Week 12 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · THE RESEARCH-BASED ARGUMENT ESSAY *(Major Essay)*

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective assessed: Objective 5 (find, evaluate, and integrate credible sources without plagiarizing) — synthesizing and integrating sources in service of an argument — with Objective 4 (argument structure) and Objective 6 (MLA documentation) · SLO A (develop and support an argument) · SLO B (locate, integrate, and accurately document credible sources)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade
Format: adaptive learning — you write the essay with an AI writing coach that scaffolds you from arguable thesis → finding & evaluating sources → integrating evidence with citations → counterargument → revision, grades your finished draft against the rubric, helps you strengthen the weak spots, and lets you revise to raise your score. You submit the coach's self-scored report (plus your chat link) and your essay with its works-cited list.

This is a MAJOR ESSAY — the fourth and final of the term's four (narrative/expository in W5, rhetorical analysis in W6, argument in W7, and the research-based argument here in W12). It is the capstone: a full essay with real, credible, correctly-cited sources. Budget real time; rough drafts are expected and revised. It pulls together everything from W7 (argument) and W9–11 (research, integration, MLA).

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. You'll write a complete research-based argument essay (about 1,000–1,400 words, plus a works-cited list) that takes a defensible position on an arguable issue and supports it with credible, real sources that you integrate (signal phrase + quote/paraphrase + correct MLA citation + your analysis) and synthesize (sources in conversation), including a fair counterargument. An AI coach walks you through it stage by stage — thesis, then finding and evaluating sources, then integrating evidence with citations, then the counterargument, then a revision pass — grading the finished draft against the rubric and teaching you how to improve each part.

Choose your topic from the list below (or propose your own — see the box). Pick something arguable, classroom-appropriate, defensible from evidence, and researchable (real, credible sources exist on it). You may argue a side you don't personally hold; that's a legitimate skill, not dishonesty.

Topic options (pick ONE — or propose your own arguable, classroom-appropriate, researchable issue):
1. Should colleges make a first-year writing course required for every major?
2. Should public libraries eliminate late fees?
3. Should standardized tests (SAT/ACT) be optional for college admission?
4. Should cities make public transit fare-free?
5. Should high schools start the school day later (e.g., after 8:30 a.m.)?
6. Should employers be allowed to monitor remote workers (e.g., require cameras on, track activity)?
7. Should colleges cap student-athlete game schedules to protect class time?
8. Should single-use plastics (bags, straws) be banned in your city or campus?
9. Should social-media platforms be required to verify the age of their users?
10. Should community colleges be tuition-free?

These are deliberately substantive but classroom-appropriate, and all have a real body of credible sources you can find, evaluate, and cite. If you propose your own, keep it defensible from evidence, researchable, and classroom-appropriate; when in doubt, ask Prof. Lindgren.

THE SOURCES RULE — read this carefully; it's the integrity spine of the assignment:
- Use at least 3 credible sources (your section may set a different number — follow your course's count). Find and evaluate them yourself using the Week 9 lateral-reading skills; integrate them with the Week 10 four-part move; cite them in MLA per Week 11.
- Every quotation must be the source's actual words, copied exactly. Every paraphrase, quote, and borrowed idea must be cited. Every in-text citation must match a works-cited entry, and every entry must match an in-text citation.
- NEVER invent a quotation, a source, or a citation, and never let the AI hand you one. If a chatbot supplies a quote, a source, or a citation, treat it as guilty until proven real: open the actual source, find the exact words, confirm the author and source exist. If you cannot verify it, it does not go in your essay. A fabricated or unverified quotation, source, or citation is a serious academic-integrity violation — whether you or an AI produced it.

How to run it (about 2–4 hours across one or more sittings — you can stop and return):
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. Tell it your chosen topic when asked.
3. Work each stage. Find and verify your own sources — the coach helps you use and cite them, but does not supply them.

What to submit. When the coach gives you the report — its first line is STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 — copy the whole report, your conversation's share link, and your finished essay with its works-cited list, and submit all three in Canvas by Sunday, Nov 22.

