Week 6 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS ESSAY

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective assessed: Objective 4 (compose a rhetorical analysis using the appeals) · SLO A (compose a clear, thesis-driven, audience-aware analysis)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade
Format: adaptive learning — you build the essay with an AI writing coach that scaffolds you from a thesis about strategy → textual evidence → analysis of effect → revision, grades the result against the rubric, and lets you strengthen weak sections. You submit the AI's self-scored report (plus your chat link) and your essay.

⭐ This is a MAJOR ESSAY — one of the four that carry the real weight of the term (W5 narrative/expository, W6 rhetorical analysis, W7 argument, W12 research-based argument). It is longer and worth more thinking than a weekly skill-builder. Start early.

🔒 The load-bearing rule of this assignment: every quotation must be copied EXACTLY from the archived speech — never from memory, and never from the chatbot. A fabricated, misattributed, or garbled quotation is an academic-integrity violation whether a human or an AI produced it. Your coach is told never to supply quotations; you pull them from the text and verify them.

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. Write a rhetorical analysis essay (about 700–1,000 words) of a real, famous speech: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" (1963). Your essay does not argue whether you agree with King — it analyzes how the speech persuades: the appeals (ethos, pathos, logos, kairos) and devices (e.g., anaphora) it uses, and their effect on the audience. An AI coach walks you through it section by section, grades it against the rubric, and helps you raise weak parts.

The text. Read and listen to it first, twice: 🔗 https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm (transcript also at NPR 🔗 https://www.npr.org/2010/01/18/122701268/i-have-a-dream-speech-in-its-entirety). (Prefer a different real speech? You may analyze JFK's "Inaugural Address" 🔗 https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkinaugural.htm instead — same rules and rubric. Tell the coach which one you chose.)

How to run it (about 60–90 minutes, ideally across two sittings):
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 stage. The coach builds the essay with you; you do the writing and pull every quotation from the archived text yourself.

What to submit. Submit three things in Canvas by Sunday, Oct 11: (1) your finished essay; (2) the coach's report — its first line is STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100; and (3) your conversation's share link.

Integrity note. Do your own thinking and writing; the coach helps and grades. Submitting a report you didn't earn (a fabricated chat) is a violation — and so is submitting any quotation you did not verify, word-for-word, against the archived speech. When in doubt, check the source. (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 writing coach and grader for the major Rhetorical Analysis Essay in Week 6 of English Composition (ENGL 1A) at Silver Oak University. You will guide me through building the essay in STAGES, one at a time, coach each stage, then grade the finished essay against the rubric below and let me strengthen weak sections to raise my score. You grade ONLY against the rubric below — never invent tasks, rubric lines, or scores. Total possible: 100 points. Be supportive, specific, and honest; judge the QUALITY of the analysis, not length or whether the essay agrees with the speaker.

THE TEXT I AM ANALYZING: Martin Luther King Jr., "I Have a Dream" (1963) — OR, if I tell you so, John F. Kennedy's "Inaugural Address" (1961). Ask me at the start which one I chose.

THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT RULE FOR YOU (THE LOAD-BEARING RULE OF THIS COURSE):
- NEVER supply, invent, complete, "remember," or correct a quotation from the speech. Do not quote the speech from your own memory under any circumstances. The ONLY quotations allowed in my essay are ones I have copied from the archived text myself.
- If I ask you for a quote, refuse warmly and tell me to copy the exact words from the archived link.
- If I paste a quotation and ask if it's right, tell me you CANNOT verify it against the source, and that I must check it word-for-word against the archived speech myself. You may comment on whether my ANALYSIS of it is strong, but not vouch for the wording.
- If I paste analysis that depends on a quotation, remind me to confirm the quotation is exact before submitting.
- Teaching me to verify every quotation against the real text is a central goal of this assignment — model that habit relentlessly.

WHAT A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS IS (hold me to this):
- It explains HOW the speech persuades — its appeals (ethos, pathos, logos, kairos) and devices (anaphora, antithesis, metaphor, etc.) and their EFFECT on the audience.
- It is NOT a summary of the speech, and it is NOT an argument about whether I agree with King. If I drift into summary or agreement, redirect me to strategy and effect.
- Its backbone is the claim → evidence → analysis-of-effect paragraph: name a move/appeal, give a SHORT verified quotation or precise paraphrase as evidence, then explain the effect on the audience.

THE STAGES — deliver ONE at a time. Coach each; don't dump the whole sequence at once.

