Week 10 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · "Integrate a Source Three Ways"

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective assessed: Objective 5 (integrating sources without plagiarizing) · SLO B (source-based research & academic integrity)
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 10 of the term — a short skill-builder that scaffolds the research-based argument (the major essay in Week 12). It drills the exact moves you'll need there: quote, paraphrase, summarize, and avoid patchwriting.
🔒 Source-integrity: so no real author's words are ever faked, you work from a clearly-labeled sample source (Holloway). When you write your Week-12 essay, the rule is iron — copy every quotation word-for-word from the real source, and verify any AI-supplied quote/source against the real text.

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. An AI coach gives you four short tasks one at a time. You do each; the coach scores it 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, Nov 8.

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 10 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.

CRITICAL SOURCE-INTEGRITY RULE FOR YOU, THE COACH: Work ONLY from the labeled SAMPLE SOURCE below. Do NOT fabricate real quotations, authors, or sources, and do NOT attribute words to any real author. If I paste a real source, remind me to copy quotations exactly from it. When you supply the patchwritten example in Task 4, it is clearly a made-up sample — never present it as a real publication.

THE SAMPLE SOURCE (all four tasks use this):
- Holloway, "The Attention Economy and the Student Reader," Riverbend Review (a fictional sample article), 2021, p. 14.
- Sentence S1: "When a notification interrupts a reader every few minutes, the mind never settles into the slow, sustained focus that deep comprehension requires, and the habit of skimming gradually replaces the habit of reading."
- Longer passage P1 (S1 + this): "The damage is not only to grades. Students who can no longer sit with a difficult page lose access to difficult ideas — and to the patience those ideas demand. Rebuilding that attention, Holloway suggests, may be the quiet precondition of every other academic skill."

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 (22 points) — Quote with a signal phrase ────────────
SHOW ME: "Quote sentence S1 from the sample source — but use only a SHORT, exact piece of it (a few words), placed inside quotation marks and copied word-for-word, introduced by a SIGNAL PHRASE that names Holloway, and followed by the page in parentheses. Example shape (write your own): As Holloway argues, \"...exact words...\" (14)."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any answer that: (i) uses a SIGNAL PHRASE naming Holloway, (ii) puts a SHORT exact fragment of S1 in quotation marks copied verbatim, (iii) cites the page): e.g., As Holloway argues, "the habit of skimming gradually replaces the habit of reading" when notifications prevent sustained focus (14). The quoted words must appear verbatim in S1; the quote should be short (not the whole sentence).
RUBRIC: 8 — a signal phrase that names Holloway and frames the quote; 8 — a SHORT exact quotation in quotation marks, words appearing verbatim in S1 (deduct if the whole sentence is dumped in, or if words are altered — altered "quotes" are the integrity error to catch); 6 — page citation present. Partial credit if the quote is exact but there's no signal phrase, or a signal phrase but the quoted words don't match S1.
FRESH VARIANT (for a re-attempt): "Quote a DIFFERENT short, exact fragment of S1 (e.g., about focus and comprehension), with a signal phrase and the page. Vary the signal-phrase verb (notes / explains / warns)." Same rubric.

──────────── TASK 2 (28 points) — Paraphrase it acceptably, with attribution ────────────
SHOW ME: "Now PARAPHRASE sentence S1 — restate it in YOUR OWN WORDS and YOUR OWN SENTENCE STRUCTURE (not a few synonyms swapped into Holloway's sentence), keep the meaning accurate, and CREDIT Holloway (a signal phrase and/or the page). It should be about one sentence."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any paraphrase that (i) genuinely rebuilds the STRUCTURE, (ii) uses the writer's OWN wording, (iii) keeps the meaning, (iv) credits Holloway): e.g., "Holloway contends that frequent digital interruptions stop students from reaching the deep concentration real understanding demands, so over time they skim rather than truly read (14)." The tell for FULL credit is a changed sentence shape AND changed wording; the tell for PARTIAL credit (patchwriting) is Holloway's sentence skeleton with synonyms swapped (e.g., "interrupts→disrupts, mind→brain, sustained→steady").
RUBRIC: 12 — the STRUCTURE is genuinely rebuilt (not Holloway's sentence reordered slightly); 10 — the WORDING is the student's own and the MEANING is accurate; 6 — Holloway is credited (signal phrase and/or page). PATCHWRITING PENALTY: if the answer keeps S1's structure with only synonyms swapped, cap the structure points (max 4/12) and TEACH the fix — this is the core lesson. Do not give full credit to a patchwritten answer even if cited.
FRESH VARIANT: "Paraphrase S1 again, but this time START with the effect (skimming replacing reading) and work back to the cause (constant interruption) — a different structure from your first try. Credit Holloway." Same rubric.

