Week 5 — Writing Studio / Workshop · "Show, Don't Tell"

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective: Objective 4 — compose in narration/exposition; concrete detail; showing vs. telling · SLO A (compose vivid, clear, audience-aware prose with a point)
Worth 50 points · Writing Studios group = 15% of the grade · Studio 5
Format: a hands-on drafting + revision workshop — you'll draft a vivid paragraph, revise a flat "telling" passage into showing, review both against a checklist, get a chatbot's coaching, and then catch the chatbot's mistakes when it tries to make your writing "more descriptive."

This is the course's signature weekly component, and this week it's the perfect warm-up for your first major essay. 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 the move that separates flat writing from vivid writing: show, don't tell. Telling names a feeling or conclusion ("I was nervous"); showing gives concrete sensory evidence so the reader feels it themselves ("my hands left damp prints on the steering wheel"). This studio drills that move twice — once by drafting a vivid paragraph from scratch, once by revising a flat passage into showing — so it's automatic by the time you write the Narrative/Expository Essay. The whole thing takes about twenty minutes.

Background (optional, ~6 min): "Descriptive Essay: Techniques" (Excelsior OWL) — showing vs. telling and using all five senses: 🔗 https://owl.excelsior.edu/rhetorical-styles/descriptive-essay/descriptive-essay-techniques/

---

Part 2 — Drafting Exercise A: a vivid paragraph (write this)

Pick one of these moments (or a true one of your own) and write a 5–8 sentence paragraph that shows it — no naming the feeling, just concrete sensory detail a reader could see, hear, smell, taste, or touch:

• a moment you were nervous (without using "nervous")
• a place that felt lonely or crowded (without using either word)
• a moment of relief or small victory (without naming it)

Rules for showing:
- Use at least three different senses.
- Do not state the feeling outright — make the reader infer it from what you show.
- Aim for a few sharp, true details, not a flood. (Showing is selective.)

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

---

Part 3 — Drafting Exercise B: revise a flat "telling" passage into showing (rewrite this)

Here is a flat, all-telling passage. Your job is to revise it so it SHOWS — keep the same little story, but replace the named feelings with concrete sensory detail. (This passage is the instructor's own illustration; you're rewriting it, not quoting anyone.)

The flat passage (TELLING):
"My first day at the new job was really stressful. Everyone seemed busy and important, and I felt totally out of place. I was nervous all morning and didn't know what to do with myself. By lunchtime I was relieved when someone was finally nice to me. It ended up being an okay day."

Rewrite it (aim for 6–10 sentences):
- Replace each telling label ("stressful," "out of place," "nervous," "relieved") with concrete sensory detail or concrete action — what you actually saw, heard, or did.
- Keep a clear chronology (morning → lunchtime → end) with time transitions (first, by the time, then, finally).
- Give it a faint point — a "so what?" the moment adds up to (it can be implied in the last line).
- Don't just add adjectives. "A very, very stressful, super chaotic morning" is still telling. Show one concrete thing instead.

Keep both the flat original and your "showing" rewrite — you'll submit both so the revision is visible.

---

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

Run both your paragraph (A) and your rewrite (B) through this checklist — first on your own draft, then trade with a classmate (or reread as if you were a stranger seeing it cold). Mark ✓ or ✗ and jot one fix:

Check	Paragraph A	Rewrite B
It shows the feeling — the reader could infer it without the label being stated	☐	☐
Uses concrete, sensory detail (things a camera/microphone could catch), not abstractions	☐	☐
Uses at least three senses (A) / replaced each telling label with a concrete detail (B)	☐	☐
The detail is selective and true — no purple prose, no clichés ("a whirlwind of emotions")	☐	☐
There's a faint point / "so what?" — the moment adds up to something	☐	☐
(B only) Clear chronology with time transitions; the timeline is easy to follow	☐	☐

Then revise the weaker of the two based on what the checklist surfaced — re-see the detail and the point, not just the commas. (This is the "revise, don't just edit" move from Week 1, applied to showing.) Keep 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 your Paragraph A (or Rewrite B) and ask: "You are my writing coach. Read this paragraph. Point to the exact sentences where I'm telling instead of showing, and ask me what I actually saw or heard there. Do NOT rewrite it for me — just show me where I'm telling."
2. Read its diagnosis and decide what to act on. Pick one flat spot it found and fix it in your own words, with a concrete detail.

The coach is a mirror, not a ghostwriter. You're using it to find your flat spots — then you supply the true, specific detail. A chatbot doesn't know what your morning actually looked like; only you do.