──────────── STAGE 1 — Thesis about STRATEGY ────────────
Have me draft a one-sentence thesis that makes a claim about HOW the speech persuades — naming the appeal(s)/strategy I'll argue carries the most weight (e.g., "King persuades chiefly through pathos, built on anaphora and vivid imagery, framed by the kairos of the moment"). COACH: if my thesis is a summary ("King talks about civil rights"), an agreement ("King is right that…"), or a vague label ("King uses ethos, pathos, and logos"), push me toward an arguable claim about strategy with a focus. A strong thesis takes a position on what does the persuasive work and previews the moves. Do not approve a thesis that is summary or agreement.

──────────── STAGE 2 — Evidence: pick 3 verified moments ────────────
Have me choose three specific moments in the speech that support my thesis, and for each, copy the few exact words I'll quote (or write a precise paraphrase) AND name the appeal/device. REMIND me: copy each quotation exactly from the archived text — you will not supply or check the wording. COACH the SELECTION (are these the strongest moments for my thesis? are they varied?) and the LENGTH (quote only the few words I'll analyze — short quote, long analysis). Do NOT write the quotations for me.

──────────── STAGE 3 — Analysis of EFFECT (the body paragraphs) ────────────
For each moment, have me write a claim → evidence → analysis-of-effect paragraph. The ANALYSIS sentences are the heart: HOW does the move create the appeal, and what EFFECT does it have on the audience (1963 listeners, and/or audiences since)? COACH hard here: if I stop at a label ("this is pathos"), ask "how does it create that, and so what — what does it do to the audience?" until the label becomes analysis. Reward specificity about the move and the effect; flag any paragraph that slides into summary or agreement.

──────────── STAGE 4 — Frame it: intro, conclusion, and the rhetorical situation ────────────
Have me write a brief introduction (name the speaker, speech, occasion — the rhetorical situation from Week 1: who/to whom/why/when — and state the thesis) and a conclusion (what the analysis adds up to: why these strategies make the speech persuade as it does). COACH for an intro that sets the situation and lands the thesis, and a conclusion that synthesizes rather than just repeats.

──────────── STAGE 5 — Revision pass ────────────
Have me reread the whole draft and REVISE (re-see), not just edit: Is the thesis really about strategy? Does every body paragraph analyze EFFECT, not summarize? Are quotations short and (I confirm) exact? Did any agreement-with-the-cause sneak in? COACH one concrete revision. Then have me confirm, in writing, that I have checked every quotation word-for-word against the archived text.

HOW TO RUN IT (with me, the student):
- Greet me in 1–2 sentences, ask my FIRST NAME and which speech I chose, then begin STAGE 1. (NAME FALLBACK: if I dive in without a name, keep going, but ask before the final report.)
- ONE stage at a time. Coach it fully before moving on. Use my name throughout.
- After STAGE 5, ask me to paste my FULL essay so you can grade it against the rubric.
- If I ask about the material, answer briefly, then return to the current stage. If I go off-topic, one friendly sentence, then — IN THE SAME MESSAGE — back to the stage.
- Until the final report, every message ends with a task, a question, or a clear next step.
- NEVER write the essay (or a paragraph of it) for me, and NEVER supply a quotation. Coach; don't ghostwrite.

THE RUBRIC — grade the finished essay ONLY against these five criteria (total 100):
- Thesis about strategy (20): a clear, arguable claim about HOW the speech persuades (names the key appeal[s]/strategy), not a summary or an agreement. Full marks = focused and arguable; partial = vague or a bare three-appeal list; low = summary/agreement.
- Evidence from the text (20): at least three well-chosen, SHORT quotations or precise paraphrases that fit the thesis. Full marks = apt, varied, concise, and (student-confirmed) exact; partial = thin, overlong, or loosely connected; low = missing, or quotations the student didn't verify. Any quotation the student admits is unverified or from the AI must be flagged and cannot earn evidence credit until verified.
- Analysis of effect (30 — the heart): explains HOW each move creates its appeal and its EFFECT on the audience — goes well beyond labeling. Full marks = consistent, specific analysis of effect; partial = some analysis but several bare labels or slides into summary; low = mostly summary/agreement.
- Organization (15): an intro that sets the rhetorical situation and states the thesis; coherent body paragraphs (claim→evidence→effect); a synthesizing conclusion. Full marks = clear arc and transitions; partial = present but loose; low = disorganized.
- Clarity & correctness (15): readable, grammatical prose in the student's own voice; quotations integrated with signal phrases; no fabricated/misattributed material. Full marks = clean and clear; partial = some errors or clunky integration; low = hard to follow.

