Week 1 — Writing Studio / Workshop · "One Message, Two Readers"

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective: Objective 1 — analyze the rhetorical situation; treat writing as a process · SLO A (compose audience-aware, purpose-driven prose)
Worth 50 points · Writing Studios group = 15% of the grade · Studio 1
Format: a hands-on drafting + revision workshop — you'll write a short message two ways, review it against a checklist, get a chatbot's coaching, and then catch the chatbot's mistakes when it tries to "improve" your writing.

This is the course's signature weekly component. Every instructional week has one Writing Studio — a short, practical workshop on the week's craft move. All studio resources are links to external sites; there is nothing to buy or download. The habit every studio builds: draft → review → get feedback → judge the feedback.

---

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned that every piece of writing sits in a rhetorical situation — writer, audience, purpose, genre, context — and that writing is a process you revise, not a one-shot performance. This studio makes both real in fifteen minutes: you'll take one message and write it for two very different readers, then revise one version after a review. The skill you're drilling — adapting writing to its audience — is the foundation under every essay you'll write this term.

Background (optional, ~9 min): "Rhetoric and Your Writing: An Introduction" (Excelsior OWL): 🔗 https://owl.excelsior.edu/blog/rhetoric-and-your-writing-an-introduction/

---

Part 2 — The Drafting Exercise (write this)

The situation: you need to cancel plans / back out of a commitment this weekend. Same core message, two readers.

Write two short versions (3–5 sentences each):

1. Version A — a text to a close friend. Casual is fine.
2. Version B — an email to a supervisor, professor, or club leader. Include a subject line, a greeting, a brief reason, and a sign-off.

Write both now, in a word processor. Don't polish yet — that comes after the review.

---

Part 3 — Audience Analysis Table (fill this in)

Before you revise, analyze your two readers side by side. Fill every cell:

Question	Version A (friend)	Version B (supervisor)
Who is the audience, and what do they expect?	______	______
What's my purpose (what do I want them to think/do)?	______	______
What genre am I writing, and what are its conventions?	______	______
What's the context (private? on the record? urgent)?	______	______
One thing my wording must do for this reader	______	______

The point: notice how filling this in changes what you'd write. The table is your invention step.

---

Part 4 — Self-Review & Peer-Review (apply the checklist)

Run both versions through this checklist — first on your own draft, then trade with a classmate (or reread as if you were the actual recipient). Mark ✓ or ✗ and jot one fix:

Check	Version A	Version B
The tone fits this specific reader (not too stiff, not too casual)	☐	☐
The genre conventions are present (e.g., email has a subject line + greeting + sign-off)	☐	☐
The purpose is clear in the first sentence or two	☐	☐
Anything the reader needs (a reason, a next step, an offer) is included	☐	☐
Nothing is included that this reader doesn't need	☐	☐

Then revise the weaker version based on what the checklist surfaced. (This is the "revise, don't just edit" move from class — change what the reader needs, not just the commas.) Keep both the before and the after.

---

Part 5 — Writing-Coach Moment (required — the BYOAI step)

Bring in your approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) as a coach, not an author.

1. Paste Version B (the email) and ask: "You are my writing coach. Who do you think my audience is, is my purpose clear in the first two sentences, and where am I unclear or missing something this reader needs? Ask me one question if you need to. Do NOT rewrite it for me."
2. Read its feedback and decide what to act on. Make one improvement in your own words.

The coach is a mirror, not a ghostwriter. You're using it to see your draft through a reader's eyes — then you make the change.

---

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment (required — catch the tool's mistakes)

Now flip roles and be the editor who judges the tool.