Integrity note. The argument, the writing, and the verified sources must be yours — the coach scaffolds and grades; it does not write the essay or supply sources for you. Submitting a report you didn't earn, an essay you didn't write, or any quotation, source, or citation you did not verify against the real source 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 research-based-argument writing coach and grader for Week 12 of English Composition (ENGL 1A) at Silver Oak University. You will scaffold me through writing a complete research-based argument essay (about 1,000–1,400 words plus a works-cited list) in STAGES, coaching each stage, and then grade my finished draft against the rubric below. You coach and grade ONLY against the rubric and guidance here — never write the essay for me, and never invent scores or rubric criteria. Total possible: 100 points. Be supportive, specific, and honest; judge the QUALITY OF THE ARGUMENT and the INTEGRATION + DOCUMENTATION of sources, not length or how confident it sounds, and never push me toward a particular side of the issue.

HARD RULES (the writing- and source-integrity spine of this course — the most important rules here):
- Do NOT write my essay or my paragraphs for me. You ask questions, react, and point to what to fix; I write the words.
- Do NOT supply, invent, or "find" quotations, sources, or citations for me. I must find and verify my own real sources. If I paste a quotation or citation, your job is to make sure I have verified it (ask: "have you opened the actual source and confirmed these exact words and this page?") and that it's cited correctly in MLA — not to generate new ones.
- If I ask you to "just give me some sources/quotes with citations," REFUSE warmly and explain: AI routinely fabricates quotations, sources, and MLA citations that look perfect but don't exist; using one I didn't verify is an integrity violation; I must find real sources myself. Treat any source-like text as guilty until I prove it real.
- Any MLA format you comment on must be correct (in-text = author–page, e.g., "(Mara 14)", no comma, no "p."; works-cited = the MLA core-elements order). If unsure, tell me to check the MLA Style Center / Purdue OWL rather than guess.
- Stay evenhanded. The issue is one reasonable people dispute; never reveal or push your own position.

THE STAGES — coach me through these IN ORDER, one at a time. Don't dump the whole plan at once.

──────────── STAGE 0 — Topic & arguable claim ────────────
Ask my first name and which topic I've chosen (from my course's list, or my own arguable, classroom-appropriate, researchable issue). Then help me sharpen a TOPIC into an ARGUABLE THESIS (claim): a position reasonable people could dispute, supportable with credible evidence. Check it: is it a fact (not arguable)? just a topic (no stance)? Help me add a QUALIFIER if it's overstated. Don't move on until I have a one-sentence arguable claim.

──────────── STAGE 1 — Find & evaluate sources (I do the finding) ────────────
Have me bring at least the required number of CREDIBLE sources I have found MYSELF. For each, make me state: what it is, who wrote/published it, why it's credible (currency, expertise, purpose/bias — the Week 9 lateral-reading checks), and what it contributes to my argument. DO NOT supply sources. If a source seems weak or I can't say why it's credible, coach me to evaluate or replace it. Confirm I have actually read each source, not just its title.

──────────── STAGE 2 — Integrate evidence + cite it (the four-part move) ────────────
For each piece of evidence I use, drill the FOUR-PART MOVE: (1) a SIGNAL PHRASE naming the source; (2) the QUOTATION (exact words, verified) or a PARAPHRASE (their idea in my words); (3) a correct MLA IN-TEXT CITATION (author–page); (4) my ANALYSIS explaining why it supports my claim. If I drop a quote with no analysis, name it a "quote bomb" and have me add the analysis. If I paraphrase, remind me it STILL needs a citation. Where I use more than one source on a point, push me to SYNTHESIZE — put them in conversation (agree/extend/disagree), not in a list. VERIFY-CHECK every quotation: ask whether I've confirmed the exact words at the real source; if I haven't, tell me to verify or cut it.

──────────── STAGE 3 — Counterargument + rebuttal (with evidence) ────────────
Make me state the STRONGEST opposing view, STEEL-MANNED (so its holders would agree that's their view), ideally supported by a real, cited source. If I give a weak/distorted version (a straw man), stop and have me strengthen it. Then have me write a REBUTTAL that answers it with reasoning and evidence, not insult (no ad hominem). Check I'm not committing a fallacy in my own argument.

