Week 4 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · "From Topic to Thesis"

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective assessed: Objective 3 (the working/arguable thesis and essay arrangement) · SLO A (compose clear, thesis-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 4 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 that feeds straight into your first major essay; 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: narrow a broad topic, write a working thesis that's arguable and specific, outline three supporting points, and revise a weak thesis into a strong one. The coach scores each 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 27.

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 4 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. Do NOT write quotations, name real authors, or invent sources — none are needed; every example here is illustrative.

KEY STANDARD YOU ARE GRADING TOWARD (the heart of the week): a working thesis must be BOTH ARGUABLE (a reasonable person could disagree) AND SPECIFIC (it names what is claimed and usually why / on what grounds, narrow enough that one essay can support it). A thesis is NOT a topic, NOT a statement of fact, NOT a question, and NOT an "In this essay I will…" announcement.

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) — Narrow a broad topic ────────────
SHOW ME: "Take this BROAD topic and narrow it in THREE steps, each one more focused than the last, until it's narrow enough to make a claim about. Broad topic: 'social media.' Write step 1 (still broad), step 2 (narrower), step 3 (a specific angle you could argue about). You are NOT writing the thesis yet — just narrowing the subject."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any chain that genuinely narrows across three steps toward an arguable angle): e.g., social media → social media and teenagers → how social media affects teenagers' sleep → whether schools should teach 'phone hygiene' to protect teen sleep. The third step must be a SPECIFIC angle (a slice you could take a position on), not still the whole topic.
RUBRIC: 8 per step. Step 1: a reasonable first narrowing (8). Step 2: clearly narrower than step 1 (8). Step 3: a specific, arguable-ready angle, not a restatement of the topic (8). Half credit for a step that doesn't actually narrow (e.g., just rewording the level above).
FRESH VARIANT (for a re-attempt): "Narrow the broad topic 'college sports' in three steps toward a specific angle you could argue about." Model: college sports → paying college athletes → paying athletes in revenue sports → whether revenue-sport athletes should get a base stipend. Same rubric.

──────────── TASK 2 (28 points) — Write an arguable, specific working thesis ────────────
SHOW ME: "Using the narrowed angle from Task 1 (or any focused angle you like), write ONE working thesis. It must be a single sentence that (a) makes a CLAIM a reasonable person could disagree with, and (b) is SPECIFIC — it names WHAT you claim and, ideally, WHY or on what grounds. Then, in one sentence each, tell me: why is it arguable? and why is it specific?"
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any single-sentence thesis that is genuinely arguable AND specific, plus a correct self-check): e.g., "Schools should teach a short 'phone-hygiene' unit on sleep, because the biggest cost of teen social-media use is lost sleep, not lost self-esteem." Arguable: many would disagree (about schools' role, or about which cost is biggest). Specific: names who (schools), what (a phone-hygiene/sleep unit), and why (sleep is the biggest cost).
RUBRIC: 14 — the thesis is genuinely ARGUABLE (a reasonable person could disagree; not a fact, topic, question, or announcement); 8 — it is SPECIFIC (names what and ideally why; not "in many ways"/"pros and cons"); 6 — the two self-check sentences correctly explain WHY it's arguable and WHY it's specific. Partial credit: arguable-but-vague, or specific-but-not-arguable, earns part of the relevant band; an impostor (topic/fact/question/announcement) earns little on the arguable band. Reward a real claim, not length.
FRESH VARIANT: "Write a working thesis on a DIFFERENT focused angle (pick your own — campus life, a hobby, a workplace policy). Same two requirements (arguable + specific) and the same two self-check sentences." Same rubric.

──────────── TASK 3 (24 points) — Outline three supporting points ────────────
SHOW ME: "For your thesis from Task 2, list THREE supporting points — one per planned body paragraph — that would each help PROVE the thesis. Write each as a short phrase or topic-sentence-style statement. They should be distinct from each other (not the same point reworded) and each should clearly support the thesis. If one of your three is the counterargument you'd answer, that's allowed — just label it."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any three distinct points that genuinely support the stated thesis): for the 'phone-hygiene/sleep' thesis, e.g., (1) the evidence that screen use before bed disrupts teen sleep; (2) why lost sleep harms school performance and mood more than self-esteem effects do; (3) why a brief school unit is a realistic, low-cost intervention (and answering the "that's parents' job" objection). Points must map to the thesis, not drift to a different claim.
RUBRIC: 8 per point: each is (a) distinct and (b) clearly supports THIS thesis. Half credit for a point that is vague, off-topic (supports a different claim), or a duplicate of another point. A labeled counterargument-and-rebuttal counts as a valid point.
FRESH VARIANT: "Outline three supporting points for your Task-2 thesis again, but this time make sure your STRONGEST point is one of the three and note which order you'd put them in (strongest-first or building to strongest) and why." Same rubric (distinct + supportive), with credit for a sensible ordering rationale.

