Week 2 Writing Studio: Summarize First, Respond Second, Then Audit the Machine

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned to read someone else's writing the way a writer does: find the claim, see what supports it, notice where the text turns, and then write two separate things, a neutral summary of what it says and a response with your own reasons. In this Writing Studio you do all of that on a short, fresh op-ed about moving a neighborhood farmers market to a weeknight. Then you check your own draft against a checklist, ask a chatbot for feedback without letting it rewrite you, and catch the mistakes a chatbot makes when it summarizes and analyzes the same text. The skill carries far beyond this course: every time you report a meeting, a policy, or a message before answering it, you are doing this work.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Can you report this op-ed fairly and completely in your own words, and then, in a separate paragraph, say what you think of its case and why?

Workshop data: Farmers-market op-ed (illustrative, eight sentences)

Source: An illustrative eight-sentence op-ed written for this Writing Studio and attributed to no one; it is not a real publication, and it is printed in full in the Part 4 table.

• Rows: 8 sentences, one per row of the Part 4 annotation table (that table has 8 rows)
• Topic: the day and time of a neighborhood farmers market
• Form: a short opinion piece with a claim, support, a concession, and a turn

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A word processor; a citation tool or style guide used critically (the MLA Handbook, the Purdue OWL, or a citation generator whose output is checked against the MLA rules); and one approved chatbot used as a writing coach
• Your browser's find command (Ctrl+F on Windows, Command+F on a Mac) or a careful word-for-word comparison

Ways of working

• draft-and-revise-a-paragraph-against-a-rubric
• peer-review-with-a-checklist
• source-integration-and-citation-check

Procedure

1. Read the eight-sentence op-ed in the Part 4 table twice, once straight through and once with a pencil or the comment tool in hand. Check: You can say in one phrase what the op-ed is about.
2. Annotate each sentence in the table: mark the claim, the support, the concession, and the turn, and write one margin question in the last column. Tool: A word processor; a citation tool or style guide used critically (the MLA Handbook, the Purdue OWL, or a citation generator whose output is checked against the MLA rules); and one approved chatbot used as a writing coach. Check: Every row of the annotation table has a mark and a reason.
3. In your document, write a summary of the op-ed in 3-4 sentences in your own words, then a separate response paragraph of 100-150 words that agrees, disagrees, or complicates with at least two reasons about the text. Tool: A word processor; a citation tool or style guide used critically (the MLA Handbook, the Purdue OWL, or a citation generator whose output is checked against the MLA rules); and one approved chatbot used as a writing coach. Check: Two separate paragraphs: one reports, one evaluates.
4. Review your draft with the checklist table in Part 4: circle every judging word in the summary, tick each part of the op-ed it covers, and mark each reason in the response that points to a sentence. Then revise and keep both versions. Tool: A word processor; a citation tool or style guide used critically (the MLA Handbook, the Purdue OWL, or a citation generator whose output is checked against the MLA rules); and one approved chatbot used as a writing coach. Check: The checklist table is filled in and at least one change is visible between the two versions.
5. Paste your revised summary and response into one approved chatbot with the prompt in Part 6, read its feedback, and act on one piece of it in your own words. Tool: A word processor; a citation tool or style guide used critically (the MLA Handbook, the Purdue OWL, or a citation generator whose output is checked against the MLA rules); and one approved chatbot used as a writing coach. Check: One change in your draft that you can trace to a specific piece of feedback.
6. Fill in the critique table in Part 4 for the chatbot's answer to the second half of the prompt, using the find command or a word-for-word comparison to check every quotation against the op-ed. Tool: Your browser's find command (Ctrl+F on Windows, Command+F on a Mac) or a careful word-for-word comparison. Check: Each failure you report names what the tool said and your correction.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if you have no word processor or the comment tool does not work.

Copy the eight sentences by hand or into any plain text editor, mark them with the four annotation marks on paper, write the summary and the response by hand, and complete every table, every analysis question, the coach moment, and the critique step. Submit a photo or scan of the handwritten pages, or a typed transcript of them, for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Mark each sentence of the illustrative op-ed so that its claim, support, concession, and turn become visible before you summarize.

Student scaffold table 1

Sentence	Text	Your mark (claim, support, concession, turn, or context)	Your margin note or question
1	The neighborhood farmers market has always run on weekend mornings.
2	Many of the people who most need fresh, low-cost produce work weekend shifts and cannot come.
3	Several vendors say their weekend sales have flattened over the last few seasons.
4	Moving the market will cost some loyal weekend shoppers their routine, and that loss is real.
5	But a weeknight-evening market would reach shift workers, families after school, and commuters on their way home.
6	Evening markets in other towns have drawn a different crowd from their weekend markets.
7	The market board should move the market to a weeknight evening for one trial season.
8	If the trial fails, weekend mornings will still be there to return to.

Review your own draft with this checklist before and after you revise, so each change has a reason.

Student scaffold table 2

Check	Yes or no	Your evidence from the draft
The summary contains no judging word.
The summary names the topic and the claim, not only the topic.
The summary keeps the concession a hasty reader would drop.
The summary is in my own words and sentences.
The response is its own paragraph.
The response gives at least two reasons that point to the op-ed.

Record what the chatbot got wrong so that each correction is checked against the printed op-ed, not against the tool's confidence.

Student scaffold table 3

What the chatbot said	Failure shape	Your correction and how you checked it

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Which sentence did you mark as the claim, and what is the op-ed's topic? Explain how the 'This text argues that...' test separates them.
2. The op-ed has 8 sentences. After you mark the one context sentence, the one concession, and the one claim, how many sentences are left to bracket as support? Name them by number.
3. Why does a fair summary keep the concession in sentence 4, and what would a reader wrongly conclude about the writer if your summary dropped it?
4. Choose one option and answer it in 3-5 sentences. (a) Compare your summary of this op-ed with how you would summarize a message from a friend or coworker: which habit from this week changes how you would retell it? (b) Describe one place where your own judgment almost slipped into your summary, and how you moved it into the response.
5. Sentence 6 makes a claim about other towns with no source. What can your summary say about it, and what can your response not settle without more evidence?

