Week 9 · Writing Studio

Week 9 Writing Studio: Earn a Source Its Place

English Composition Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned to sort sources as primary or secondary and as scholarly, popular, or trade, to run the five-question credibility checklist (currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose), and to read laterally, leaving a site to see what independent sources say about it. In this Writing Studio you judge four short source cards about a proposal to keep a community library open later on weeknights. You sort each card, run the five questions, compare what each source says about itself with what independent sources say about it, and draft one source-evaluation paragraph that decides which sources earn a place in an essay and for what job. Then you review it against a checklist, ask a chatbot for feedback without letting it rewrite you, and catch the mistakes a chatbot makes when it "evaluates" or "adds" sources. The same move helps a nursing student weigh a health claim, a small-business owner judge a market report, and anyone deciding whether a link deserves to be shared.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Out of four source cards on a later library closing, can you write one paragraph that says which sources earn a place in an essay, for what job, and on what evidence from the checklist and lateral reading?

Workshop data: Four source cards on a later community-library closing (illustrative)

Source: Four illustrative source cards about a proposal to keep a community library open later on weeknights, each with a printed sheet of what independent sources say about it; all were written for this Writing Studio, describe no real publication, and are attributed to no one. They are printed in full in the Part 4 source-card table.

Rows: 4 source cards, one per row of the Part 4 source-card table (that table has 4 rows)
Topic: a proposal to keep a community library open later on weeknights
Form: each card describes one source and is paired with a printed lateral-reading result

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

Read the four source cards in the Part 4 source-card table twice. For each card, write whether it is primary or secondary and whether it is scholarly, popular, trade, or a government document, with one reason drawn from the card. 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 card has two labels and a reason taken from its own description.
In the checklist table, run the five questions on each card in order (currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose), and answer each one with a specific detail from the card, not an impression. 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: Twenty checklist answers, each pointing at a detail on a card.
For each card, compare what the source says about itself with the printed lateral-reading result beside it. Write one sentence on what the lateral result changes, if anything, and name each source's purpose. Check: Each card has a sentence naming its purpose and what reading laterally added.
Write one source-evaluation paragraph of 120-180 words: which cards earn a place in an essay arguing for or against later hours, what job each can do, and which checks back your decision. Keep what a source says, how trustworthy it is, and whether you agree in separate sentences, the three-sentence habit from Week 8. 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: A first draft that names at least two checks and gives at least one card a specific job.
Review your draft with the review checklist in Part 4. Mark any judgment that rests only on a source's own pages, any domain ending treated as proof, and any sentence that drops a card because it has a point of view. 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 is filled in and at least one change is visible between the two versions.
Paste your revised paragraph into one approved chatbot with the prompt in Part 6, read its feedback on the first half, 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 paragraph that you can trace to a specific piece of feedback.
Fill in the critique table in Part 4 for the second half of the chatbot's answer, checking every quotation, source, and works-cited entry it adds against the printed cards and the MLA rules in a style guide, and comparing any words it says a card contains with the card itself. 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 four source cards by hand or into any plain text editor, fill in the tables on paper, write and label the paragraph 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

Judge each source card against its printed lateral-reading result, so that your labels and your purpose rest on more than the source's own description.

Student scaffold table 1
Card	What the source says about itself	What independent sources say
1	"Late Hours, Better Grades: Why Libraries Should Never Close Early" — a web page on a .org site. No author is named and no date is shown. The site's About page calls it an independent reading-advocacy alliance. The page says studies prove that late hours raise every student's grades, but it links to no study.	Two independent consumer-news pages describe the site as funded by a company that sells after-hours self-checkout kiosks to libraries.
2	A research article in a library-science journal: a study of weeknight visits at branch libraries in several mid-sized cities, by two researchers, published five years ago. Found through the library's databases. Its abstract reports that later hours drew more adult learners and shift workers, and that the effect was small at most branches.	Two independent journal directories list the journal as peer reviewed.
3	The city library board's meeting minutes, on a .gov site, updated last month. They record a vote to study extending weeknight hours at one branch and list a staffing cost estimate for the extra hours.	A local news report on the same meeting describes the same vote.
4	An article in a magazine written for library managers, by a named staff writer, published this year. It describes how three branches scheduled evening staff and what problems they ran into. It cites no study.	An independent press directory lists the magazine as a trade publication for library staff, supported by advertising from library suppliers.

Run the five checklist questions on every card before you draft, so each judgment in your paragraph points to a detail.

Student scaffold table 2
Checklist question	Card 1	Card 2	Card 3	Card 4
Currency
Relevance
Authority
Accuracy
Purpose

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

Student scaffold table 3
Check	Yes or no	Your evidence from the draft
Every judgment names a checklist question or a lateral result, not only an impression.
No judgment rests only on a source's own About page, logo, or design.
No domain ending is treated as proof that a source is reliable.
A card with a point of view is read for its purpose, not dropped for having one.
At least one card is given a specific job in the essay.
What a source says, how trustworthy it is, and whether you agree sit in separate sentences.

Record what the chatbot got wrong so that each correction is checked against the printed cards and the rules, not against the tool's confidence.