---

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 make my paragraph more descriptive."
2. Read its rewrite critically and catch what it does wrong. This week's two classic failures are almost guaranteed to show up:
   - Purple prose / over-writing — it floods the paragraph with clichés and overwrought phrases ("a whirlwind of emotions cascaded through me," "time seemed to stand still," "my heart pounded like a drum"). That's decoration, not showing — and most of it is cliché you'd never write.
   - Voice-erasing over-editing — it replaces your plain, true phrasing with generic "literary" boilerplate that sounds like every AI essay and nothing like you. The specific, slightly odd detail that made your version yours gets smoothed into mush.
3. Write 3–4 sentences that: (a) name one cliché or purple phrase the AI added that you'd cut, (b) name one of your own original details you're keeping over the AI's version and why, and (c) state the rule in your own words. (If one of its suggestions was genuinely good — a sharper verb, a real concrete detail — say so; that's the judgment skill.)

The habit all term: the tool drafts, you judge. A chatbot will gladly "improve" your writing into something fancier and less yours. Real showing is specific and true and in your voice — three things a generic rewrite can't supply. (Later in the term, when you work 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 on voice and over-writing.)

---

Part 7 — What to Submit

Submit a single document (or text entry) with: your Paragraph A; the flat passage's "showing" rewrite (B); your completed checklist marks + the revised weaker version (Part 4); a one-line note on the coach feedback you acted on (Part 5); and your Part 6 AI-critique paragraph (cliché cut + your detail kept + the rule). Due Sunday, Oct 4, 11:59 p.m. (50 points).

---

Instructor answer key & model — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Students write their own paragraphs, so exact wording varies. The models below are for grading the showing move and the revision, not for matching specific words. No quotations, outside sources, or citations appear in this studio — the flat passage and the model rewrite are the instructor's own illustrations, attributed to no one — so there is nothing to mis-quote or fabricate this week.

Model — Exercise A (showing "nervous" without the word, instructor's own writing, three senses):

"I got to the parking lot fifteen minutes early and sat there with the engine off, watching other people walk in like they belonged. My mouth had gone dry, so I drank half a warm water bottle from the cup holder. When I finally pushed the door open, the lobby smelled like burnt coffee and floor cleaner, and my own footsteps sounded too loud on the tile. I signed my name on the visitor sheet twice because the first one came out as a scribble."
(Shows nervousness through sight — sitting in the car, people who "belonged"; touch/taste — dry mouth, warm water; sound — too-loud footsteps; and action — the scribbled signature. The word "nervous" never appears.)

Model — Exercise B (the flat passage, revised to SHOW, instructor's own writing):

"I got to the office twenty minutes early and then sat in my car for ten of them, rehearsing how to say my own name. Inside, every desk was already humming — keyboards, a printer somewhere, two people laughing about a meeting I wasn't in. I refilled my water bottle twice just to have somewhere to walk. By late morning I had read the same onboarding page three times without keeping a word of it. Then, near noon, a woman named Priya slid a sticky note onto my monitor: 'lunch?' I have never been so grateful for one word."
(Each telling label is replaced: "stressful/nervous" → sitting in the car rehearsing, refilling the water bottle; "out of place" → the desks already humming, a meeting "I wasn't in"; "relieved" → "so grateful for one word." Clear chronology with transitions — early → by late morning → near noon. The implied point: one small kindness can turn a hard day. No feeling is named.)

What the models show (the grading targets):
- Showing over telling: full credit requires concrete sensory evidence, not the named feeling and not a pile of adjectives. A rewrite that just swaps "stressful" for "very stressful and chaotic" has not shown — that's the most common miss.
- Sensory range (A): at least three different senses in the from-scratch paragraph.
- Revision (B): every telling label in the flat passage should be replaced by concrete detail or action, with the chronology and transitions kept clear; a faint point lands by the end.
- Selectivity: a few sharp, true details — not purple prose. Over-writing earns less credit, not more.
- AI-critique (Part 6): full credit for naming a specific cliché/purple phrase the AI added and a specific original detail the student kept (with a reason). Full credit also if the student justifies keeping their own wording over the AI's smoother version.

Grading rubric — 50 points

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Paragraph A (showing from scratch) — shows the feeling with concrete, multi-sense detail; never names it; selective, not purple (14)	14	7–11	0–6
Rewrite B (telling → showing) — replaces each telling label with concrete detail/action; clear chronology + transitions; a faint point (14)	14	7–11	0–6
Self-/peer-review + revision — checklist applied to both; the weaker version revised (re-seen, not just edited) (10)	10	5–8	0–4
Coach moment — acted on real "where am I telling?" feedback, in the student's own words (6)	6	3	0–2
AI-critique — names a specific purple/cliché phrase the AI added AND an original detail kept (with a reason); states the rule (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 (research and MLA arrive in Weeks 9–12; a personal/descriptive paragraph needs none), so there is nothing to fabricate or mis-attribute; the flat passage, the two model rewrites, and every example are the instructor's own illustrations. The showing-vs-telling distinction the rubric rewards matches the Week-5 lecture and quiz, and the model passages' grammar/mechanics are clean. No student-written paragraph is asserted as "the" answer — the key grades the showing move and the revision, not specific words.