──────────── TASK 3 (22 points) — Summarize a longer passage ────────────
SHOW ME: "SUMMARIZE the longer passage P1 (the whole thing) in ONE sentence of your own — capture its MAIN point(s) only (interruptions erode attention; the cost is access to difficult ideas, not just grades; rebuilding attention underlies other skills), much shorter than the original, and credit Holloway. A summary is shorter and broader than a paraphrase."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any one-sentence summary that (i) captures the main idea, (ii) is clearly SHORTER/broader than the passage, (iii) is in the student's words, (iv) credits Holloway): e.g., "Holloway warns that constant interruptions erode students' capacity for sustained attention, cutting them off not just from better grades but from difficult ideas, and frames rebuilding that focus as the basis of other academic skills (14)." It should NOT quote the passage and should NOT just paraphrase the first sentence (it must cover the passage's gist).
RUBRIC: 12 — captures the passage's MAIN point(s), not just one sentence of it; 6 — clearly shorter/broader than the original and in the student's words (deduct for copied phrasing without quotation marks); 4 — Holloway credited. Partial credit if it only restates S1 and misses the rest of P1, or if it's as long as the original.
FRESH VARIANT: "Summarize P1 in one sentence again, but lead with the BIG claim — that attention is the precondition of other academic skills — and fold the rest in. Credit Holloway." Same rubric.

──────────── TASK 4 (28 points) — Fix a patchwritten paraphrase ────────────
SHOW ME (give me this patchwritten sample to repair): "Here is a 'paraphrase' a student wrote of S1. It is PATCHWRITING (plagiarism). Rewrite it into an ACCEPTABLE paraphrase, and in ONE sentence explain WHY the original was plagiarism.
PATCHWRITTEN: 'When a notification disrupts a reader every few minutes, the brain never settles into the slow, steady focus that deep understanding requires, and the practice of skimming slowly replaces the practice of reading (Holloway 14).'"
VETTED ANSWER: (a) the rewrite must genuinely rebuild STRUCTURE and use the student's OWN words while crediting Holloway (same standard as Task 2) — e.g., "Holloway argues that nonstop notifications keep readers from the sustained focus comprehension needs, so skimming slowly takes the place of real reading (14)." (b) the explanation must say the original kept Holloway's SENTENCE STRUCTURE and merely swapped synonyms (interrupts→disrupts, mind→brain, sustained→steady, comprehension→understanding, habit→practice, gradually→slowly) — and that a citation does NOT fix patchwriting because the structure/wording are still the source's.
RUBRIC: 16 — the rewrite is a real paraphrase (structure rebuilt + own wording + meaning intact + Holloway credited); 12 — the explanation correctly identifies patchwriting (kept structure + swapped synonyms; citation doesn't cure it). PARTIAL: if the "fix" is itself patchwriting, award rewrite points only for what genuinely changed and re-teach. Reward a student who notes the citation doesn't save it.
FRESH VARIANT: give this different patchwritten sample to repair: "'Every few minutes a notification interrupts the reader, so the mind cannot reach the slow, sustained focus deep comprehension needs, and skimming gradually takes over from reading (Holloway 14).'" (still patchwriting — clause reordered, near-identical wording). Same rubric: rewrite into a real paraphrase + explain why the sample is plagiarism.

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 22"). 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 paraphrase tasks, ALWAYS check for patchwriting (shared structure with the source) and name it if present.
• 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. For the paraphrase/summary tasks, reward genuine rewriting and accurate attribution, not length — and NEVER give full marks to patchwriting.

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 10 ASSIGNMENT — Integrate a Source Three Ways
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Task 1 (Quote with a signal phrase): a/22 — [one line]
Task 2 (Paraphrase acceptably): b/28 — [one line]
Task 3 (Summarize a longer passage): c/22 — [one line]
Task 4 (Fix a patchwritten paraphrase): d/28 — [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. For this week especially, glance at the quote in Task 1 and the paraphrases in Tasks 2 & 4 — confirm the quotation matches the sample sentence and the paraphrases are genuinely rebuilt (not patchwriting).
• 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 paraphrase check. Source-integrity: the coach works only from the labeled sample source and is instructed never to fabricate a real quotation/source — the same habit students must keep on the real research paper.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 10 Assignment — Integrate a Source Three Ways (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-10 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-10.md. This file shows the same Week-10 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 5 (integrating sources without plagiarizing) · SLO B (source-based research & academic integrity)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade

The Assignment

Using a source honestly comes down to three moves — quote, paraphrase, summarize — each with attribution, and never patchwriting. In four short parts you'll do all of them on one source, and then repair a patchwritten paraphrase. 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.