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my own summary and response above. Do two separate things. First, give me feedback on my summary and response: tell me where my summary leaks an opinion or leaves something out, and where my response needs a stronger reason. Do not rewrite them. Second, here is a short op-ed: "The neighborhood farmers market has always run on weekend mornings. Many of the people who most need fresh, low-cost produce work weekend shifts and cannot come. Several vendors say their weekend sales have flattened over the last few seasons. Moving the market will cost some loyal weekend shoppers their routine, and that loss is real. But a weeknight-evening market would reach shift workers, families after school, and commuters on their way home. Evening markets in other towns have drawn a different crowd from their weekend markets. The market board should move the market to a weeknight evening for one trial season. If the trial fails, weekend mornings will still be there to return to." Summarize it in three sentences, quote its best line, analyze how it persuades, name one published source that supports its argument with a works-cited entry, and fix any grammar errors in my summary.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• The feedback opens with "Great summary, very clear and well organized!" and never points to a single sentence of yours or names a change.
• Although told not to, it rewrites your response into boilerplate such as "In conclusion, this compelling proposal offers a thoughtful solution," replacing your reasons with its phrasing.
• Its "best line" is a sentence the op-ed never contains, or a real sentence with words changed or dropped.
• It names a study, an article, or an organization that supposedly supports the op-ed, with a confident title and date you cannot find.
• It hands back a polished works-cited entry for the op-ed or for its invented source and presents it as correct.
• Its "grammar fix" to your summary changes the op-ed's proposal, for example turning a one-season trial into a permanent move or "should" into "will".
• Its "analysis of how it persuades" only restates what the op-ed says, sentence by sentence, with no word about how or how well it persuades.

Write 3-4 sentences that name one thing the tool did well and at least two failures you caught from the list above, each with your correction checked against the op-ed in Part 4.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this Writing Studio. This route assesses the same objective, Objective 2 (reading critically, summarizing neutrally and completely, and responding with reasons), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. For the coach moment, read your summary and response aloud to a friend, a family member, or yourself, and answer the review checklist in Part 4 in writing as the reader would; act on one point in your own words. For the critique moment, critique this flawed feedback-and-analysis, written for the course to contain mistakes and printed here in full: "Great summary, very clear and well organized! I tightened your response: In conclusion, this compelling proposal offers a thoughtful solution for everyone. The op-ed's best line is: 'Evening markets always attract bigger crowds than weekend markets.' A recent study by a well-known market research group proves this argument. Works cited: farmers market op-ed. market research group. Grammar fix: The board will move the market to a weeknight evening permanently. Analysis: The writer says the market runs on weekend mornings, that many shift workers cannot come, and that the board should move it to a weeknight evening." Find and correct at least four of its seven problems (hollow praise, voice-erasing rewrite, misworded quotation, invented source, invented works-cited entry, meaning-changing fix, and summary passed off as analysis), and write 3-4 sentences naming what you corrected and why. Submit that marked-up critique in place of the chatbot share link and report.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• The completed annotation table for all eight sentences
• Your first and revised summary and response, with the change visible
• The completed review checklist
• Written answers to all five analysis questions
• The chatbot critique table with your 3-4 sentence report and the conversation share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up critique of the printed flawed feedback

Deliverable:

A Writing Studio packet on the illustrative farmers-market op-ed: the annotated eight-sentence table, a first and revised summary and response, the completed review checklist, answers to five analysis questions, and either a chatbot critique table with a short report and share link or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up critique of the printed flawed feedback. 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.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Annotation and the topic, claim, and support map	Every sentence carries a fitting mark with a reason; the claim, the concession, and the turn are identified and the support is bracketed.	Most sentences are marked, but the claim is confused with the topic or the concession is missed.	No annotation, or marks with no reasons.
Neutral, complete summary	A 3-4 sentence summary in the writer's own words names the topic and the claim, keeps the concession, and contains no judging word.	The summary reports the op-ed but drops the concession or the claim, or keeps one judging word.	No summary, or a summary built from the op-ed's own sentences or full of judgment.
Response with reasons, kept separate	A separate paragraph agrees, disagrees, or complicates with at least two reasons that point to sentences in the op-ed.	A response is present but gives one text-based reason, or its judgment is mixed into the summary.	No response, or only a reaction with no reason about the text.
Checklist review and visible revision	The checklist is completed with evidence and both versions show a change traced to it.	The checklist is completed but no change is visible, or a change is shown without the checklist.	No checklist and no revision.
Feedback acted on in your own words	One change is traced to a specific piece of chatbot feedback, or to the read-aloud reader's checklist answers on the equivalent route, and is written in the student's own words.	Feedback is reported but the change is unclear or copied from the reviewer.	No feedback step is shown.
AI slip caught and corrected	The critique, on either route with equal credit, names at least two failure shapes and corrects each against the printed op-ed, with a 3-4 sentence report.	One failure is named and corrected, or failures are named without corrections.	No critique, or the tool's output is pasted without examination.

Quality Gate

• Every quotation from the op-ed matches one of its eight printed sentences word for word.
• The summary and the response are separate paragraphs, and the summary contains no judging word.
• No source, study, quotation, or works-cited entry is invented anywhere in the submission, and none supplied by a chatbot is kept without being found.
• The revision is visible: both versions are submitted, with the change traced to the checklist or to feedback.
• The critique names at least two failures and corrects each against the printed op-ed.