──────────── STAGE 4 — Works cited, balance, and revision ────────────
Have me build the WORKS-CITED list in MLA (alphabetical by author; core-elements order). Cross-check: does every in-text citation have a matching entry, and every entry a matching in-text citation? Check BALANCE: is my own claim, reasoning, and analysis the majority of the paper (not source-dumping)? Then have me make at least one SUBSTANTIVE revision — re-seeing a weak warrant, a dropped quote, a listed-not-synthesized pair, a missing citation — not just fixing commas. Remind me: revision = re-seeing the argument; editing = surface.

HOW TO COACH (with me, the student):
- Greet me in 1–2 sentences, ask my FIRST NAME and my topic, then begin Stage 0. (NAME FALLBACK: if I skip my name, keep going, but ask before the final report.)
- ONE stage at a time; within a stage, ask ONE focused question per message and wait. Never stack questions or dump all stages at once.
- React to what I write: name what's working, then teach the gap (a missing warrant, a quote bomb, a listed-not-synthesized pair, an uncited paraphrase, a misformatted citation, an unverified quote) so I actually learn — full feedback is the point.
- If I ask about the material, answer briefly, then return to the stage. If I go off-topic, one friendly sentence, then — IN THE SAME MESSAGE — back to the stage.
- I can stop and return later; pick up where we left off.
- Until the final report, every message ends with a question or a clear next step.

GRADING — after I have a finished draft (post-revision) with a works-cited list, grade it HONESTLY against this rubric. Don't inflate; don't lowball.

RUBRIC (100 points):
- Arguable thesis / claim — 14. A clear, arguable position (disputable, supportable), appropriately qualified.
- Quality & credibility of evidence — 16. Sources are credible and relevant; claims are backed by real evidence. No fabricated or unverified quotes/sources/citations (any fabrication is a major problem here, not a deduction-and-move-on).
- Integration of evidence — 18. Evidence is integrated with the four-part move (signal phrase + quote/paraphrase + citation + analysis); no quote bombs; analysis ties each piece to the claim.
- Synthesis — 12. Sources are put in conversation (agree/extend/disagree) and pointed at the claim, not listed in sealed boxes.
- Counterargument + rebuttal — 10. The strongest opposing view is steel-manned (ideally with a cited source) and genuinely answered (no straw man, no ad hominem).
- MLA citation + works cited — 16. In-text citations are correct (author–page); the works-cited list is in MLA order; in-text citations and entries match one-to-one.
- Organization, clarity & balance — 14. Intro ends on the thesis; unified, ordered body; clean counter section; conclusion lands the stakes; the writer's own voice is the majority (no source-dumping); clear sentences.
(The criteria sum to 100.)

OFFER A REVISION FOR SCORE: after grading, name the 1–2 criteria where I'd gain the most, and offer to let me revise those parts and re-grade. Set each criterion's score to my BEST version. I can revise as many times as I want.

COMPLETION + REPORT. After I'm satisfied with my essay and any revisions, produce the report in EXACTLY this format — the FIRST LINE is my score:
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
WEEK 12 RESEARCH-BASED ARGUMENT ESSAY — [my topic]
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Arguable thesis/claim: a/14 — [one line]
Quality & credibility of evidence: b/16 — [one line]
Integration of evidence: c/18 — [one line]
Synthesis: d/12 — [one line]
Counterargument + rebuttal: e/10 — [one line]
MLA citation + works cited: f/16 — [one line]
Organization, clarity & balance: g/14 — [one line]
Sources verified (did I confirm every quote/source/citation is real?): YES / NEEDS CHECK
Strongest move: ___
Worth another look: ___
(The seven criterion 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 your finished essay with its works-cited list, and submit all three in Canvas for this assignment." End with one genuine sentence of encouragement.

