Week 12 — Discussion (Adaptive Learning) · "When AI Hands You a Perfect Citation"

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective: Objective 5 (integrate and document sources with integrity) · SLO B (locate, integrate, and accurately document credible sources; academic integrity)
This is Discussion 12 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. This week's question goes right at the habit that matters most in a research-based argument: when an AI tool hands you a perfectly-formatted quotation, source, or MLA citation, what do you owe it before you trust it? You'll think it through in a back-and-forth with an AI chatbot — which makes the conversation a little ironic, and a lot useful: you're reasoning with the tool about how far to trust the tool. 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 12 discussion board as your initial post by Friday, Nov 20. Then reply to two classmates by Sunday, Nov 22 — engage with their reasoning about responsibility and verification.

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.) For real fun this week: if at any point the AI offers you an actual quotation or citation, try to verify it — and report what you found.

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

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

You are my discussion partner for Week 12 of English Composition (ENGL 1A) at Silver Oak University. We are going to have a real back-and-forth about research integrity and AI: when an AI tool hands me a perfectly-formatted quotation, source, or MLA citation, what is my responsibility before I trust it and put it in my essay? 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
When an AI gives you a quotation, a source, or a citation that looks completely real and correctly formatted, what do you owe it before you rely on it — and who is responsible if it turns out to be fabricated? Push me to take a clear position and defend it with reasons.

IMPORTANT — A RULE FOR YOU: do NOT generate fabricated quotations, sources, or citations and pass them off as real, even as examples. If you illustrate, use a clearly-labeled hypothetical ("imagine an AI gave you a quote attributed to a real author…"). If I ask you to just produce sources for my essay, redirect me to the responsibility question — that's the whole point.

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (use these privately to steer the conversation — do NOT read them to me as a checklist):
1. Why AI tools fabricate quotes, sources, and citations that look flawless — and why "perfectly formatted" is not the same as "real" or "true."
2. What "verification" concretely means: opening the actual source, finding the exact quoted words, confirming the source and author exist and say what's claimed.
3. Where the responsibility lands. If I submit a fabricated citation an AI gave me, is it the AI's fault or mine? (Push me toward the writer's accountability — but let me argue it.)
4. The line between legitimate AI help (brainstorming, pressure-testing my argument, explaining a concept) and illegitimate AI use (supplying quotes/sources/citations I don't verify).
5. My reasoned position, stated plainly enough for a friend who's never taken this class to follow — what is the writer's responsibility, and why?

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 take a first position on whether a great-looking AI citation can be trusted as-is. (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 why the writer is responsible, or how I'd actually verify a given citation.
- Introduce at least one counterpoint (e.g., "but if the AI formatted it perfectly and sounded authoritative, isn't it reasonable to trust it — and the tool's fault if it's wrong?") so I have to defend or refine my view — respectfully.
- Keep YOUR messages short; I should be doing most of the thinking and talking.

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 formatting not prove a source is real?").
- 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 the responsibility-and-verification question.
- Until the summary, EVERY message must end with a question or a clear prompt to continue.
- Don't just agree with me — if I claim "you should always check," ask me to say how I'd check and who's accountable if I don't.

THE EXIT CONDITION
After at least 5 substantive exchanges AND once I have (a) taken a clear position on what I owe an AI-supplied citation before trusting it, (b) described concretely what verifying a source actually involves, (c) said where the responsibility lands when a fabricated citation slips through, and (d) engaged with 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 12 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — When AI Hands You a Perfect Citation
Student: [name] | Date: ___
My position — what I owe an AI-supplied quote/source/citation before trusting it: ___
What "verifying" a source concretely means (in my words): ___
Where responsibility lands if a fabricated citation slips through: ___
A counterpoint I weighed: ___
Why this matters for my research-based argument essay: ___
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 12 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

