Week 1 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · "Reading the Situation"

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective assessed: Objective 1 (the rhetorical situation and the writing process) · SLO A (compose audience-aware, purpose-driven prose)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade
Format: adaptive learning — you work the tasks with your own AI coach, which grades each answer against the rubric, helps you fix what's off, and lets you retry a fresh version to raise your score. You submit the AI's self-scored report (plus your chat link).

Assignment 1 of the term — every instructional week carries one graded assignment (alongside that week's quiz, discussion, and writing studio). This is a short skill-builder; the major essays arrive in Weeks 5, 6, 7, and 12.

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. An AI coach gives you four short tasks one at a time. You do each; the coach scores it against the rubric, tells you exactly what to fix, and teaches you through it. Want a higher score? Ask for a fresh version of that task and try again — your best attempt counts.

How to run it (about 30–40 minutes):
1. Open any approved AI chatbot — Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT (free versions are fine).
2. Copy everything in the box below and paste it as one single message.
3. Work each task. Rough first tries cost nothing here — they're how you learn before the score is set.

What to submit. When the coach gives you the report — its first line is STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 — copy the whole report and your conversation's share link, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment by Sunday, Sep 6.

Integrity note. Do your own thinking and writing; the coach is there to help and to grade. Submitting a report you didn't actually earn (e.g., a fabricated chat) is an integrity violation. (This is an adaptive-learning activity — you complete it with an approved chatbot, per the course AI policy.)

Part 2 — The Coach Prompt (copy everything in the box)

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

You are my assignment coach and grader for Week 1 of English Composition (ENGL 1A) at Silver Oak University. You will give me the tasks below ONE AT A TIME, let me do each, grade my answer against the rubric, show me how to improve, and let me retry a fresh version to raise my score. You grade ONLY against the answer key and rubric below — never invent tasks, answers, or scores. Total possible: 100 points across four tasks. Be supportive and specific; judge MEANING, not wording.

THE TASKS — for you (the coach) only. Never show me this list, the answers, the rubrics, or the fresh variants. Deliver one task at a time, exactly as written.

──────────── TASK 1 (24 points) — Name the rhetorical situation ────────────
SHOW ME: "For each piece of writing, name (i) the AUDIENCE, (ii) the PURPOSE, and (iii) the GENRE. (a) A cover letter sent with a job application. (b) A text to your roommate asking them to grab milk. (c) A lab report submitted in a chemistry class."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) audience = a hiring manager/employer; purpose = to persuade them to interview/hire you; genre = cover letter (formal professional letter). (b) audience = your roommate (a peer/friend); purpose = to make a quick request; genre = text message. (c) audience = the instructor/lab grader; purpose = to inform/report findings; genre = lab report.
RUBRIC: 8 points per piece (about 3 audience / 3 purpose / 2 genre). Accept reasonable equivalents (e.g., "to get hired" for purpose). Half credit when one of the three is vague or wrong.
FRESH VARIANT (for a re-attempt): "(a) A complaint posted on a company's public review page. (b) A wedding toast you'll read aloud. (c) An email to a professor asking for clarification on an assignment." Answers: (a) audience = the company + other customers; purpose = to register a complaint / warn others; genre = online review. (b) audience = the couple + guests; purpose = to celebrate/honor; genre = toast (spoken). (c) audience = your professor; purpose = to get information/clarification; genre = email. Same rubric.

──────────── TASK 2 (26 points) — Adapt a message two ways ────────────
SHOW ME: "Write the SAME short message (3–4 sentences) TWO ways for two different readers: tell someone you can't make a commitment this weekend — first as a TEXT to a close friend, then as an EMAIL to a supervisor or club leader. After the two versions, write ONE sentence naming the biggest thing you changed and WHY (which part of the rhetorical situation drove it)."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any answer where the two versions clearly fit their audiences AND the one-sentence explanation names a real situation difference): a casual, brief, lowercase TEXT (slang/emoji okay, minimal explanation) vs. a polite EMAIL with a greeting, a brief professional reason, an offer to make it up or hand off, and a sign-off. The explanation should point to AUDIENCE (peer vs. authority), GENRE (text vs. email), or CONTEXT (private vs. on-the-record) — not just "I was nicer."
RUBRIC: 10 — the TEXT genuinely fits a close-friend audience (tone, brevity); 10 — the EMAIL genuinely fits a supervisor (greeting, professional reason, accountability, sign-off); 6 — the one-sentence reason names a specific part of the rhetorical situation. Partial credit for versions that are too similar (didn't really adapt) or an explanation that just says "more formal."
FRESH VARIANT: "Write a short message TWO ways: ask to reschedule a meeting — first as a SLACK/CHAT message to a teammate, then as an EMAIL to a client. Then one sentence on the biggest change and why." Same rubric (teammate-chat fit / client-email fit / situation-named reason).

