Week 12 — Writing Studio / Workshop · "Integrate One Source Into Your Argument"

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective: Objective 5 — integrate and document a credible source in service of an argument · SLO A (support an argument) · SLO B (integrate and document sources)
Worth 50 points · Writing Studios group = 15% of the grade · Studio 12
Format: a hands-on drafting + revision workshop — you'll write one argument paragraph that integrates a real source, review it against an integration checklist, get a chatbot's coaching, and then catch the chatbot fabricating quotations and citations when you ask it to do the work for you.

This is the course's signature weekly component — and this week it carries the course's most important lesson. 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. This week the judging step is life-or-death for your integrity: catch the AI's fabricated quotes, sources, and citations.

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned that a research-based essay makes an argument — and that the way you bring a source into that argument is the four-part move: a signal phrase, the quotation or paraphrase, a correct MLA in-text citation, and your analysis tying the evidence to your claim. This studio makes it real: you'll take one claim from your essay, find one real, credible source that supports it, and write one fully-integrated argument paragraph. Then you'll do the most important AI exercise of the term — ask a chatbot to write a sourced paragraph for you, and catch every fabricated quote and citation it hands you.

Background (optional, ~6 min each): "Signal and Lead-in Phrases" (Purdue OWL): 🔗 https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/using_research/quoting_paraphrasing_and_summarizing/signal_and_lead_in_phrases.html · "MLA In-Text Citations: The Basics" (Purdue OWL): 🔗 https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_in_text_citations_the_basics.html

Part 2 — Find One Real Source + Pull One Real Quote (do this first)

Pick one claim you're arguing in your essay (or a practice claim if you're starting fresh). Then:

1. Find ONE real, credible source that bears on it — using the Week 9 lateral-reading checks (who wrote it, is it current, what's its purpose/bias). A reputable article, report, book, or expert source.
2. Open the source and copy ONE short quotation exactly — the source's actual words, word for word — and note the author and the page number (or, for a web source with no pages, note that there's no page number).
3. Write down the works-cited information you'll need: author, title of the source, where it's published (the container), date, and location (URL or page range).

This is the integrity floor of the studio: the quote must be real and copied exactly, from a source you actually opened. Do not ask an AI for the quote or the source. You'll see why in Part 6.

Part 3 — Write One Fully-Integrated Argument Paragraph (write this)

Write one argument paragraph (5–8 sentences) that does all of this, in order:

1. Topic sentence = a reason (a mini-claim supporting your thesis).
2. A signal phrase that names your real source ("As [author] argues/finds/notes,…" — present tense for MLA).
3. The real quotation (exact words, in quotation marks) or a paraphrase in your own words.
4. A correct MLA in-text citation — author–page, e.g., (Lastname 23); for a web source with no page number, the author named in the signal phrase may stand alone.
5. Your analysis — one or two sentences in your voice explaining why this evidence supports your claim. (This is the part that turns a quote into an argument — don't skip it.)
6. A works-cited entry at the bottom, in MLA order, for the source you used.

Write it now in a word processor. Don't polish yet — that comes after the review.

Part 4 — Self-Review & Peer-Review (apply the integration checklist)

Run your paragraph through this checklist — first on your own draft, then trade with a classmate (or reread as a skeptical reader). Mark ✓ or ✗ and jot one fix:

Then revise based on what the checklist surfaced — most often, add the analysis or fix the citation format. (This is the "revise, don't just edit" move: re-see whether the source is actually doing argumentative work, not just sitting there.) Keep both the before and the after.

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 paragraph and ask: "You are my writing coach. Is the source doing my arguing for me, or is it supporting a point that's clearly mine? Is my analysis actually connecting the evidence to my claim, or just restating the quote? Where am I unclear? Ask me one question if you need to. Do NOT rewrite it for me, and do NOT add or change any sources or citations."
2. Read its feedback and decide what to act on. Make one improvement in your own words.

The coach is a mirror, not a ghostwriter — and this week, not a source. Use it to see whether your evidence is supporting your point. Then you make the change. (Notice the instruction telling it not to touch your sources — that's deliberate. Sources are your job to find and verify.)

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment (required — catch the fabrications) ⚑ the signature step of the term

Now flip roles and be the editor who assumes the tool is lying about its sources.

