Week 11 · Writing Studio

Week 11 Writing Studio: Build the Entry, Match the Citation

English Composition Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned that documentation answers two questions for every borrowed idea: says who, and where can I find it? An MLA works-cited entry is built from the template of nine core elements in a fixed order, the larger whole that holds a source is its container, and the word that begins each in-text citation also begins its entry. In this Writing Studio you build an entry from the raw facts of one real web page, the Gettysburg Address as one website presents it, deciding which facts fill which slot and which belong in no slot at all. Then you build an entry for one real source from your own research draft, write a short paragraph that cites both, check your work against a review checklist, ask a chatbot for feedback without letting it rewrite you, and catch the mistakes a chatbot makes when it writes an entry or a quotation for you.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: From seven raw facts about one real web page, and from a source in your own draft, can you build MLA ninth-edition entries that use only the elements each source has, in the template's order, and in-text citations that each begin with the same word as their entry?

Workshop data: Raw facts from one real web page (the Gettysburg Address at Abraham Lincoln Online)

Source: Seven raw facts copied for this Writing Studio from the Abraham Lincoln Online page that presents the text of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, printed in full in the Part 4 raw-facts table; you may open the page to check any fact.

Rows: 7 raw facts, one per row of the Part 4 raw-facts table (that table has 7 rows)
Source: one web page that presents the text of the Gettysburg Address on a larger website
Form: short facts as the page shows them, including two that belong in no element of an entry

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 seven raw facts in the Part 4 raw-facts table. For each one, write the template element it fills, or write "no element" with a reason. Check: Every row of the raw-facts table has an element or "no element" and a reason.
In your document, write the works-cited entry for the page from the facts you placed, in the template's order, with a period after the author, the title of source, and the container string, and commas inside the container string. 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 entry that uses only the facts you placed in an element.
Choose one real source from your own research draft. Open it, fill in the own-source element map in Part 4 from what the source itself shows, and write its entry. 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: An element map with every slot filled from the source or marked skip, and an entry built from it.
Write a paragraph of four to six sentences of your own that uses both sources: introduce one with a signal phrase and give the other a parenthetical citation in the author-page form, or the name alone if the source has no pages. 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 paragraph with two in-text citations, each beginning with the same word as its entry.
Review both entries and the paragraph with the checklist table, then revise. 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 entries and paragraph into one approved chatbot with the prompt in Part 6, read its feedback, 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 an entry or the 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 its entry against your raw-facts table and the template, and its quotation against the page, word for word. 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, cannot open the page, or cannot reach the source from your own draft.

Work from the seven raw facts printed in the Part 4 table, which are enough to build the page's entry without opening it, write the entries and the paragraph by hand or in any plain text editor, and complete every table, every analysis question, the coach moment, and the critique step. If you cannot reach a source from your own draft, build the second entry from any real print source you can hold, such as a book, copying each element from its title page. 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

Place each raw fact before you write the entry, so that every element you use comes from something the page shows.

Student scaffold table 1
Fact	What it is	As the page shows it
1	Speaker named on the page	Abraham Lincoln
2	Heading at the top of the page	The Gettysburg Address
3	Name of the website	Abraham Lincoln Online
4	Date printed under the heading	19 November 1863, the day the address was delivered
5	Place printed under the heading	Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
6	Photo caption near the top of the page	Soldiers National Cemetery
7	Page address in the browser	https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

Map your own source slot by slot, so that every element of its entry is copied from the source itself or marked skip.

Student scaffold table 2
Element	What your source shows	Use it or skip
Author
Title of Source
Title of Container
Contributor
Version
Number
Publisher
Publication Date
Location

Review your entries and your paragraph 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 entry or paragraph
Each entry follows the template's order, with periods and commas in the right places.
Each entry names its container, or the source stands alone and has none.
Each entry uses only elements its source has, copied from the source itself.
Each title is in title case.
Each in-text citation uses the author-page form, with no comma and no "p.", or the name alone for a source with no pages.
Each in-text citation begins with the same word as its entry.