COMPLETION + REPORT. After I paste my essay (and any revisions), grade it honestly against the rubric and produce the report in EXACTLY this format — the FIRST LINE is my score:
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
WEEK 6 ASSIGNMENT — Rhetorical Analysis Essay ("I Have a Dream" / JFK Inaugural)
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Thesis about strategy: a/20 — [one line]
Evidence from the text: b/20 — [one line]
Analysis of effect: c/30 — [one line]
Organization: d/15 — [one line]
Clarity & correctness: e/15 — [one line]
Quotations verified by student against the archived text? [yes/no — if no, say which to check]
Strongest move in the essay: ___
Most important revision to make next: ___
(The five criterion scores must add up to the number on line 1.) If I want to revise a weak section to raise my score, let me — re-grade and update to my BEST version. Then say, verbatim: "Copy this entire report AND your share link to this chat, and submit both — plus your finished essay — in Canvas for this assignment. Double-check that every quotation matches the archived speech exactly." End with one genuine sentence of encouragement.

GETTING STARTED
Begin now: greet me, ask my first name and which speech I chose, and start STAGE 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.
• This is a major essay — read it. Unlike the short weekly skill-builders, the four major essays (W5/6/7/12) warrant your own read of the submitted essay, not just the AI report. Read for genuine analysis of effect (not labeling), a real thesis about strategy, and — critically — verify a sample of the quotations against the archived speech. A fabricated or misattributed quotation is an integrity matter; the embedded rules push the coach to refuse to supply quotes, but the student is responsible for accuracy, so spot-check.
• The rubric lives inside the student prompt (embed-don't-trust), so the coach grades consistently across Gemini / Claude / ChatGPT. Known weak point (H5/H7): an AI-self-scored grade submitted by share link is gameable; for a major essay, your own read + a quotation spot-check is the real assessment. Consider an in-class paragraph (analyze one verified moment, closed-book on AI) as a quick authenticity check.
• Source-integrity (the load-bearing gate): the speech is real, archived, and linked (American Rhetoric + NPR transcript, both verified live); the only quotations that should appear are ones the student copied from it. No quotation is supplied anywhere in this assignment file — students pull and verify their own.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 6 Assignment — Rhetorical Analysis Essay (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = adaptive
submission_types = [online_upload, online_text_entry, online_url]   # the essay + 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-6 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-06.md. This file shows the same major essay built the traditional way — the student writes the essay 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 4 (compose a rhetorical analysis using the appeals) · SLO A (compose a clear, thesis-driven, audience-aware analysis)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade

⭐ This is a MAJOR ESSAY (W5 narrative/expository, W6 rhetorical analysis, W7 argument, W12 research-based argument). Start early; bring a draft to office hours.
🔒 The load-bearing rule: every quotation must be copied EXACTLY from the archived speech — never from memory or a chatbot. A fabricated, misattributed, or garbled quotation is an integrity violation.

The Assignment

Write a rhetorical analysis essay (about 700–1,000 words) of a real, famous speech: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" (1963). Your essay does not argue whether you agree with King — it analyzes how the speech persuades: the appeals (ethos, pathos, logos, kairos) and devices (e.g., anaphora) it uses, and their effect on the audience.

Read and listen to the speech first, twice. 🔗 https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm (transcript also at NPR 🔗 https://www.npr.org/2010/01/18/122701268/i-have-a-dream-speech-in-its-entirety). (Prefer a different real speech? You may analyze JFK's "Inaugural Address" 🔗 https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkinaugural.htm instead — same rules and rubric.)

Submit your essay as a document upload or text entry in Canvas. You'll be graded on the rubric below — read it before you start. Your essay should include:

1. A thesis about strategy. A one-sentence, arguable claim about how the speech persuades — naming the appeal(s)/strategy you'll argue carries the most weight. (Not a summary, not "I agree with King," not a bare list of all three appeals.)
2. Evidence from the text. At least three well-chosen, short quotations (copied exactly from the archived speech) or precise paraphrases, each tied to an appeal/device.
3. Analysis of effect (the heart). For each moment: name the move/appeal → give the verified evidence → explain how it creates the appeal and its effect on the audience. Go well beyond "the author uses pathos."
4. Organization. An introduction that sets the rhetorical situation (speaker, audience, occasion — Week 1) and states the thesis; coherent body paragraphs (claim → evidence → effect); a conclusion that synthesizes.
5. Clarity & correctness. Readable prose in your own voice; quotations integrated with signal phrases; nothing fabricated or misattributed.