1. Ask the same chatbot: "Write me a paragraph arguing [my claim], with two quotations from real sources and correct MLA citations."
2. Now investigate everything it gives you, as if you were a fact-checker who gets paid to catch frauds. For each quotation, source, and citation it produced:
   - The quotation: copy the exact quoted words and search for them (at the cited source, or on the open web in quotation marks). Do they appear, verbatim? (Very often: no.)
   - The source: does the article/book/author it named actually exist, and say this? Search the title; search the author. (Often the title is invented, or the author is real but never wrote it.)
   - The citation: is the page number real, or decoration? Could you build that works-cited entry from a source you can actually find?
3. Write 3–4 sentences reporting what you found: which quotes/sources/citations you could not verify (or proved fabricated), how you checked, and what this tells you about trusting AI-supplied sources. If — surprisingly — a citation checks out, say exactly how you confirmed it.

The habit all term, at its most important: the tool drafts; you verify — every single source. A chatbot will hand you quotations, sources, and MLA citations that look flawless and do not exist — a real author who never wrote that line, an invented article title, a decorative page number. An AI citation is guilty until proven real. Open the source, find the words, or cut it. This is the reflex that protects your integrity for the rest of college. (A citation generator misformats; a chatbot fabricates outright. You just practiced catching the more dangerous one.)

Part 7 — What to Submit

Submit a single document (or text entry) with: your source information and the real quotation you pulled (Part 2); your fully-integrated paragraph + its works-cited entry (Part 3); your checklist marks + the revised paragraph (Part 4); a one-line note on the coach feedback you acted on (Part 5); and your Part 6 AI-critique report (what you could/couldn't verify and how you checked). Due Sunday, Nov 22, 11:59 p.m. (50 points).

Instructor answer key & model — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Students find their own real sources and write their own paragraphs, so exact wording varies and there is no single model paragraph to match against. The model below shows the integration mechanics with a clearly-labeled SAMPLE source ("A. Mara") that is not a real source to copy — it exists only to show the shape of the four-part move and correct MLA. Grade the moves and the documentation, and VERIFY each student's actual source. (Building a "model" with real quotations would depend on the student's topic; building one with invented quotations would be the exact fabrication this week teaches students to catch — so the key shows mechanics, not a fill-in-the-blank answer.)

Model — a fully-integrated paragraph (SAMPLE source "A. Mara"; mechanics only, not a real source):

Silver Oak should keep the main library open around the clock during finals week, because the demand for quiet study space is both real and concentrated. As education researcher A. Mara argues, "late-night study space is associated with measurable gains in exam performance" (Mara 14). That finding lands hardest precisely during finals, when the alternatives — a noisy dorm, a building that closes at midnight — work against the students who most need a place to focus. A 24-hour window won't guarantee better grades, but it removes a barrier the evidence says matters, at the one time of term the need spikes.
Works Cited
Mara, A. [Sample title — a real essay would put the actual source here, in MLA core-elements order.]

What the model shows (the grading targets):
- The four-part move: signal phrase ("As education researcher A. Mara argues") → quotation (exact words, in quotation marks) → MLA in-text cite ("(Mara 14)") → analysis (the two sentences connecting it to this claim). A paragraph missing the analysis is a quote bomb — partial credit.
- MLA mechanics: in-text is author–page with no comma and no "p." — (Mara 14); the works-cited entry is in MLA core-elements order and matches the in-text citation. (Check student format against the MLA Style Center / Purdue OWL.)
- Cite the paraphrase too: if a student paraphrases instead of quoting, the citation is still required (borrowing is the trigger, not quotation marks).
- Balance: the student's own claim and analysis are the majority of the paragraph; the quote is a small, well-chosen piece.
- AI-critique (Part 6): full credit for an honest report of verification — which AI-supplied quotes/sources/citations the student could not confirm (or proved fabricated), and how they checked. Full credit also if a student verifies a real one and shows exactly how. A student who reports "the AI's citations all looked correct, so I trusted them" has missed the entire lesson — formatting is not verification.

Grading rubric — 50 points

Quality gate (self-checked) — citation-integrity + correct-conventions: PASS. Every worked example in this studio uses a clearly-labeled instructor SAMPLE source ("A. Mara") presented explicitly as mechanics-only, never as a real source to cite — so no real author is quoted, no real source or quotation is invented, and nothing is misattributed. The MLA in-text format shown (author–page, no comma, no "p." — "(Mara 14)") is correct per the linked Purdue OWL "MLA In-Text Citations: The Basics" and the MLA Style Center; the works-cited shape follows the MLA core-elements order. The studio's integrity floor (Part 2) requires the student's source and quotation to be real and verified by the student, and the AI-critique (Part 6) and the instructor's grading step both require verification of those real sources — the entire studio is built to eliminate fabrication, not introduce it. No student paragraph is asserted as "the" answer; the key grades the integration moves and the documentation, and instructs the grader to verify each real source. All linked resources are real, verified-live external pages.