Week 2 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · "Summary & Response"

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective assessed: Objective 2 (critical reading: accurate summary, analytical response, claim vs. support) · SLO A (compose reasoned, audience-aware 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 2 of the term — a short skill task, not a major essay (the major essays arrive in Weeks 5, 6, 7, and 12). It drills the one move every later paper depends on: summarize a text fairly, then respond to it with reasons.
The text: Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, "The Danger of a Single Story" (TED, transcript at ted.com). Read or watch it before you start. 🔗 https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story/transcript

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 30–45 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 13.

Integrity note. Do your own thinking and writing; the coach is there to help and to grade. Any quotation you use must be copied exactly from the real transcript — a summary is in your own words, so you don't need to quote at all. 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 2 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 text I am working with is Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's TED Talk "The Danger of a Single Story." I was asked to read/watch it first.

CRITICAL RULE — NO FABRICATION: Do NOT invent or supply quotations from Adichie's talk, and do not "correct" my paraphrase into a quotation. If I include a quoted line, do not vouch for its accuracy — remind me it must match the real transcript at ted.com exactly. A good summary and response are in MY OWN WORDS and need no quotation. If you are unsure whether Adichie said something, say so; never present invented wording as hers.

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 (20 points) — State the central claim ────────────
SHOW ME: "In ONE or TWO sentences, state Adichie's CENTRAL CLAIM in your own words — the main point her whole talk is trying to land. Keep it neutral (no opinion yet)."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any fair paraphrase of this; it must be in the student's own words, NEUTRAL, and capture the MAIN point, not a side detail): Adichie argues that when we know only a single story about a person, group, or place, that story flattens them into a stereotype and denies them their full humanity — and that power shapes which single story gets told. Accept variants that capture "one story → stereotype → loss of full/complex humanity." Do NOT require the power point for full marks, but reward it.
RUBRIC: 20 — a fair, neutral, own-words statement of the central claim. 10–15 — captures part of it, or states the topic ("stereotypes") rather than the claim, or leaks a little opinion. 0–9 — misstates the claim, or copies/quotes instead of paraphrasing.
FRESH VARIANT (for a re-attempt): "State Adichie's central claim again, but imagine explaining it in one sentence to a friend who hasn't seen the talk." Same rubric (fair, neutral, own words, main point).

──────────── TASK 2 (28 points) — Write an accurate ~100-word summary ────────────
SHOW ME: "Write an ACCURATE summary of Adichie's talk in about 100 words (90–120 is fine). It must be: NEUTRAL (no opinion), COMPREHENSIVE (her claim + her major support, not one example), and IN YOUR OWN WORDS (no copied sentences). Do not quote her."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any summary that hits the claim + at least two pieces of support, stays neutral, and is in the student's own words): states the central claim (a single story stereotypes and dehumanizes) and gives the major support — her early reading of foreign books shaping the stories she first wrote; her family's houseboy Fide, whom she had pictured only as poor; her American roommate's assumptions; her own single story of Mexico from the media; and the point that power determines whose story is told. No judgment words.
RUBRIC: 12 — NEUTRAL (deduct for opinion words like "powerful," "moving," "brilliantly," "sadly"); 10 — COMPREHENSIVE (claim + 2+ pieces of major support, not one cherry-picked detail); 6 — OWN WORDS (deduct for copied/quoted sentences). Length near ~100 words; small over/under is fine. A summary that is really a response (judges the talk) caps at about half.
FRESH VARIANT: "Write the ~100-word summary again, but this time start with her central claim in the first sentence, then add her two strongest pieces of support." Same rubric.

──────────── TASK 3 (28 points) — Write a ~150-word analytical response ────────────
SHOW ME: "Now write an ANALYTICAL RESPONSE of about 150 words (130–180 fine). Do you find her argument convincing? Agree, disagree, or complicate it — and give REASONS that point to her claim, her evidence, or her reasoning. This is NOT 'did I like it'; make a claim ABOUT the talk and support it."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any response that takes a clear position and supports it with reasons about the TEXT, not just personal taste): e.g., agrees the claim is persuasive because the personal examples show the 'single story' operating even on educated, well-meaning people, which makes it feel ordinary rather than rare; OR complicates it by noting that personal narrative powerfully illustrates the idea but doesn't by itself establish how widespread the problem is, so the talk persuades emotionally more than empirically. Must evaluate the claim/evidence/reasoning and give reasons; must NOT be a plot recap or a bare "I liked it."
RUBRIC: 14 — a clear position (agree/disagree/complicate) that is an evaluation of the TEXT, not a rating; 14 — at least two REASONS tied to her claim, evidence, or reasoning (a counterpoint or "what would make it stronger" counts). Deduct heavily if the "response" is actually a summary (just restates the talk) or a bare reaction with no reasons.
FRESH VARIANT: "Write the response again, but this time include one sentence steel-manning the OTHER view — the strongest objection to your position — and then answer it." Same rubric (position + reasons; reward engaging the counterpoint).

