a) added a comma after "Because of a work commitment"; (b) cut a sentence complaining about the work schedule; (c) fixed a misspelling of "roster"; (d) moved the roster request from the first sentence to the end, after the reason; (e) combined two short sentences about the table into one; (f) added the sentence naming who will take the writer's place; (g) rewrote the main point from "I can't do it" to a request to update the posted roster. Version C's path: invention, drafting, invention again (to find out who keeps the roster), drafting, revision, editing, reflection.
PROBLEM P1: In the food-drive message set, the text to a friend (Version A) has 27 words and the note to the events committee (Version C) has 74 words. How many more words does Version C use than Version A?
PROBLEM P2: The rhetorical triangle has three corners (writer, audience, subject), and two of them, writer and audience, are also among the five questions. How many of the five questions does the triangle leave out?
PROBLEM P3: Sort the seven changes in the committee note's change log into revision and editing. How many of the seven changes are revision changes?
PROBLEM P4: The committee note's path through the writing process records 7 stage visits across the 5 stages. How many of those visits were returns to a stage already visited?
After the four answers, I must briefly explain each one: for P1, two of the five questions whose answers differ between Version A and Version C, each tied to words in Version C; for P2, the running draft's Stage 1 topic ("our college's phone policy in lecture classes") read through purpose, genre, and context, why the faculty senate's curriculum committee needs each answer, and what the draft still lacks; for P3, the difference between revision and editing using one change of each kind, and why revision comes first; for P4, what recursive means, using the loop back to invention. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a friend whose emails to a new manager go unanswered, explaining the five questions in everyday words, applying at least two, and naming one limit. I must explain course terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: accurate counts and sorts (40 points), rhetorical reasoning (32 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (16 points), and pointing to the evidence in the texts (12 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 counts-and-sorts points, 4 reasoning points, 2 clarity points, or 1.5 evidence points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my final message only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COUNTS-AND-SORTS UNITS: A correct word difference, count, sort, or count of return visits = 2; the right values or sort with only a counting or arithmetic slip = 1; a missing result or the wrong values or sort = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent wording.
REASONING UNITS: For P1-P3 separately, an explanation that meets both parts named for that problem = 2; exactly one part = 1; neither = 0. For P4, BOTH an explanation of recursive using the loop back to invention AND a message to the friend that explains the five questions in everyday words with one limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0; naming a term alone does not earn a unit. A counting slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to writing courses, with course terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or unexplained terms = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the final message with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
EVIDENCE UNITS: For each problem, the counts, labels, or steps behind the result shown so they can be checked = 2; a relevant but incomplete value, label, or step = 1; a result alone or no evidence = 0. Visible evidence stays checkable despite a counting slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made, and name the words you are praising. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied all four answers and their brief explanations AND written my message to the friend AND revised at least one answer or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; it may end in .5 and must not be rounded to a whole number. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my answers and explanations]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised analysis, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised analysis with all four answers, their brief explanations, and your message to the friend — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled diagram of the five questions and the change log with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 1 skills — reading a writing situation with the five questions, comparing them with the rhetorical triangle, telling revision from editing, explaining why the writing process loops, and explaining an idea to someone new to writing courses — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, the four brief explanations, and the message to the friend. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one answer or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised analysis, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The counts, the sort, the explanations, the revision, and the message to the friend must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to write the assignment, rewrite your sentences, or add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com