Week 10 — Writing Studio / Workshop · "Paraphrase It, Don't Patchwrite It"

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective: Objective 5 — integrate sources by quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing without plagiarizing · SLO B (academic integrity) · SLO A (voice)
Worth 50 points · Writing Studios group = 15% of the grade · Studio 10
Format: a hands-on source-integration workshop — you'll turn a quotation into an acceptable paraphrase with attribution, catch a patchwritten (plagiarized) paraphrase, review against a checklist, get a chatbot's coaching, and then catch the chatbot inventing a quotation and a source.

This is the course's signature weekly component. 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.
The source: so no real author's words are ever faked, we work from a clearly-labeled sample source written for this course — Holloway, "The Attention Economy and the Student Reader," Riverbend Review (a fictional article), 2021, p. 14.
🔒 The load-bearing rule this week: a paraphrase changes the words and the structure and credits the source; a quotation is copied word-for-word from the real text. Never paste a quotation — or a source — a chatbot hands you without verifying it. This studio's AI-critique step is built to make that habit reflexive before the research paper.

---

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned the three honest moves — quote, paraphrase, summarize — and the line that separates an honest paraphrase from patchwriting (plagiarism). This studio makes it real: you'll take one quotation from the sample source and turn it into an acceptable paraphrase with attribution, then catch a patchwritten version and explain why it's plagiarism. Then you'll do the thing this course cares about most before Week 12 — catch a chatbot inventing a quotation and a source. This is the exact skill under the research-based argument (Assignment 12), so getting it clean here pays off directly.

Skim first (~7 min): Purdue OWL, "Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words" 🔗 https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/using_research/quoting_paraphrasing_and_summarizing/paraphrasing.html — note how it shows a legitimate paraphrase and a plagiarized version of the same passage, side by side.

The sample source (use this throughout):

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."

---

Part 2 — From Quotation to Paraphrase (the drafting exercise — write this)

Start from a quotation of the sample source, then build a real paraphrase from it.

1. Quote it (with a signal phrase). Write one sentence that quotes a short, exact fragment of S1 (copied word-for-word, in quotation marks), introduced by a signal phrase naming Holloway, with the page. (Model shape: As Holloway notes, "…exact words…" (14).)
2. Paraphrase it (the move that matters). Now restate S1 in your own words and your own sentence structure — credit Holloway. Use the test: cover the source, write it from memory, then check back; if your sentence still walks in S1's footsteps, rebuild it.
3. Label your own work. Under your paraphrase, write one line: "Structure changed? ___ Wording mine? ___ Source credited? ___" — three yeses or it's not done.

Write all of this now, in a word processor. Don't polish yet — that comes after the review.

---

Part 3 — Catch the Patchwriting (diagnose this)

Here is a "paraphrase" of S1 a student turned in. It is patchwriting (plagiarism). Your job is to catch it and fix it.

PATCHWRITTEN "paraphrase": "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)."

Do three things:
1. Name the tell. In one or two sentences, say why this is plagiarism — point to the shared sentence structure and the swapped synonyms (find at least three: e.g., interrupts→disrupts, mind→brain, sustained→steady, comprehension→understanding, habit→practice, gradually→slowly).
2. Explain the citation trap. Note that the "(Holloway 14)" does not make it acceptable — a citation credits the idea, not the phrasing.
3. Repair it. Rewrite it into an acceptable paraphrase (structure rebuilt, your wording, Holloway credited).

