Week 1 Discussion — Who Was It Written For? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
Everyone has sent a message that landed wrong: too stiff for a friend, too casual for a boss, too long for someone in a hurry. This week you learned that every piece of writing answers five questions (writer, audience, purpose, genre, and context) and that good writers loop back to revise instead of trusting a first draft.
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: Think of a real message you had to write to someone with some power over you: a supervisor, a landlord, a coach, an office, or a teacher. Would a more formal version have worked better, worse, or no differently? Make your case using at least two of the five questions, and say what you would change if you sent it again.
Option B: Think of a piece of writing you revised, or wish you had: an application, a complaint, a long message, a school essay. Some people say good writers revise because they are good; others say they are good because they revise. Take a position, and use your own example to show whether revision (re-seeing ideas, focus, and structure) or editing (fixing sentences and surface) made, or would have made, the real difference.
There is no single right answer here. A text to a coach, a complaint to a transit agency, or a scholarship essay rewritten three times can each be argued well in more than one direction. Pick one you actually remember, and tell us the story.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
AI use: this version of the discussion uses no chatbot. Write your post and your replies from your own reasoning, in your own words.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- For Option A, describe the real message and its reader, and argue whether a more formal version would have worked better, worse, or no differently. For Option B, describe the piece of writing and take a position on whether revision or editing made, or would have made, the real difference.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (rhetorical situation, writer, audience, purpose, genre, context, exigence, revision, editing) correctly.
- Say what you would change next time, and why that change serves the reader.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: name one of the five questions the poster did not use and show how it changes the picture, ask what the exigence was, or point out where a change the poster called revision was really editing (or the reverse). "Nice point!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like (an illustrative example, attributed to no one):
I chose Option A. A while ago I emailed my apartment manager about a broken lock, and I wrote it like a text: "hey, the lock's broken again, can someone come by?" Nothing happened for a week. The audience was someone who handles dozens of requests and does not know me, and the purpose was to get a repair scheduled, so I needed my unit number, what was wrong, and a clear request. A more formal version would have worked better, not because formal is always better, but because this reader needed details and a reason to act. Next time I would put the unit number and the request in the first line.
Notice how it names a real message, uses two of the five questions, avoids "formal is always better," and says what would change. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Full credit | Partial credit | No credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | A real, specific message or draft, a clear position on the chosen option, and at least one reason tied to a detail of that example | An example is present, but the position is vague or asserted without a reason | Missing, off-topic, or no reasoning about the message or the draft |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses at least two of the five questions, and revision versus editing where relevant, precisely and correctly | Uses a term loosely or with a small error, such as calling a comma fix revision | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that extend or challenge a classmate's reasoning | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com