Student scaffold table 4
What the chatbot said	Failure shape	Your correction and how you checked it

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

Which card's own description differs most from what independent sources say about it? Name the card and the two details that differ.
The source-card table has 4 cards, and you run all 5 checklist questions on each one. How many checklist answers does your checklist table hold? Then count how many of the 4 cards were found on the open web rather than through the library.
Card 1 has a .org address. Explain why that ending tells you nothing about whether to trust it, using what the lateral result shows.
Choose one option and answer it in 3-5 sentences. (a) Think of a link someone shared with you recently: what would one lateral search about its source have shown you? (b) Describe the moment in this Studio when a lateral result changed your judgment of a card, and say what you had believed before.
Every lateral result in this Studio is printed for you. What would be harder about reading a real site laterally, and what could still mislead you after you leave the site?

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 source-evaluation paragraph above, about four sources on a later weeknight closing time for a community library. Do two separate things. First, without rewriting anything, tell me which of my sentences says what a source is, which sentence judges how trustworthy it is, and whether any judgment rests only on the source's own pages. Second, improve my paragraph, add two more credible sources with quotations and MLA works-cited entries, fix any grammar errors, and write your own analysis of which source is best.

Test the response for these likely failures:

It opens with "Great evaluation, very thorough!" and never names which of your sentences judges a source or what evidence that judgment rests on.
Its "improved" version replaces your judgment with boilerplate such as "In today's information age, evaluating sources is more important than ever" and drops the checklist details you cited.
It "quotes" source card 2 as saying that late hours "dramatically improve outcomes for all patrons," words that appear nowhere on the card; the card reports that the effect was small at most branches.
It adds two "credible" sources, a named national library institute and a named professor's study, that you cannot find anywhere.
It supplies works-cited entries with the title in lowercase, no container, and a comma between author and page in the in-text form, and presents them as correct.
Its "grammar fix" joins two independent clauses with a comma alone and turns your judgment that card 1 needs a cross-check into a verdict that card 1 is false.
Its "analysis of which source is best" restates what each card says, in order, with no word about a checklist question, a lateral check, or the job a source can do.

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 printed source cards, your own original paragraph, or the rules.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this Writing Studio. This route assesses the same objectives, Objective 5 (judging sources with the credibility checklist and lateral reading, and sorting them by type and audience) and Objective 1 (reading a source's writer, audience, and purpose), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. For the coach moment, read your paragraph aloud to a friend, a family member, or yourself, and answer the review checklist in Part 4 in writing as that reader would; act on one point in your own words. For the critique moment, critique this flawed feedback, written for the course to contain mistakes and printed here in full: "Great evaluation, very thorough! I improved your paragraph: In today's information age, evaluating sources is more important than ever, and these four sources show the debate clearly. Card 2 says late hours "dramatically improve outcomes for all patrons." A national library institute and a professor's study also prove that late hours raise grades. Works cited: institute, national library. late hours and learning. 2021. In-text: (Institute, 4). Grammar fix: Card 1 has no author, it is false. Analysis of which source is best: Card 1 says libraries should never close early, card 2 studies weeknight visits, card 3 records a vote, and card 4 describes evening staffing." Find and correct at least four of its seven problems (hollow praise, a voice-erasing rewrite that drops your checklist details, a quotation that is not on card 2, invented sources, an invented works-cited entry with a wrong in-text form, a grammar fix that creates a comma splice and turns a judgment into a verdict, and summary passed off as evaluation), 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 source-card table and the completed checklist table for all four cards
Your first and revised source-evaluation paragraph, 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 four illustrative source cards: the source-card and checklist tables, a first and revised source-evaluation paragraph, 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
Source sort and checklist	Every card carries both labels with a reason from the card, and all twenty checklist answers point to specific card details.	Most cards are labelled and checked, but one label lacks a reason or several checklist answers are impressions.	No labels and no checklist answers.
Lateral reading and purpose	Each card's purpose is named, and the student says what the lateral result changed, including card 1's gap between its self-description and what independent sources say.	Purposes are named, but the lateral results are not compared with the cards' self-descriptions, or card 1's gap is missed.	No purposes and no use of the lateral results.
Source-evaluation paragraph	The paragraph gives at least one card a specific job, backs each judgment with a named check, and keeps what a source says, how trustworthy it is, and agreement in separate sentences.	The paragraph judges the cards, but a judgment rests on an impression or a domain ending, or the three jobs blur together.	No paragraph, or a summary of the cards with no judgment.
Checklist review and visible revision	The review 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.
Analysis questions answered with evidence	All five analysis questions are answered with reference to specific cards, including the counts and the limitation.	Most questions are answered, but the counts or the limitation question is missing or unsupported.	No analysis questions answered.
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 cards, the student's original, or the rules, 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 label and checklist answer points to a detail printed on a card or its lateral result.
No judgment treats a domain ending, a logo, or a site's own description as proof of reliability.
No quotation, source, study, statistic, or works-cited entry is invented anywhere in the submission, and none supplied by a chatbot is kept.
The revision is visible: both versions are submitted, with the change traced to the checklist or feedback.
The critique names at least two failures and corrects each against the printed cards, the student's original, or the rules.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com