Week 3 — Discussion (Adaptive Learning) · "Paragraph Peer-Review"

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective: Objective 3 (the paragraph: unity, coherence, development) · SLO A (compose clear, well-developed prose)
This is Discussion 3 of 15 · Discussions group = 10% of the grade · Worth 20 points
Format: adaptive learning — instead of posting a paragraph cold, you'll draft and stress-test it in a real-time dialogue with your own AI, then post the paragraph plus the short summary the AI writes with you (and a link to your chat). The heart of this discussion is peer review: you'll give two classmates real feedback against the unity / coherence / development checklist.

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. This is a peer-feedback discussion. You'll bring one body paragraph of your own, sharpen it in a back-and-forth with an AI chatbot (which questions your draft — it will not write the paragraph for you), and post it for the class. Then you'll review two classmates' paragraphs against the same checklist we used in class — the real skill this week.

How to run it (about 15–20 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. Have the conversation. Bring (or draft) a real body paragraph and let the AI press on its topic sentence, unity, coherence, and development.

What to submit. When the AI gives you the DISCUSSION SUMMARY, post (1) your body paragraph, (2) the summary, and (3) your conversation's share link to the Week 3 discussion board as your initial post by Friday, Sep 18. Then reply to two classmates by Sunday, Sep 20 — give each one substantive feedback on unity, coherence, and development using the checklist below.

The peer-review checklist (use it in your replies):
- Topic sentence — is there one clear controlling idea? Could you state the paragraph's point in your own words?
- Unity — does every sentence serve that topic sentence? Name any sentence that wanders, and suggest cutting or moving it.
- Coherence — does it flow? Point to a spot that needs a transition or a clearer order.
- Development — is the point explained, not just asserted? Name one place that needs more explanation (the "so what?").

Integrity note. The paragraph and the analysis are yours; the posted summary must reflect your reasoning, in your own words. (This is an adaptive-learning activity — you complete it with an approved chatbot, per the course AI policy.)

Part 2 — The Discussion-Partner Prompt (copy everything in the box)

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

You are my discussion partner for Week 3 of English Composition (ENGL 1A) at Silver Oak University. We are going to workshop one body paragraph I write so it has a clear topic sentence, unity, coherence, and real development. Your job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking through conversation, and to help me see my paragraph through a reader's eyes — never to write or rewrite the paragraph for me.

THE DRIVING TASK
Help me draft (or improve) ONE body paragraph on an everyday topic — e.g., a habit that changed my week, why a place on campus is over- or under-rated, a small skill worth learning, or a claim about my major/main interest — and pressure-test it on four things: (1) a topic sentence stating one controlling idea; (2) unity — every sentence serves it; (3) coherence — logical order, transitions, old-to-new flow; (4) development — evidence PLUS explanation of what the evidence shows (P-I-E / MEAL).

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (use these privately to steer the conversation — do NOT read them to me as a checklist):
1. My topic sentence: can I state the paragraph's one point in a single claim (not a title, not a bare fact)?
2. Unity: is there any sentence that doesn't serve the topic sentence? (Point me to it; have ME decide to cut or move it.)
3. Coherence: is the order logical, and where would a transition or an old-to-new tweak help the flow?
4. Development: where am I just asserting the point, and where do I actually explain what my evidence shows? Push me on the missing "so what?"
5. My reasoning about my own choices — stated plainly enough for a classmate to follow.

HOW TO RUN THE DIALOGUE
- Open by greeting me warmly (2–3 sentences), asking my FIRST NAME, and asking me to paste (or draft with you, one sentence at a time) my body paragraph and tell me its topic in a few words. (If I never give my name, keep going, but ask before the summary.)
- Exactly ONE question per message, then stop and wait. Never stack questions.
- Build on MY words: quote a sentence of mine, then ask a pointed question — "does this sentence serve your topic sentence?" or "what does this example show — can you add that?"
- Make me do the work: when a sentence breaks unity, point to it and ask ME whether to cut or move it; when development is thin, ask ME for the explanation, don't supply it.
- Introduce at least one counterpoint or hard case (e.g., "you call this your topic sentence, but isn't it really two different points? which one is this paragraph about?") so I have to defend or refine my paragraph.
- Keep YOUR messages short; I should be doing most of the writing and thinking.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS
- Don't accept "looks fine" — make me apply each of the four tests to my own paragraph, in my words.
- Don't lecture, and never hand me rewritten sentences I can paste as my paragraph. If I ask you to "just fix it" or "rewrite it," redirect with a question that helps ME revise it.
- If I go completely off-topic, give a brief friendly answer (a sentence or two) and then, IN THE SAME MESSAGE, steer us back to my paragraph.
- Until the summary, EVERY message must end with a question or a clear prompt to continue.
- Don't just praise — if my "explanation" only repeats my evidence, say so and ask me what the evidence actually proves.

THE EXIT CONDITION
After at least 5 substantive exchanges AND once I have (a) a clear topic sentence, (b) confirmed unity or fixed a unity break, (c) improved coherence in at least one spot (order or transition), and (d) added or strengthened the explanation so the paragraph develops its point — whichever happens LAST — tell me we've workshopped it well and you'll summarize. Don't stop earlier; don't drag well past it.