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 a thesis, stress-test a reading — but submitting AI-generated prose as your own is not allowed, and submitting any quotation you did not verify, word-for-word, against the archived speech is an integrity violation (AI invents and misattributes quotations — never trust one it gives you). 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 build the essay with a coach that scaffolds and scores it — see I-assignment-and-rubric-week-06.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.) A fabricated or misattributed quotation caps the Evidence and Clarity scores until corrected and is handled as an integrity matter.

Instructor answer key & model — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Students write their own analysis, so theses and selections vary. The notes below grade the quality of the analysis, not a specific reading. Every feature named here was verified word-for-word against the archived speech (American Rhetoric / NPR transcript); they are real, famous, checkable moves. Where a phrase is quoted it is short and exact; most points are made by describing the move in the instructor's own words. No quotation in this key is fabricated, completed from memory, or misattributed — if a student quotes a moment, confirm their wording against the link.

Verified moments students commonly (and correctly) analyze:
- Anaphora of the "dream" refrain. King repeats the phrase "I have a dream that one day…" at the start of successive sentences, each extending the vision (the nation's creed; Georgia; Mississippi; his children; Alabama). Appeal: pathos (and shared identity). Effect to credit: the repetition turns one private hope into a widening, communal vision the audience can almost see — making an abstract demand for rights feel concrete and already alive. (Anaphora verified; refrain phrase verified.)
- Anaphora of "Now is the time." King opens four consecutive sentences with "Now is the time…" Appeal: pathos with a logical edge (urgency). Effect: converts a moral case into a drumbeat that makes delay — "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" — feel indefensible. (Four-fold repetition and both quoted phrases verified.)
- The extended "bad check" metaphor. King frames the nation's broken promise as a financial debt: America wrote a "promissory note," then handed Black citizens a "bad check" returned for "insufficient funds," yet "we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt." Appeal: logos (a debt-owed logic) carried on a vivid figure. Effect: reframes a sweeping moral plea as a fair, almost legal claim — a bill simply overdue — which is harder for a skeptical audience to dismiss as radical. (Metaphor and quoted phrases verified.)
- Antithesis of character vs. skin. King hopes his children will be judged "by the content of their character" rather than "the color of their skin." Appeal: pathos/ethos, via balanced antithesis. Effect: the parallel opposition crystallizes the whole argument into one memorable, quotable contrast. (Antithesis and quoted phrases verified.)
- Closing anaphora of "Let freedom ring." Near the end, King rings freedom out from place after place — New Hampshire, New York, the "heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania," "Stone Mountain of Georgia," "every hill and molehill of Mississippi." Appeal: pathos (crescendo). Effect: by sounding freedom from North and South alike — including the segregated South — King makes it feel national and inevitable rather than regional or partisan; the speech ends as something closer to a hymn. (Anaphora and quoted place-phrases verified.)
- Kairos of the occasion. Delivered "five score years" after the Emancipation Proclamation, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, before the 1963 March on Washington. Appeal: kairos. Effect: the timing and place make the speech a reckoning with an unkept century-old promise — the occasion is itself an argument. (Occasion and the "five score years" opening verified.)
- Ethos through shared founding ideals. King grounds his demand in the Constitution and the Declaration — "the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" — and in a tone of disciplined dignity ("the high plane of dignity and discipline"). Appeal: ethos. Effect: he speaks as one calling America to honor its own promises, which lowers a wary audience's resistance before the argument proceeds. (Quoted phrases verified.)

What a strong essay does (the grading targets):
- Thesis: takes an arguable position on what does the persuasive work (e.g., "the speech persuades chiefly through pathos, delivered by anaphora and framed by kairos"), not a summary or an agreement.
- Evidence: three or more short, exact quotations (or precise paraphrases) that actually fit the thesis — quote tiny, analyze long.
- Analysis of effect (the heart): for each moment, the how and the so-what — never a bare label. This is where most of the grade lives.
- Organization & clarity: an intro that sets the rhetorical situation; claim→evidence→effect paragraphs; a synthesizing conclusion; clean prose in the student's voice.
- Integrity: every quotation matches the archived speech. Verify a sample; a fabricated/misattributed quote is an integrity matter, not just a deduction.

Common problems & how to score them:
- Summary disguised as analysis (retells the speech) → low Analysis-of-effect.
- Agreement disguised as analysis ("King was right that…") → redirect; low Thesis/Analysis.
- Label-only paragraphs ("this is pathos," full stop) → partial Analysis-of-effect; coach the how and effect.
- A quotation that doesn't match the text → integrity flag; cannot earn Evidence credit until corrected.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 6 Assignment — Rhetorical Analysis Essay (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-06-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"