---

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

Run your paraphrase (Part 2) and your repair (Part 3) through this checklist — first on your own, then trade with a classmate (or reread as a skeptic). Mark ✓ or ✗ and jot one fix:

Check	✓ / ✗
My quotation is short and exact — the words appear verbatim in S1, inside quotation marks (I checked against the source)	☐
My paraphrase changed the sentence structure, not just a few words (it does not echo S1's skeleton)	☐
My paraphrase uses my own wording and keeps the meaning accurate	☐
Every borrowed idea is attributed — a signal phrase and/or a page — for the paraphrase and the summary, not just the quote	☐
Nothing is over-quoted — I quoted only where the exact words earn it; most of the work is in my voice	☐
For Part 3, I named the patchwriting tell (structure + synonyms) and noted the citation doesn't fix it	☐

Then revise the weakest part based on what the checklist surfaced. The most common fix: a "paraphrase" that still carries the source's structure (rebuild it from memory), or a missing attribution on a paraphrase. Keep the before and after — this is the "revise, don't just edit" move from Week 1.

---

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 paraphrase (Part 2) and the original S1, and ask: "Here is a source sentence and my paraphrase of it. Is my paraphrase genuinely in my own words and sentence structure, or is it PATCHWRITING (the source's sentence with a few words swapped)? Point to specific words or structures that are too close. Do NOT rewrite it for me — just diagnose it."
2. Read its diagnosis and decide what to act on. Make one improvement in your own words — most often, rebuilding a clause that still tracks the source.

The coach is a mirror, not a ghostwriter. Use it to see whether your paraphrase is truly yours — then you make the change. (Notice you told it not to rewrite or supply quotations. That's deliberate — and Part 6 shows why.)

---

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment (required — catch the tool inventing a quote AND a source)

Now flip roles and be the editor who judges the tool — against reality. This is the signature danger of the entire term, and it's at its sharpest this week.

1. Ask the same chatbot: "Give me a direct quotation about students and attention spans (or smartphones and focus) from a published source, with the author, the title, and a page number."
2. Try to verify what it gives you. Search the exact quoted words in quotation marks. Look up the author and the title. Check whether the source actually exists and whether the quote appears in it word-for-word.
   - Fabricated quotation / source — chatbots routinely invent a plausible quotation, a real-sounding author, a convincing title, and a page number — all confidently, all in perfect MLA format — for a source that does not exist (or that exists but never contained those words). If you can't find it word-for-word in a real, locatable source, it's fabricated — that's the catch.
   - Misattribution — sometimes the words are real but pinned to the wrong author or work.
3. Write 3–4 sentences reporting: the quotation and "source" the AI gave you; what you found when you tried to verify it (real and locatable? invented? misattributed?); and what that means for how you'll use any AI-supplied quotation or citation in your Week-12 research paper.

The habit all term: the tool drafts, you verify — every quotation and every source, against the real text. This is the single most dangerous AI habit in writing: it will hand you a confident, perfectly formatted quotation and a citation for a source that was never written. A fabricated or misattributed quotation is an academic-integrity violation whether a human or an AI produced it — and you are responsible for what you submit. Catching it is exactly the skill that protects you on the research paper and every paper after it. (This is the standard the MLA's own student AI-literacy guide sets: check GenAI output against credible sources before you trust it.)

---

Part 7 — What to Submit

Submit a single document (or text entry) with: your quotation + paraphrase + self-label (Part 2); your patchwriting diagnosis + repair (Part 3); your checklist marks + the revised part (Part 4); a one-line note on the coach feedback you acted on (Part 5); and your Part 6 AI-critique paragraph (what you asked, what you found when you tried to verify the quote/source, and what it means for your research paper). Due Sunday, Nov 8, 11:59 p.m. (50 points).

---

Instructor answer key & model — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Students write their own quotation, paraphrase, and repair, so 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; and the only named "source" is the course's clearly-labeled fictional sample (Holloway) — nothing is a real publication, so no real author's words are quoted or fabricated. If a student uses a real source instead, confirm any quoted wording against that real text.

Model — Part 2 (quote → paraphrase):
- Quotation: As Holloway notes, "the habit of skimming gradually replaces the habit of reading" when constant notifications prevent sustained focus (14). (Quoted fragment is verbatim from S1; short; signal phrase; page.)
- Paraphrase: 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). (Structure rebuilt — signal phrase + cause→effect; wording the writer's; meaning intact; credited.)