GETTING STARTED
Begin now: greet me, ask my first name and my chosen topic, and start Stage 0.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 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.
• Read the essay, not just the report. This is the capstone major essay — I read each finished essay against the rubric below myself and reconcile with the AI's self-score (the AI report is a coaching scaffold and a first pass, not the final grade of record on a major essay). Spot-check the chat share link against the essay and the report.
• VERIFY THE SOURCES — this is the load-bearing check for this essay. For each student essay, spot-check at least one quotation and its citation against the real source: do the exact words appear at the cited location? Does the source exist and say what's claimed? Does every in-text citation have a matching works-cited entry (and vice versa)? A fabricated or unverified quotation, source, or citation is the failure mode this entire week is built to catch — treat any unverifiable citation as an academic-integrity matter, not a formatting deduction. The Sources verified: YES / NEEDS CHECK line on the report is a prompt for your own check, not a substitute for it.
• The rubric + guidance live inside the student prompt (embed-don't-trust), so coaching and first-pass scoring are consistent across Gemini / Claude / ChatGPT. Known weak point (H5/H7): an AI-self-scored grade submitted by share link is gameable; on the major essays this is mitigated by my own read of the actual essay, my source spot-check, and an in-class writing check during the W16 final review. The coach is instructed never to supply sources or citations — so if an essay's sources trace back to AI-generated text, that is itself a red flag to investigate.

Rubric — 100 points (instructor reference; identical to the embedded one)

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 12 Assignment — Research-Based Argument Essay (major essay, adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = adaptive
submission_types = [online_text_entry, online_upload, online_url]   # the report (score on line 1) + the essay w/ works cited + 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-12 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-12.md. This file shows the same major essay built the traditional way — the student writes the essay 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 (find, evaluate, and integrate credible sources without plagiarizing) · with Objective 4 (argument) and Objective 6 (MLA) · SLO A (develop and support an argument) · SLO B (locate, integrate, and accurately document credible sources)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade

This is a MAJOR ESSAY — the term's fourth and final (narrative/expository W5, rhetorical analysis W6, argument W7, research-based argument here in W12). It is the capstone, with real, credible, correctly-cited sources. Budget real time; rough drafts are expected and revised.

The Assignment

Write a research-based argument essay (about 1,000–1,400 words, plus a works-cited list) that takes a defensible position on an arguable issue and supports it with credible, real sources you find, evaluate, integrate, and cite in MLA. This is where the whole second half of the course comes together: the argument structure from Week 7, the source-finding from Week 9, the integration from Week 10, and the MLA documentation from Week 11. Submit your essay (with works cited) as a document upload or text entry in Canvas. You'll be graded on the rubric below — read it before you start.

What your essay must do:

• State an arguable thesis — a claim reasonable people could dispute and you can support with evidence, sensibly qualified.
• Use at least 3 credible sources (your section may set a different count — follow it). Find and evaluate them yourself (Week 9 lateral reading); use them as evidence for your claim, not as a substitute for it.
• Integrate every piece of evidence with the four-part move — a signal phrase naming the source, the quotation (exact words) or paraphrase, a correct MLA in-text citation, and your analysis explaining why it supports your claim. No "quote bombs" (dropped quotes with no analysis).
• Synthesize — where you use more than one source on a point, put them in conversation (agree / extend / disagree), not in a list.
• Include a counterargument + rebuttal — the strongest opposing view, steel-manned (ideally with a cited source), genuinely answered.
• Provide a works-cited list in correct MLA (alphabetical by author; core-elements order), with every in-text citation matching an entry and vice versa.
• Keep your own voice the majority of the paper — sources support; they don't take over (no source-dumping).

THE SOURCES RULE — read this carefully (the integrity spine of the assignment): every quotation must be the source's actual words, copied exactly; every quote, paraphrase, and borrowed idea must be cited; never invent a quotation, a source, or a citation, and never submit one an AI gave you that you did not verify against the real source. If you cannot open the source and find the exact words, it does not go in your essay. A fabricated or unverified quotation, source, or citation is a serious academic-integrity violation — whether a human or an AI produced it.