──────────── TASK 4 (24 points) — Revise a weak thesis ────────────
SHOW ME: "Here is a WEAK thesis: 'Technology has changed education in many ways.' (a) In one sentence, name what's wrong with it (which impostor is it, or what's vague?). (b) Rewrite it into a strong working thesis that is arguable AND specific. (c) In one sentence, say what your rewrite added that the original lacked."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) it's too broad / barely arguable — names a topic plus a vague true statement ("in many ways" commits to nothing; no one disagrees). (b) any rewrite that picks a contestable side and names what + why, e.g., "Requiring laptops in lecture courses harms learning more than it helps, because the same device that takes notes also delivers constant distraction." (c) the rewrite added a contestable claim and specific grounds (a who/what/why) the original lacked.
RUBRIC: 6 — correctly diagnoses the weakness (too broad / not arguable / vague); 12 — the rewrite is genuinely arguable AND specific; 6 — the one-sentence explanation names the real improvement (a claim + specificity), not just "I made it longer." Partial credit for a rewrite that fixes only one of the two (arguable OR specific).
FRESH VARIANT: "Revise this weak thesis: 'In this essay, I will discuss the pros and cons of remote work.' (a) Name the impostor. (b) Rewrite it as an arguable, specific thesis. (c) Say what changed." Model: (a) an announcement that also refuses to pick a side ("pros and cons"); (b) e.g., "For early-career employees, fully remote work trades away the informal mentoring that builds careers, so a hybrid model serves them better"; (c) it deletes the announcement and commits to a specific, contestable claim. Same rubric.

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). For thesis tasks, always tell me whether my sentence passed BOTH parts of the test (arguable AND specific) and which part needs work.
• 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. Reward a genuine arguable-and-specific claim, 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 4 ASSIGNMENT — From Topic to Thesis
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Task 1 (Narrow a broad topic): a/24 — [one line]
Task 2 (Arguable, specific working thesis): b/28 — [one line]
Task 3 (Three supporting points): c/24 — [one line]
Task 4 (Revise a weak thesis): 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; 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 thesis-writing check.
• This task scaffolds straight into Week 5's first major essay: a student who leaves here with an arguable, specific thesis and a 3-point map has the spine of an essay already.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 4 Assignment — From Topic to Thesis (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-4 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-04.md. This file shows the same Week-4 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 3 (the working/arguable thesis and essay arrangement) · SLO A (compose clear, thesis-driven prose)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade

The Assignment

A thesis is the spine of an essay: a single sentence stating a claim that is arguable (a reasonable person could disagree) and specific (it names what you claim and usually why). In four short parts you'll move from a broad topic to a working thesis, plan the essay around it, and fix a weak thesis. 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 — Narrow a broad topic (24 pts). Take the broad topic "social media" and narrow it in three steps, each more focused than the last, until it's narrow enough to make a claim about. Write step 1 (still broad), step 2 (narrower), and step 3 (a specific angle you could argue about). Don't write the thesis yet — just narrow the subject.

Part 2 — Write an arguable, specific working thesis (28 pts). Using your narrowed angle (or any focused angle you like), write one working thesis: a single sentence that (a) makes a claim a reasonable person could disagree with, and (b) is specific — it names what you claim and, ideally, why. Then, in one sentence each, explain: why is it arguable? and why is it specific?

Part 3 — Outline three supporting points (24 pts). For your thesis, list three supporting points — one per planned body paragraph — that would each help prove it. Write each as a short phrase or topic-sentence-style statement. They must be distinct from one another and each must clearly support the thesis. (If one is a counterargument you'd answer, label it.)

Part 4 — Revise a weak thesis (24 pts). Here is a weak thesis: "Technology has changed education in many ways." (a) In one sentence, name what's wrong with it. (b) Rewrite it into a strong working thesis that is arguable AND specific. (c) In one sentence, say what your rewrite added that the original lacked.

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-04.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 (model chain): social media → social media and teenagers → how social media affects teenagers' sleep → whether schools should teach "phone hygiene" to protect teen sleep. Accept any chain that narrows across three steps and ends on a specific, arguable-ready angle (not a reworded topic).
• Part 2 (model): any single-sentence thesis that is genuinely arguable (a reasonable person could disagree — not a fact, topic, question, or announcement) and specific (names what and ideally why), e.g., "Schools should teach a short 'phone-hygiene' unit on sleep, because the biggest cost of teen social-media use is lost sleep, not lost self-esteem." Self-checks should correctly say why it's arguable (people disagree about schools' role / which cost is biggest) and why it's specific (names who/what/why). (All example wording is illustrative; there are no quotations or sources to verify.)
• Part 3 (model): three distinct points that map to the stated thesis, e.g., (1) evidence that pre-bed screen use disrupts teen sleep; (2) why lost sleep harms school performance/mood more than self-esteem effects; (3) why a brief school unit is a realistic, low-cost fix (answering "that's parents' job"). A labeled counterargument-and-rebuttal counts.
• Part 4: (a) "Technology has changed education in many ways" is too broad / barely arguable — a topic plus a vague true statement ("in many ways" commits to nothing). (b) any rewrite that picks a contestable side and names what + why, e.g., "Requiring laptops in lecture courses harms learning more than it helps, because the same device that takes notes also delivers constant distraction." (c) the rewrite added a contestable claim and specific grounds the original lacked.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 4 Assignment — From Topic to Thesis (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-04-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"