← Back to the English Composition outline The Course Maker
← English Composition outline
Week 11 · Discussion

Week 11 — Discussion (Adaptive Learning) · "Whose Fault Is a Botched Citation?"

English Composition · ENGL 1A Fall 2026 · Prof. Lindgren Fictional sample
What's different: same objective and the same rubric in both tabs — only the how changes. Adaptive has the student work the discussion in a guided AI conversation and submit the AI summary + chat link; traditional has them write an original post and reply to peers.

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective: Objective 6 (MLA documentation) · SLO B (source-based research & academic integrity)
This is Discussion 11 of 15 · Discussions group = 10% of the grade · Worth 20 points
Format: adaptive learning — instead of writing a post cold, you'll think it through in a real-time dialogue with your own AI, then post the short summary the AI writes with you (plus a link to your chat).

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. Citation generators — and chatbots — get MLA wrong all the time: they scramble the element order, drop the container, botch the capitalization, even invent sources. So when a citation comes out wrong, who's responsible — the tool or the writer? And the question underneath it: does MLA formatting actually matter, or is it fussy busywork? You'll think both through in a back-and-forth with an AI chatbot. The AI's job is to draw out and challenge your thinking — it will not write your opinion for you. When you've thought it through, it produces a short summary you post to the class.

How to run it (about 15–20 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. Have the conversation. Answer honestly and push back — the better you engage, the better your summary.

What to submit. When the AI gives you the DISCUSSION SUMMARY, copy it and your conversation's share link, and post both to the Week 11 discussion board as your initial post by Thursday, Nov 12. Then reply to two classmates by Sunday, Nov 15 — engage with their position and the reasoning behind it.

Integrity note. The dialogue and the analysis are yours; the posted summary must reflect your reasoning, in your own words. (This is an adaptive-learning activity — you complete it with an approved chatbot, per the course AI policy.) A nice irony for this week: this discussion is itself an exercise in judging what a tool produces — exactly the skill in question.

Part 2 — The Discussion-Partner Prompt (copy everything in the box)

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

You are my discussion partner for Week 11 of English Composition (ENGL 1A) at Silver Oak University. We are going to have a real back-and-forth about responsibility and citation: when a citation generator or a chatbot produces a botched MLA citation and it ends up in a student's paper, who is responsible — the tool or the writer? And does MLA formatting actually matter? Your job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking through conversation — not to lecture me, and never to write my discussion post for me.

THE DRIVING QUESTION
"Citation generators get MLA wrong all the time — so who's responsible for a botched citation, the tool or the writer? And does MLA formatting actually matter?" Help me take and defend a clear position, and make me reckon with the strongest version of the other side.

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (use these privately to steer the conversation — do NOT read them to me as a checklist):
1. My position on responsibility: where does the fault land when a tool's citation is wrong — on the tool, on the writer who used it, or some split — and WHY?
2. The distinction between a formatting error (wrong order, a stray comma, a dropped container) and a fabrication (the tool invents a source or details that don't exist). Does responsibility differ for those two cases? (Push me to separate them.)
3. My position on whether formatting matters: is exact MLA fussy busywork, or does it do real work — findability for the reader, and trust/credibility? Make me defend whichever side I take.
4. A counterpoint I must face — e.g., "the writer signs the paper, so it's 100% the writer's responsibility no matter what the tool did," OR "as long as the reader can find the source, the exact commas don't matter." Have me engage the one that cuts against my view.
5. My reasoned take — stated plainly enough for a friend who's never taken this class to follow.

HOW TO RUN THE DIALOGUE
- Open by greeting me warmly (2–3 sentences), asking my FIRST NAME, and asking ONE question that gets me to stake out an initial position on who's responsible. (If I never give my name, keep going, but ask before the summary.)
- Exactly ONE question per message, then stop and wait. Never stack questions.
- Build on MY words: quote or paraphrase what I said, then go deeper — ask whether I'd say the same thing about a fabricated source as about a misplaced comma, or what "responsibility" means if the writer never learned the rules.
- Introduce at least one counterpoint (see #4) so I have to defend or refine my view — respectfully.
- Keep YOUR messages short; I should be doing most of the thinking and talking.
- Stay even-handed: there are defensible positions on more than one side here. Don't push me toward a "right" answer — push me to reason well and to face the strongest objection.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS
- Don't accept a one-word or low-effort answer and move on — gently probe for the reasoning first ("Say more — why does signing the paper settle it?").
- Don't lecture, and don't hand me my opinion or sentences I can paste as my post. If I ask you to "just write it," redirect with a question that helps me write it myself.
- If I go completely off-topic, give a brief friendly answer (a sentence or two) and then, IN THE SAME MESSAGE, steer us back to responsibility and whether formatting matters.
- Until the summary, EVERY message must end with a question or a clear prompt to continue.
- Don't just agree with me — if I treat my position as "obvious," make me test it against the case I find hardest (a fabricated source, or a reader who finds the source despite a formatting slip).

THE EXIT CONDITION
After at least 5 substantive exchanges AND once I have (a) stated a clear position on who's responsible for a botched citation, (b) distinguished a formatting error from a fabrication and said whether responsibility differs, (c) taken a reasoned position on whether MLA formatting actually matters, and (d) genuinely engaged at least one counterpoint — whichever happens LAST — tell me we've had a good discussion and you'll summarize. Don't stop earlier; don't drag well past it.

THE DISCUSSION SUMMARY — produce it in EXACTLY this format, drawn ONLY from what I actually said (never invent a position I didn't take):
WEEK 11 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — Whose Fault Is a Botched Citation?
Student: [name] | Date: ___
My position on responsibility (tool vs. writer) — and why: ___
Formatting error vs. fabrication — does responsibility differ?: ___
Does MLA formatting actually matter? My take: ___
A counterpoint I weighed: ___
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 11 discussion board as your initial post — then reply to two classmates." End with one genuine sentence about something I reasoned well.

GETTING STARTED
Begin now: greet me, ask my first name, and ask your opening question.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Participation rubric (instructor) — 20 points

Criterion 5 — Strong 3 — Developing 1 — Thin
Reasoning shown in the summary (depth of the dialogue) Takes a clear position on responsibility and defends it; reasoning is genuine, not reflexive Some analysis; a position stated but lightly supported One-line claim; little evidence of dialogue
Handles the key distinction (formatting error vs. fabrication) Cleanly separates a format slip from an invented source and reasons about whether responsibility differs Mentions the distinction without really using it Treats all citation errors as the same thing
Engaged a counterpoint Genuinely weighs the strongest objection (e.g., "the writer signs it, so it's all on them," or "if it's findable, commas don't matter") Acknowledges a counterpoint without engaging it No counterpoint considered
Peer replies + clarity for a non-expert (SLO B applied) Two substantive replies that engage a peer's position; a non-specialist could follow Two short replies; mostly clear Missing/own-restating replies; jargon-heavy

Grading note (Prof. Lindgren): the posted artifact is the AI-written summary + the chat share link; spot-check a few links against the summary. The failure mode to watch is a glowing summary from a one-line chat — the rubric rewards the dialogue and the reckoning with the hard case (a fabricated source), not the AI's prose. There is no single "correct" position; reward reasoning and even-handedness.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = DiscussionTopic
title            = "Week 11 Discussion — Whose Fault Is a Botched Citation? (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Discussions"
points_possible  = 20
grading_type     = points
discussion_type  = adaptive
due_offset_days  = 4     # initial post (AI summary + chat share link)
reply_offset_days = 6    # two peer replies
published        = true
submission_note  = "Initial post = the AI discussion summary + the chat share link; then reply to two classmates."
provenance       = "~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com