Model — Part 3 (catch + repair the patchwriting):
- Why it's plagiarism: the patchwritten version keeps Holloway's exact sentence structure ("When a notification … the … never settles into the slow, … focus that deep … requires, and the … of skimming … replaces the … of reading") and only swaps synonyms (interrupts→disrupts, mind→brain, sustained→steady, comprehension→understanding, habit→practice, gradually→slowly). Because the structure and most wording are still Holloway's, it's plagiarism. The "(Holloway 14)" does not fix it — a citation credits the idea, not the phrasing; borrowed wording must be quoted or genuinely rewritten.
- Repair (model): 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.)

Model — Part 6 (AI-critique, fabrication danger):
- The strongest submissions report a specific result of trying to verify an AI-supplied quotation — most valuably, catching a quotation/author/title/page the AI invented (no such source is locatable, or the source exists but the words aren't in it), and stating the takeaway: every AI-supplied quotation and citation must be verified word-for-word against a real, locatable source before use, because the writer — not the tool — is responsible. Full credit also for catching a misattribution (real words, wrong source). (Because chatbot output varies, the instructor grades the verification reasoning, not a specific fabricated quote.)

What the models show (the grading targets):
- Quote (Part 2): short, exact, in quotation marks, with a signal phrase and page — not over-quoted, not altered.
- Paraphrase (Parts 2 & 3 repair): structure rebuilt + own wording + meaning intact + attributed — not patchwriting. Patchwriting earns partial credit at most, even with a citation.
- Patchwriting catch (Part 3): names the structure echo + synonym swaps and the citation-doesn't-fix-it point.
- Coach (Part 5): acted on a real diagnosis (rebuild a too-close clause), in the student's own words.
- AI-critique (Part 6): a specific verification result for an AI-supplied quote/source (invented / misattributed / real-and-locatable) and the responsibility takeaway. The most valuable submissions catch a genuinely fabricated quotation-and-source and explain how they knew.

Grading rubric — 50 points

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Quote → paraphrase (Part 2) — short exact quote w/ signal phrase + page; paraphrase with rebuilt structure, own wording, attribution (not patchwriting) (14)	14	7–11	0–6
Catch + repair the patchwriting (Part 3) — names structure echo + synonym swaps + the citation trap, and rewrites it into a real paraphrase (12)	12	6–10	0–5
Self-/peer-review + revision (Part 4) — checklist applied and the weakest part revised (re-seen, not just edited) (12)	12	6–10	0–5
Coach moment (Part 5) — acted on a real patchwriting diagnosis, in the student's own words (6)	6	3	0–2
AI-critique (Part 6) — a specific verification result for an AI-supplied quote/source (invented / misattributed / real) + the responsibility takeaway (6)	6	3	0–2

Quality gate (self-checked) — citation-integrity + correct-conventions: PASS. The only "source" in this studio (Holloway, "The Attention Economy and the Student Reader") is the course's clearly-labeled fictional sample, used so that no real author's words are ever quoted or fabricated; the quoted fragment in the models appears verbatim in the sample sentence S1, the paraphrases genuinely rebuild structure and wording (verified — not patchwriting), and the patchwritten example is correctly diagnosed as plagiarism (shared structure + swapped synonyms; citation doesn't cure it). The one real link (Purdue OWL "Paraphrase") was verified to resolve and is used factually, links-only. The studio's entire design centers the load-bearing habit — students copy quotations from the source themselves, the coach is instructed not to rewrite or supply quotations, and the AI-critique step trains students to catch a chatbot inventing a quotation and a source by verifying every one against a real, locatable text. The acceptable-paraphrase-vs-patchwriting distinction the rubric rewards matches the Week-10 lecture and quiz. No student paraphrase is asserted as "the" answer — the key grades integration quality and integrity, not specific words.