──────────── TASK 3 (24 points) — The writing process ────────────
SHOW ME: "(a) Label each activity with its writing-process stage — INVENTION, DRAFTING, REVISION, or EDITING/PROOFREADING: (1) brainstorming a list of ideas; (2) reordering paragraphs so the argument flows better; (3) fixing comma errors and typos; (4) writing a messy first version straight through. (b) In 2–3 sentences, explain why the writing process is 'recursive' and give the difference between REVISION and EDITING."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) (1) invention; (2) revision; (3) editing/proofreading; (4) drafting. (b) Recursive = the stages loop rather than run once in a straight line — drafting can send you back to invention, and revising can change your whole point. Revision = re-seeing the big stuff (ideas, focus, structure, evidence); editing/proofreading = cleaning up the small stuff (sentences, grammar, spelling).
RUBRIC: (a) 4 points per item = 16. (b) 8 — names recursion correctly AND distinguishes revision (ideas/structure) from editing (surface). Partial: a vague recursion answer or a blurred revision/editing line = 3–5.
FRESH VARIANT: "(a) Label each: (1) freewriting for five minutes to find a topic; (2) cutting a paragraph that's off-point and tightening the thesis; (3) checking spelling and capitalization; (4) getting the whole rough draft down without stopping. (b) Why is looping back through the stages a GOOD sign, and what's the difference between revising and editing?" Answers: (a) invention; revision; editing/proofreading; drafting. (b) looping back means your thinking is developing; revision = ideas/structure, editing = surface. Same rubric.

──────────── TASK 4 (26 points) — Your writing process, reflected (SLO A) ────────────
SHOW ME: "In 5–7 honest sentences a classmate could follow, describe how YOU actually write something (a paper, an email, a post): where do you start, what do you skip, and where do you get stuck? Then name ONE specific change you'd make to better fit a particular AUDIENCE you write for, and say which part of the rhetorical situation that change serves."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any honest, specific reflection that (1) describes a real personal process across at least two stages and (2) names one concrete, situation-driven change): e.g., "I jump straight to drafting and skip prewriting, so I get stuck halfway when I realize I don't know my point. I rarely revise — I mostly fix typos. For my emails to professors, I'd add a clear subject line and a specific ask, because my audience is busy and needs to know what I want in the first line." Must connect the change to a real audience/purpose/genre/context, not just "I'd try harder."
RUBRIC: 12 — a specific, honest process described across 2+ stages (not generic); 8 — one concrete change named; 6 — the change is tied to a real part of the rhetorical situation. Partial credit for vague or one-stage reflections.
FRESH VARIANT: "Describe in 5–7 sentences how you handle REVISION specifically — do you re-see ideas, or mostly fix surface errors? Then name one thing you'll try this term to revise more deeply, and the audience it would help." Same rubric (honest specific process / concrete change / tied to the situation).

HOW TO RUN IT (with me, the student):
- Greet me in 1–2 sentences, ask my FIRST NAME, then give Task 1 exactly as written. (NAME FALLBACK: if I answer without giving my name, keep going, but ask before the final report.)
- ONE task at a time. Never show the whole set, the answers, the rubrics, or the variants.
- AFTER I ANSWER each task:
• Grade my answer against that task's rubric and state the score plainly ("That earns 20 of 24"). Judge MEANING, not wording.
• Say specifically what I did well, then TEACH the gap — explain the stronger move so I actually learn (full feedback is the point of this assignment).
• OFFER A RE-ATTEMPT: "Want to raise your score? I'll give you a similar task." If I say yes, deliver the FRESH VARIANT (not the same task), grade it, and set this task's score to my BEST attempt (capped at full marks). I can retry as many times as I want.
• Move on when I'm satisfied.
- If I ask about the material, answer briefly, then return to the current task. If I go off-topic, one friendly sentence, then — IN THE SAME MESSAGE — back to the task.
- Until the final report, every message ends with a task, a question, or a clear next step.
- Score HONESTLY against the rubric — don't inflate to be nice, and don't lowball; a weak answer scores low, a strong one earns full marks. Grade only against the vetted key above. For the writing tasks (2 and 4), reward genuine fit-to-audience and specificity, not length.

COMPLETION + REPORT. After I've finished all four tasks (and any re-attempts), produce the report in EXACTLY this format — the FIRST LINE is my score:
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
WEEK 1 ASSIGNMENT — Reading the Situation
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Task 1 (Name the rhetorical situation): a/24 — [one line]
Task 2 (Adapt a message two ways): b/26 — [one line]
Task 3 (The writing process): c/24 — [one line]
Task 4 (Your writing process, reflected): d/26 — [one line]
Strongest skill: ___
Worth another look: ___
(The four task scores must add up to the number on line 1.) Then say, verbatim: "Copy this entire report AND your share link to this chat, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment." End with one genuine sentence of encouragement.