Grading note (Prof. Lindgren): the posted artifact is the AI-written summary + the chat share link; spot-check a few links against the summary. Watch for the failure mode this very topic warns about — a confident, glossy summary that never actually grapples with verification or accountability. Reward the student who can say exactly how they'd verify a citation and who is responsible if they don't.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = DiscussionTopic
title            = "Week 12 Discussion — When AI Hands You a Perfect 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"

Traditional variant — for comparison. This sample course is configured adaptive learning, so its actual Week-12 discussion is the BYOAI-dialogue version in G-discussion-week-12.md. This file shows the same Week-12 topic built the traditional way — an instructor-posted prompt where students write their own post and reply to peers — so you can see both formats side by side. (Choosing discussion_type = traditional at course setup generates this style instead.)

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective: Objective 5 (integrate and document sources with integrity) · SLO B (locate, integrate, and accurately document credible sources; academic integrity)
Discussion 12 of 15 · Discussions group = 10% of the grade · Worth 20 points

The Discussion

A chatbot can hand you a quotation, a source, and a works-cited entry that look flawless — correct MLA shape, a real-sounding author, a specific page number. And any of it can be completely fabricated: a real author who never wrote that line, an article title that doesn't exist, a page number that's pure decoration. This week's question is the one your integrity depends on: when an AI hands you a perfectly-formatted citation, what's your responsibility before you trust it?

Your initial post (by Friday, Nov 20 — about 150–200 words). Take a clear position and defend it:

• State your position. When an AI gives you a quote, source, or citation that looks real, what do you owe it before you put it in your essay? Is "it was formatted perfectly" ever a good enough reason to trust it?
• Get concrete about verification. What does actually verifying a source involve? (Walk through it — what would you open, what would you look for?)
• Locate the responsibility. If a fabricated citation an AI gave you ends up in your submitted essay, whose fault is it — the tool's or yours? Defend your answer.
• Draw the line. Where's the difference between legitimate AI help (brainstorming, pressure-testing your argument) and illegitimate AI use (supplying quotes or citations you don't verify)?

Replies (by Sunday, Nov 22). Reply to at least two classmates. Don't just agree — push on where they put the responsibility, add a verification step they didn't mention, or offer a case where their "rule" would be hard to follow. One or two solid sentences each.

What a strong post looks like: "Perfect formatting proves nothing — a fabricated citation can look exactly like a real one, because the AI is good at the shape, not the truth. Before I trust any AI-supplied quote, I'd open the actual source and find the exact words; if I can't, it's out. And the responsibility is mine, full stop: I'm the one signing my name to the essay. The AI is a drafting tool, not an author or a source. Using it to brainstorm a counterargument is fine; letting it hand me 'evidence' I never checked is exactly how a person ends up submitting a quotation that doesn't exist."

Why this matters: in your research-based argument essay this week, every quotation, source, and citation has to be real and verified — and the most likely place a fabricated one sneaks in is from an AI tool that sounds completely sure of itself. The habit you defend here is the one that protects your integrity for the rest of college.

Integrity & AI note. Write your post in your own words — that's the point of the exercise. You may use an approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) to brainstorm or check a definition, but the post you submit must be your own thinking; if AI helped, add a one-line note saying which tool and how. Do not paste a fabricated quote or citation into the board as if it were real, even to make a point — describe it instead. (Note: this is the traditional format. In this course's actual adaptive discussion, reasoning the question through with the chatbot is the activity — see G-discussion-week-12.md.)

Participation rubric — 20 points

Grading note (Prof. Lindgren): you read and grade each student's posted writing + their two replies against this rubric — the traditional flow. (The adaptive version instead has students submit an AI-dialogue summary + chat link.)

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = DiscussionTopic
title            = "Week 12 Discussion — When AI Hands You a Perfect Citation (traditional)"
assignment_group = "Discussions"
points_possible  = 20
grading_type     = points
discussion_type  = traditional
due_offset_days  = 4     # initial post
reply_offset_days = 6    # two peer replies
published        = true
submission_note  = "Students write an original initial post and reply to two classmates in the Canvas discussion."
provenance       = "~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"