Record what the chatbot got wrong so that each correction is checked against the raw facts, the page, and the template, 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

The raw-facts table has 7 facts. If 2 of them belong in no element of the entry, how many elements does your entry for the page use, and how many of the template's 9 core elements does it skip? Name the facts you left out.
Write the entry for your own source as you first drafted it and as you revised it. Say which element changed and what you found on the source itself that made you change it.
Explain why Abraham Lincoln Online is the container in the page's entry and not the title of the source, and why the in-text citation for the page is the author's name alone.
Choose one option and answer it in 3-5 sentences. (a) Think of a time you tried to find something another writer, a coworker, or a friend cited and could not: which element of an entry would have led you to it? (b) Describe the moment in this Studio when an entry or a citation changed, and say which check or which piece of feedback showed you the change was needed.
The page presents one version of a speech that Lincoln wrote out by hand more than once, with small differences. What does your entry let a reader find, and what can it not tell them about the speech?

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 two works-cited entries and my short paragraph above. Do two separate things. First, without rewriting anything, tell me whether each entry follows the MLA ninth-edition template's order and punctuation, whether I named each container correctly, and whether each in-text citation begins with the same word as its entry. Second, write the MLA works-cited entry for the Gettysburg Address page at Abraham Lincoln Online, quote the address's opening sentence exactly, improve my paragraph, fix any grammar errors, and analyze how my paragraph uses its sources.

Test the response for these likely failures:

It opens with "Great job, these citations look perfect!" and never names an element, a container, or a matched pair it actually checked.
Its "improved" paragraph replaces your sentences with smooth general lines and drops your signal phrase, so the reader can no longer tell which idea came from which source.
It quotes the address's opening sentence from memory with small changes, such as an added comma after "ago" or "upon" in place of "on".
It cites the address with a page number, such as (Lincoln 2), or adds a printed book or edition you never opened.
Its entry drops the website's name, sets the title in lowercase, or uses the page's copyright year or the day you read the page as the date, and it presents the result as correct.
Its "grammar fix" changes "the address shows" to "the address proves", or joins two complete sentences with a comma alone.
Its "analysis" only lists which sources your paragraph mentions, in order, with no word about what each one does for your point.

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 your raw-facts table, the page itself, or the MLA template.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this Writing Studio. This route assesses the same objectives, Objective 6 (documenting sources in MLA style with in-text citations and a works-cited list built on the template of core elements) and Objective 5 (integrating sources with signal phrases and attribution), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. For the coach moment, read your entries and 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 job, these citations look perfect! I improved your paragraph: Sources show that history matters, and speeches prove what leaders believe. Here is your entry: Lincoln, Abraham. 'the gettysburg address.' 2020, www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm. The address opens, 'Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation' (Lincoln 2). Grammar fix: The address proves the point, it is famous. Analysis: Your paragraph uses a speech and one other source." Find and correct at least four of its seven problems (hollow praise; a voice-erasing rewrite that drops your signal phrase; a misworded quotation; an invented page number; an entry with no container, a lowercase title, and the wrong date; a grammar fix that creates a comma splice and changes shows to proves; and summary passed off as analysis), 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 raw-facts table for all seven facts and the page's works-cited entry
Your completed own-source element map and its entry
Your first and revised paragraph with both in-text citations, 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 one real web page and one source from your own draft: the completed raw-facts table and the page's entry, your own-source element map and entry, a first and revised paragraph with two matched in-text citations, 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
Entry built from the raw facts	Every raw fact is placed in an element or set aside with a reason, the two facts that fill no element are set aside, and the entry uses the placed facts in the template's order with correct punctuation.	The entry is mostly in order, but one fact is misplaced, the container is missing, or the punctuation slips once.	No raw facts are placed and no entry is written.
Entry for a source from the writer's own draft	The element map fills every slot from the source itself or marks it skip, and the entry follows the template's order and punctuation with the container named correctly.	The map and entry are present, but one element is out of order, mislabeled, or copied from somewhere other than the source.	No element map and no entry for the writer's own source.
In-text citations matched to their entries	The paragraph has one signal-phrase citation and one parenthetical citation in the author-page form or with the name alone, and each begins with the same word as its entry.	Both citations appear, but one carries a comma, a "p.", an invented page number, or a first word that matches no entry.	No in-text citation appears in the paragraph.
Checklist review and visible revision	The 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 facts, elements, or citations, including the count and the limitation.	Most questions are answered, but the count 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 raw facts, the page, or the template, 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 element in both entries comes from the raw-facts table or the source itself, in the template's order, with the right punctuation.
Each entry names its container correctly, or the source stands alone.
Each in-text citation uses the author-page form or the name alone and begins with the same word as its entry.
No quotation, source, page number, date, or works-cited entry is invented anywhere in the submission, and none supplied by a chatbot is kept without checking it against the source.
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 raw facts, the page, or the template.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com