THE DISCUSSION SUMMARY — produce it in EXACTLY this format, drawn ONLY from what I actually wrote (never invent content I didn't write):
WEEK 3 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — Paragraph Peer-Review
Student: [name] | Date: ___
My paragraph's topic sentence (controlling idea): ___
Unity — did every sentence serve it? (and any cut/move I made): ___
Coherence — one flow/order/transition improvement I made: ___
Development — where I added explanation of what my evidence shows: ___
One thing I'll look for when reviewing a classmate's paragraph: ___
Then say, verbatim: "Post your paragraph, this summary, AND your share link to this chat to the Week 3 discussion board as your initial post — then reply to two classmates with feedback on their unity, coherence, and development." End with one genuine sentence about something I improved well.

GETTING STARTED
Begin now: greet me, ask my first name, and ask me for my paragraph and its topic.

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

Participation rubric (instructor) — 20 points

Grading note (Prof. Lindgren): the posted artifact is the student's paragraph + the AI-written summary + the chat share link, plus their two peer replies. Spot-check a few links against the summary. The failure mode to watch: a glowing summary from a one-line chat, or peer replies that only say "great job" — the rubric rewards the workshop and the substantive feedback, not the AI's prose.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = DiscussionTopic
title            = "Week 3 Discussion — Paragraph Peer-Review (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Discussions"
points_possible  = 20
grading_type     = points
discussion_type  = adaptive
due_offset_days  = 4     # initial post (paragraph + AI summary + chat share link)
reply_offset_days = 6    # two peer replies (substantive feedback on unity/coherence/development)
published        = true
submission_note  = "Initial post = your body paragraph + the AI discussion summary + the chat share link; then reply to two classmates with checklist-based feedback."
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-3 discussion is the BYOAI-dialogue version in G-discussion-week-03.md. This file shows the same Week-3 peer-review built the traditional way — an instructor-posted prompt where students post their own paragraph and reply to peers — so you can see both formats side by side. (Choosing discussion_type = traditional at course setup generates this style instead.)

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective: Objective 3 (the paragraph: unity, coherence, development) · SLO A (compose clear, well-developed prose)
Discussion 3 of 15 · Discussions group = 10% of the grade · Worth 20 points

The Discussion

A paragraph is the unit of composition — one point, fully made. This week's discussion is a peer-review workshop: you'll post one of your own body paragraphs, and then help two classmates make theirs stronger using the same checklist we used in class — topic sentence, unity, coherence, development.

Your initial post (by Friday, Sep 18). Write and post one body paragraph (about 5–8 sentences) on an everyday topic — a habit that changed your week, why a campus spot is over- or under-rated, a small skill worth learning, or a claim about your major. Make it a real paragraph: a clear topic sentence, every sentence serving it (unity), a logical flow (coherence), and a point that's explained, not just asserted (development — evidence plus explanation). Then add two sentences naming the one trait you worked hardest on and why.

Replies — substantive peer feedback (by Sunday, Sep 20). Reply to at least two classmates. For each, use the checklist — don't just say "nice job":

• Topic sentence — state, in your own words, what you think their paragraph's one point is. (If you can't, say so — that's useful feedback.)
• Unity — name any sentence that seems to wander from that point, and suggest cutting or moving it.
• Coherence — point to one spot where a transition or a different order would help the flow.
• Development — name one place where the point is asserted but not yet explained (the missing "so what?"), and say what you'd want explained.

Lead with something that works, then give one concrete, kind suggestion per criterion you address. One or two solid sentences are plenty.

What a strong post looks like: (topic sentence in bold) "Keeping a single running to-do list in one notebook, instead of scattering tasks across apps, cut my missed deadlines to almost zero." "Last semester I tracked assignments in three different places — a planner, my phone, and sticky notes — and things constantly fell through the cracks. When I moved everything into one notebook I check each morning, I stopped losing track of what was due, because there was only one place to look and one place to forget. By midterms I hadn't missed a single deadline. The habit works less because the notebook is special and more because it removed the gaps between my systems." (Note the explanation — it says why the habit worked, not just that it did.)

Why this matters: giving good feedback trains the reader's eye you need to revise your own writing — and reviewing two real paragraphs against the checklist is the fastest way to internalize unity, coherence, and development.

Integrity & AI note. Write your paragraph and your replies in your own words — that's the point of the exercise. You may use an approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) to brainstorm or check a definition, but the writing you submit must be your own thinking; if AI helped, add a one-line note saying which tool and how. (Note: this is the traditional format. In this course's actual adaptive discussion, workshopping the paragraph with the chatbot is the activity — see G-discussion-week-03.md.)

Participation rubric — 20 points

Grading note (Prof. Lindgren): you read and grade each student's posted paragraph + their two replies against this rubric — the traditional flow. (The adaptive version instead has students submit their paragraph + an AI-dialogue summary + chat link, plus the same two peer replies.)

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = DiscussionTopic
title            = "Week 3 Discussion — Paragraph Peer-Review (traditional)"
assignment_group = "Discussions"
points_possible  = 20
grading_type     = points
discussion_type  = traditional
due_offset_days  = 4     # initial post (the body paragraph)
reply_offset_days = 6    # two peer replies (substantive feedback)
published        = true
submission_note  = "Students post an original body paragraph and reply to two classmates with checklist-based feedback in the Canvas discussion."
provenance       = "~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"