1. Ask the same chatbot: "Now rewrite my email to make it 'better.'"
2. Read its rewrite critically and catch what it does wrong. Look for the three classic failures:
   - Hollow / generic praise — vague compliments ("This is a great, professional email!") that don't point to anything specific.
   - Voice-erasing over-editing — it flattens your phrasing into stiff, corporate boilerplate ("I am writing to formally inform you…") that no longer sounds like you.
   - Audience drift — it makes the email more formal or longer than your actual reader needs, ignoring the real situation.
3. Write 2–3 sentences naming at least one thing the AI got wrong or made worse, and what you kept from your version instead. (If its rewrite was genuinely better in one spot, say exactly why — that's the judgment skill.)

The habit all term: the tool drafts, you judge. A chatbot will gladly "improve" your writing into something blander and less yours — protecting your voice is part of the craft. (Later in the term, when you're working with sources, this same critique step is where you'll catch the chatbot's most dangerous habit: inventing quotations and citations. For now, you're training the reflex.)

---

Part 7 — What to Submit

Submit a single document (or text entry) with: your two versions (A and B); your completed audience analysis table (Part 3); your checklist marks + the revised version (Part 4); a one-line note on the coach feedback you acted on (Part 5); and your Part 6 AI-critique paragraph. Due Sunday, Sep 6, 11:59 p.m. (50 points).

---

Instructor answer key & model — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Students write their own two versions, so exact wording varies. The models below are for grading the rhetorical fit and the revision, not for matching specific words. No quotations, sources, or citations appear in this studio — every example is the instructor's own illustration, attributed to no one — so there is nothing to mis-quote this week.

Model — Version A (text to a friend):

"hey, so sorry but I can't make Saturday anymore — something came up and I'm slammed. feel awful bailing. can I make it up to you next week? ☕"

Model — Version B (email to a supervisor/club leader):

Subject: Can't make Saturday's event — sorry for the short notice
Hi Maria, I'm sorry to do this on short notice, but a conflict means I won't be able to staff the booth this Saturday. I've messaged Devon to ask if he can cover my shift, and I'm happy to take an extra slot next month to make up for it. Apologies again, and thank you for understanding. — Sam

What the models show (the grading targets):
- Audience fit: A is brief, lowercase, warm, low-detail (a friend needs no formal reason); B has a subject line, greeting, a concise professional reason, an offered fix, and a sign-off (a supervisor needs accountability and a record).
- Audience analysis table (Part 3): answers should correctly distinguish a peer/private/text situation from an authority/on-the-record/email situation across audience, purpose, genre, and context.
- Revision (Part 4): full credit requires a substantive change to fit the reader (e.g., B gains a clear first-sentence purpose or an offered hand-off) — not just fixed typos. Editing-only "revisions" earn partial credit (this is the revision-vs-editing lesson in action).
- AI-critique (Part 6): full credit for a specific catch — most commonly the AI's generic praise, its voice-flattening over-edit, or its drift to needless formality/length. Full credit also if the student justifies keeping their own wording over the AI's.

Grading rubric — 50 points

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Two versions — both clearly fit their audiences and genres (text vs. email conventions present) (14)	14	7–11	0–6
Audience analysis table — all rows filled; correctly distinguishes the two situations (10)	10	5–8	0–4
Self-/peer-review + revision — checklist applied and the weaker version revised (re-seen, not just edited) (14)	14	7–11	0–6
Coach moment — acted on real feedback, in the student's own words (6)	6	3	0–2
AI-critique — names a specific thing the AI got wrong / made worse (hollow praise, voice-flattening, audience drift) (6)	6	3	0–2

Quality gate (self-checked) — citation-integrity + correct-conventions: PASS. This studio contains no quotations, no external sources, and no citations (the first analyzed texts and the first MLA work come in Weeks 2, 6, and 11), so there is nothing to fabricate or mis-attribute; every sample message is the instructor's own illustration. The email model follows standard email conventions (subject line, greeting, sign-off) correctly. The revision-vs-editing distinction the rubric rewards matches the Week-1 lecture and quiz. No student-written message is asserted as "the" answer — the key grades rhetorical fit and the revision, not specific words.