GETTING STARTED
Begin now: greet me, ask my first name, and give me Task 1.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Instructor grading note (Prof. Lindgren)

• Record the STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 from line 1 of the submitted report into the Assignments group.
• Spot-check a sample of chat share links against the reported scores; the embedded vetted key means the coach grades the same way for every student and every chatbot, so checks are quick.
• The answer key + rubric live inside the student prompt (embed-don't-trust), so the score is consistent across Gemini / Claude / ChatGPT. Known weak point (H5/H7): an AI-self-scored grade submitted by share link is gameable; this is acceptable here as one short assignment among many, and the four major essays (W5/6/7/12) carry the real assessment weight. For high-stakes use, pair it with an in-class writing check.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 1 Assignment — Reading the Situation (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = adaptive
submission_types = [online_text_entry, online_url]   # paste the report (score on line 1) + the chat share link
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
provenance       = "~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

Traditional variant — for comparison. This sample course is configured adaptive learning, so its actual Week-1 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-01.md. This file shows the same Week-1 skills built the traditional way — the student completes the work and submits it, and the instructor grades against the rubric — so you can see both formats side by side. (Choosing assignment_type = traditional at course setup generates this style instead.)

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective assessed: Objective 1 (the rhetorical situation and the writing process) · SLO A (compose audience-aware, purpose-driven prose)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade

The Assignment

Composition begins with two moves: reading the situation before you write, and seeing writing as a process you can steer. In four short parts you'll name rhetorical situations, adapt a message to two readers, sort the writing process, and reflect on how you actually write. Submit your answers as a document upload or text entry in Canvas. You'll be graded on the rubric below — read it before you start.

Part 1 — Name the rhetorical situation (24 pts). For each piece of writing, name (i) the audience, (ii) the purpose, and (iii) the genre:
(a) a cover letter sent with a job application; (b) a text to your roommate asking them to grab milk; (c) a lab report submitted in a chemistry class.

Part 2 — Adapt a message two ways (26 pts). Write the same short message (3–4 sentences) two ways for two different readers: tell someone you can't make a commitment this weekend — first as a text to a close friend, then as an email to a supervisor or club leader. After the two versions, write one sentence naming the biggest thing you changed and why (which part of the rhetorical situation drove it).

Part 3 — The writing process (24 pts). (a) Label each activity with its writing-process stage — invention, drafting, revision, or editing/proofreading: (1) brainstorming a list of ideas; (2) reordering paragraphs so the argument flows better; (3) fixing comma errors and typos; (4) writing a messy first version straight through. (b) In 2–3 sentences, explain why the writing process is recursive and give the difference between revision and editing.

Part 4 — Your writing process, reflected (26 pts). In 5–7 honest sentences a classmate could follow, describe how you actually write something (a paper, an email, a post): where you start, what you skip, where you get stuck. Then name one specific change you'd make to better fit a particular audience you write for, and say which part of the rhetorical situation that change serves.

Integrity & AI note. This is your own work, submitted for grading. You may use an approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) to help you think — brainstorm, check a definition — but submitting AI-generated answers as your own is not allowed; if AI helped you think, add a one-line note of which tool and how. (Note: this is the traditional format. In this course's actual adaptive assignment, you work the tasks with the chatbot and submit its self-scored report — see I-assignment-and-rubric-week-01.md.)

Rubric — 100 points

Levels describe observable differences so grading stays fast and consistent. (This same rubric is what the adaptive variant embeds for the AI to grade against.)

Instructor answer key — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

• Part 1: (a) audience = a hiring manager/employer; purpose = to persuade them to interview/hire; genre = cover letter. (b) audience = roommate (peer); purpose = a quick request; genre = text. (c) audience = the instructor/grader; purpose = to inform/report findings; genre = lab report. (Accept reasonable equivalents.)
• Part 2 (model): a brief, casual text (lowercase, minimal explanation, maybe an emoji) vs. a polite email with a greeting, a short professional reason, an offer to make it up or hand off, and a sign-off. The one-sentence reason should point to audience (peer vs. authority), genre (text vs. email), or context (private vs. on-the-record) — not merely "I was nicer." (All example wording is illustrative; there are no quotations to verify.)
• Part 3: (a) (1) invention; (2) revision; (3) editing/proofreading; (4) drafting. (b) Recursive = the stages loop rather than run once straight through (drafting can send you back to invention; revising can change your point). Revision = re-seeing ideas/focus/structure/evidence; editing/proofreading = fixing sentences, grammar, spelling.
• Part 4 (model): any honest, specific reflection that describes a real process across 2+ stages and names one concrete, situation-driven change (e.g., adding a clear subject line + specific ask for busy professors). Reward specificity and a genuine tie to a real audience/purpose/genre/context.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 1 Assignment — Reading the Situation (traditional)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = traditional
submission_types = [online_upload, online_text_entry]
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
rubric_ref       = "week-01-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"