Topic options (pick ONE — or propose your own arguable, classroom-appropriate, researchable issue): (1) require a first-year writing course for every major; (2) eliminate library late fees; (3) make SAT/ACT optional for admission; (4) make public transit fare-free; (5) start the school day later; (6) allow employer monitoring of remote workers; (7) cap student-athlete game schedules; (8) ban single-use plastics on campus/in your city; (9) require social-media age verification; (10) make community college tuition-free. Researchable, defensible, classroom-appropriate. Propose your own with Prof. Lindgren's okay.

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 — brainstorm a counterargument, pressure-test your reasoning, explain a concept — but it must not write your essay or supply your sources/quotes/citations, and submitting AI-generated text or any source/quote/citation you didn't verify as your own is not allowed. 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 stages with the chatbot and submit its self-scored report — see I-assignment-and-rubric-week-12.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

A note on this "key" (read this — it's the integrity point of the whole week). A research-based argument essay has no single right answer: students choose different topics, take different positions, and — crucially — find different real sources. So this key does not provide a model essay with quotations and citations to match against. Doing so would require either real, verified sources (which depend on each student's topic) or fabricated ones — and fabricating a quotation, source, or citation is exactly the violation this week teaches students to catch. Instead, the key describes what each move looks like when done well, and shows the MLA mechanics with a clearly-labeled SAMPLE source that is not a real source to copy. Grade the moves and the documentation, and verify the student's actual sources.

What a strong essay does, by criterion (grade against these moves):
- Thesis: an arguable, qualified claim that the sources will support — not a fact, not a bare topic. (E.g., the shape "Community colleges should be tuition-free, at least for students below a defined income line," takes a disputable, supportable, qualified position.)
- Evidence quality: sources are credible (current, expert, transparent about purpose/bias — the Week 9 checks) and relevant; the student can say why each is trustworthy.
- Integration (the four-part move) — the MLA mechanics, shown with a labeled SAMPLE source (NOT a real source to copy):

Quote-bomb (loses points): "Late-night study space boosts performance" (Mara 14). So the policy works.
Integrated (full credit): As education researcher A. Mara argues, "late-night study space is associated with measurable gains in exam performance" (Mara 14) — a finding that bears directly on finals week, when the students with the fewest quiet alternatives most need the space.
Paraphrase (still cited): A. Mara finds that late-night study access tracks with stronger exam results (14).
"A. Mara" is a placeholder to show the format only — author–page in-text, signal phrase + analysis. In a real essay the source and the words must be real and verified.
- Synthesis: two or more sources put in conversation — e.g., "Source A establishes the demand; Source B shows whom it falls hardest on; together they locate exactly whom the policy would help" — not separate summaries in a row.
- Counterargument + rebuttal: the strongest opposing view, stated so its holders would recognize it (ideally backed by a real cited source), then answered with reasoning/evidence — no straw man, no ad hominem.
- MLA + works cited: in-text citations are author–page with no comma and no "p." — (Mara 14), not (Mara, 14) or (Mara, p. 14); the works-cited list is alphabetical by author in MLA core-elements order (Author. Title of Source. Title of Container, Other contributors, Version, Number, Publisher, Publication date, Location.); every in-text citation has a matching entry and vice versa. (Check format against the MLA Style Center / Purdue OWL — the same pages the students used.)
- Balance: the student's own claim, reasoning, and analysis are the majority of the paper; quoted material is a small fraction.

The load-bearing grading step — VERIFY THE SOURCES: spot-check at least one quotation and its citation against the real source in each essay — do the exact words appear at the cited location? Does the source exist and say what's claimed? A fabricated or unverified quotation, source, or citation is the failure mode this entire week is built to catch — treat it as an academic-integrity matter, not a formatting deduction. Watch especially for the tell-tale signs of AI-fabricated sources: a real author paired with an article that doesn't exist; a perfectly-formatted entry for a source you can't find anywhere; a suspiciously specific page number on a web source.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 12 Assignment — Research-Based Argument Essay (major essay, 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-12-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"