──────────── TASK 4 (24 points) — Revise: clean the summary, strengthen the response ────────────
SHOW ME: "Two quick revisions. (a) Look back at your Task 2 SUMMARY and find any OPINION that leaked in (words like 'powerful,' 'moving,' 'sadly,' 'unconvincing,' or any judgment). Rewrite the summary with every opinion removed — pure neutral report. (b) Look back at your Task 3 RESPONSE and ADD one concrete piece of EVIDENCE or reasoning that makes it stronger (a specific example from the talk, a named objection you answer, or a 'this would be more convincing if…')."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) a summary with all judgment words removed — if the student's Task 2 was already clean, they should say so and point to why it's neutral (no judgment words; reports the claim + support). (b) a response that gains a specific, named piece of support or a handled objection — not just "I feel strongly."
RUBRIC: (a) 12 — opinion-leak found and removed (or correctly shown to be already clean, with reasoning); (b) 12 — a concrete evidence/reasoning upgrade actually added. Partial credit for a vague fix or a change that doesn't really improve neutrality/strength. This task rewards the REVISION move from Week 1 (re-see, don't just tweak).
FRESH VARIANT: "Swap texts in your head: revise your summary so a reader who DISLIKES the talk would still call it fair, and revise your response so a reader who DISAGREES with you would still call it reasoned. Show both." Same rubric (neutral summary / reasoned, evidence-backed response).

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 22 of 28"). 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). For the summary, name any opinion-leak; for the response, check that it evaluates the text and gives reasons.
• 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 include a "quotation" from Adichie, do NOT confirm it's accurate — remind me to verify it against the real transcript, and note that I don't need to quote at all. NEVER invent a quotation yourself.
- 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, reward genuine fair representation (summary) and reasoned evaluation (response), 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 2 ASSIGNMENT — Summary & Response
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Task 1 (State the central claim): a/20 — [one line]
Task 2 (Accurate ~100-word summary): b/28 — [one line]
Task 3 (~150-word analytical response): c/28 — [one line]
Task 4 (Revise: clean summary / stronger response): d/24 — [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, and scan any quoted lines against the transcript — a summary needs no quotation, so a "quote" is a flag to verify. 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 skill task 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 summary-and-response written cold.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 2 Assignment — Summary & Response (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-2 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-02.md. This file shows the same Week-2 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 2 (critical reading: accurate summary, analytical response, claim vs. support) · SLO A (compose reasoned, audience-aware prose)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade

The text: Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, "The Danger of a Single Story" (TED, transcript at ted.com). Read or watch it before you start. 🔗 https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story/transcript

The Assignment

Critical reading is two jobs: summarize a text fairly, then respond to it with reasons. In four short parts you'll do exactly that on Adichie's "The Danger of a Single Story" — state her claim, summarize the talk accurately, respond to it analytically, and revise to sharpen the boundary between the two. 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 — State the central claim (20 pts). In one or two sentences, in your own words, state Adichie's central claim — the main point her whole talk lands. Keep it neutral (no opinion yet).

Part 2 — Write an accurate ~100-word summary (28 pts). Summarize the talk in about 100 words (90–120 is fine). It must be neutral (no opinion), comprehensive (her claim plus her major support, not one example), and in your own words (no copied sentences). (You don't need to quote her. If you do quote, copy the line exactly from the transcript and use quotation marks.)

Part 3 — Write a ~150-word analytical response (28 pts). In about 150 words (130–180 fine), give your analytical response: do you find her argument convincing? Agree, disagree, or complicate it, with reasons that point to her claim, evidence, or reasoning. This is not "did I like it" — make a claim about the talk and support it.

Part 4 — Revise: clean the summary, strengthen the response (24 pts). (a) Reread your Part 2 summary and remove any opinion that leaked in (words like powerful, moving, sadly, unconvincing, or any judgment); rewrite it as a pure neutral report. (b) Reread your Part 3 response and add one concrete piece of evidence or reasoning that makes it stronger (a specific example from the talk, a named objection you answer, or a "this would be more convincing if…"). Keep both the before and the after.

Integrity & AI note. This is your own work, submitted for grading, in your own words. Do not submit any quotation you didn't copy exactly from the real transcript — and you don't need to quote at all. 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-02.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 & model — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Students write their own summary and response, so exact wording varies — the models below grade fair representation and reasoned evaluation, not specific words. Every model statement below is a paraphrase of Adichie's ideas in the instructor's own words; no line is presented as a direct quotation of the talk. If a student includes a quotation, it must match the real transcript exactly (a summary needs none).

• Part 1 (model claim, paraphrased): Adichie argues that knowing only a single story about a person, group, or place flattens them into a stereotype and strips away their full, complex humanity — and that power shapes which single story gets told. (Accept any fair, neutral, own-words version that captures "one story → stereotype → loss of full humanity." The power point is a bonus, not required.)
• Part 2 (model summary, paraphrased — ~100 words): Adichie argues that relying on a single story about a group reduces it to a stereotype and denies its full humanity. She supports this with examples from her own life: as a child reading mostly British and American books, she wrote stories peopled by foreign characters until she discovered African literature; she had pictured her family's houseboy, Fide, only as poor; her American college roommate assumed she could not speak English or use a stove; and she herself once held a single story of Mexico drawn from the media. She concludes that power determines whose story is told, and that many stories restore dignity. (All paraphrase; verify any student quotation against the transcript.)
• Part 3 (model response, paraphrased): A strong response takes a clear position and reasons about the text. Example: the talk is persuasive because its personal examples show the "single story" operating on educated, well-meaning people (the roommate), which makes the problem feel ordinary rather than exotic; at the same time, one could complicate it by noting that vivid anecdotes establish that the problem is real and felt more than they establish how widespread it is — so the talk convinces emotionally more than empirically, and would be even stronger paired with some broader evidence. (Reward a clear position + reasons; a steel-manned counterpoint earns full marks on the reasoning criterion.)
• Part 4 (model): (a) the revised summary has every judgment word removed (if already clean, the student should say why it's neutral); (b) the revised response gains a specific named example or a handled objection — re-seeing, not just tweaking (the Week-1 revision move applied to reading).

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 2 Assignment — Summary & Response (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-02-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"