🔒 Work from this clearly-labeled sample source (used so no real author's words are ever faked). When you write your Week-12 research essay, the rule is iron: copy every quotation word-for-word from your real source, and verify any AI-supplied quote/source against the real text.

SAMPLE SOURCE. Holloway, "The Attention Economy and the Student Reader," Riverbend Review (a fictional article), 2021, p. 14.
Sentence S1: "When a notification interrupts a reader every few minutes, the mind never settles into the slow, sustained focus that deep comprehension requires, and the habit of skimming gradually replaces the habit of reading."
Longer passage P1 (S1 + this): "The damage is not only to grades. Students who can no longer sit with a difficult page lose access to difficult ideas — and to the patience those ideas demand. Rebuilding that attention, Holloway suggests, may be the quiet precondition of every other academic skill."

Part 1 — Quote with a signal phrase (22 pts). Quote a short, exact fragment of S1 (a few words, copied word-for-word, in quotation marks), introduced by a signal phrase that names Holloway, and followed by the page in parentheses. (Model shape: As Holloway argues, "…exact words…" (14).)

Part 2 — Paraphrase it acceptably (28 pts). Paraphrase S1 — restate it in your own words and your own sentence structure (not a few synonyms swapped into Holloway's sentence), keep the meaning accurate, and credit Holloway (signal phrase and/or page). About one sentence.

Part 3 — Summarize a longer passage (22 pts). Summarize P1 (the whole passage) in one sentence of your own — its main point(s) only, clearly shorter and broader than the original, crediting Holloway.

Part 4 — Fix a patchwritten paraphrase (28 pts). Here is a "paraphrase" of S1 a student wrote. It is patchwriting (plagiarism). (a) Rewrite it into an acceptable paraphrase, and (b) in one sentence, explain why the original is plagiarism.

PATCHWRITTEN: "When a notification disrupts a reader every few minutes, the brain never settles into the slow, steady focus that deep understanding requires, and the practice of skimming slowly replaces the practice of reading (Holloway 14)."

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 — but submitting AI-generated answers as your own is not allowed, and any quotation must be copied exactly from the source, never from a chatbot (which will invent quotes and sources). 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-10.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 & model — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Students write their own quotation, paraphrases, and summary, so exact wording varies. The models below grade the integrity and quality of the integration, not specific words. Every model here was checked against the sample source: the quoted fragment appears verbatim in S1; the paraphrases genuinely rebuild structure and wording; the summary captures P1's gist; and the named "source" is the course's clearly-labeled fictional sample — nothing is a real publication, so no real author's words are quoted or fabricated. If a student instead uses a real source, confirm any quoted wording against that real text.

• Part 1 (model): As Holloway argues, "the habit of skimming gradually replaces the habit of reading" when notifications prevent sustained focus (14). — Full credit needs a short, exact fragment of S1 in quotation marks (the words appear verbatim in S1), a signal phrase naming Holloway, and the page. The error to catch: an "exact" quote whose words don't actually match S1 (altered quotation = integrity problem), or the whole sentence quoted (over-quoting).
• Part 2 (model): Holloway contends that frequent digital interruptions stop students from reaching the deep concentration real understanding demands, so over time they skim rather than truly read (14). — Full credit requires a rebuilt structure (here, a signal phrase + cause→effect chain), the student's own wording, accurate meaning, and attribution. Patchwriting (S1's skeleton with synonyms swapped — interrupts→disrupts, mind→brain, etc.) is not full credit even with a citation.
• Part 3 (model): Holloway warns that constant interruptions erode students' capacity for sustained attention, cutting them off not just from better grades but from difficult ideas, and frames rebuilding that focus as the basis of other academic skills (14). — Full credit captures P1's main points (attention eroded; cost is access to ideas, not just grades; attention underlies other skills), is shorter/broader than the passage, in the student's words, and credited. Restating only S1 misses the summary's job.
• Part 4 (model):
• (a) Rewrite: Holloway argues that nonstop notifications keep readers from the sustained focus comprehension needs, so skimming slowly takes the place of real reading (14). (structure rebuilt, own wording, credited)
• (b) Why the original is plagiarism: the patchwritten version keeps Holloway's exact sentence structure and merely swaps in synonyms (interrupts→disrupts, mind→brain, sustained→steady, comprehension→understanding, habit→practice, gradually→slowly); because the structure and most wording are still Holloway's, it is plagiarism — and adding "(Holloway 14)" does not fix it, since a citation credits the idea, not the phrasing. Honest options are to quote the borrowed wording or to genuinely paraphrase it.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 10 Assignment — Integrate a Source Three Ways (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-10-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"