Week 14 — Writing Studio / Workshop · "The Proofreading Pass"

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective: Objective 7 — edit locally for grammar and mechanics (sentence boundaries, agreement, punctuation) · SLO A (produce clean, audience-aware prose)
Worth 50 points · Writing Studios group = 15% of the grade · Studio 14
Format: a hands-on proofreading workshop — you'll fix a paragraph riddled with sentence-boundary errors, review it against a proofreading checklist, get a chatbot's coaching, and then catch the chatbot over-correcting when it tries to "fix the grammar."

This is the course's signature weekly component. Every instructional week has one Writing Studio — a short, practical workshop on the week's craft move. 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.

---

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned the small set of errors that make a reader stop trusting otherwise-good writing — fragments, comma splices, run-ons, agreement slips, and apostrophe mistakes — and the proofreading moves that catch them: read aloud, slow down, hunt one error type at a time. This studio makes it real: you'll take a paragraph that's a wreck of sentence-boundary errors and fix every one, naming the fix you used. Then you'll do the thing this course trains all term — hand the same paragraph to a chatbot, ask it to "fix the grammar," and catch it over-correcting: flattening voice, changing meaning, and "fixing" sentences that were already correct.

Reference while you work (optional): "Run-ons: Comma Splices, Fused Sentences" (Purdue OWL): 🔗 https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/independent_and_dependent_clauses/runonsentences.html · and "Sentence Fragments" (Purdue OWL): 🔗 https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/mechanics/sentence_fragments.html

---

Part 2 — The Proofreading Exercise (fix this)

Copy this paragraph into a word processor. It contains seven surface errors — mostly sentence-boundary errors (fragments, comma splices, run-ons), plus one agreement slip and one its/it's. Rewrite the whole paragraph so every sentence is correct, keeping the meaning the same.

The paragraph to fix:
"My first draft was a mess of run-ons every sentence crashed into the next one. I read it out loud, that is when I started hearing the problems. Especially the long sentence in the middle of my second paragraph. I fixed some splices with periods, I fixed others with semicolons. The paragraph read better the ideas were finally easy to follow. Its amazing how much clearer one careful pass make a draft."

Do it with the three proofreading moves: read it aloud (you'll hear the run-ons and the stumble of the splices), go slowly, and make one pass per error type — boundaries first, then agreement, then the apostrophe.

---

Part 3 — Error Log (fill this in)

As you fix, log each correction. Fill every row you use (there are about seven errors). Name the error type and, for each boundary error, which of the five fixes you used (period / semicolon / comma + coordinating conjunction / subordinate one clause / dash–colon).

#	The broken bit (a few words)	Error type	The fix I used
1	______	______	______
2	______	______	______
3	______	______	______
4	______	______	______
5	______	______	______
6	______	______	______
7	______	______	______

The point: naming the error and the fix is what turns "it sounds better now" into a skill you can repeat on your own essays.

---

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

Run your corrected paragraph through this checklist — first on your own, then trade with a classmate (or reread it aloud as if it were someone else's). Mark ✓ or ✗ and note any miss:

Check	✓ / ✗
No fragments — every sentence has a subject and a verb and can stand alone	☐
No comma splices — no two complete sentences are joined by only a comma	☐
No run-ons — no two complete sentences are jammed together with no punctuation	☐
Subject–verb agreement — each verb matches its real subject (ignore the of ___ phrase)	☐
its / it's — its = possessive (no apostrophe); it's = "it is"	☐
Read aloud — I actually read it out loud and nothing made me stumble or run out of breath	☐
Meaning unchanged — I fixed the errors without changing what the paragraph says	☐

If a peer caught something you missed, fix it now and note what you learned. (Catching it on a peer's paragraph is exactly how you'll start catching it in your own.)

---

Part 5 — Writing-Coach Moment (required — the BYOAI step)

Bring in your approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) as a coach, not an editor. Paste your corrected paragraph and ask:

"You are my proofreading coach. Do NOT rewrite my paragraph. Instead, tell me: are there any remaining fragments, comma splices, or run-ons? Point to the exact words and explain the rule, and ask me one question if you're unsure. I'll make any fixes myself."

Read its feedback, check each claim against the rule yourself, and make any real fix in your own words. (If it flags something that's actually correct, that's useful too — you've just caught it being wrong, which is the next step.)

The coach is a second set of eyes, not a ghostwriter. You decide what's actually an error.

---

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment (required — catch the tool over-correcting)

Now flip roles and be the editor who judges the tool. This is the heart of the week.

1. Give the chatbot this already-correct sentence and ask it to "fix the grammar":

   "I revised the structure first, and then I edited the sentences."
   This sentence is correct (a comma + the coordinating conjunction and joining two complete sentences). Watch whether the chatbot "fixes" it anyway — deleting the comma, calling it wrong, or "tightening" it into something you didn't say.

2. Then paste your corrected paragraph and ask: "Now rewrite this to fix the grammar and improve it." Read its rewrite critically and catch the three classic editing failures:
   - "Fixing" what was already correct — it flags or rewrites a sentence that had no error (like the one above).
   - Changing your meaning — it "tightens" a sentence into a claim you didn't make, or drops a qualifier that mattered.
   - Voice-erasing over-editing — it swaps your plain wording for stiff boilerplate (e.g., turning "It's amazing how much clearer one careful pass makes a draft" into "The implementation of a single editing pass yields substantial improvements in clarity"). Now it's no longer yours.
3. Write 2–3 sentences naming at least one change the AI got wrong or made worse — did it fix the boundary, or just move a comma? did it change my meaning? did it "fix" a correct sentence? — and say what you kept from your version instead. Cite the rule where you can.

The habit all term: the tool drafts, you judge — and you verify every change against the rule. A chatbot will confidently "correct" a clean sentence into an error or into blander prose; protecting your voice and your meaning is part of editing. (One notch up, in a research paper, this same over-eager tool will "fix" a citation into the wrong format or "correct" a quotation into words the author never wrote — so the reflex you're building here, checking every change against the rule or the source, is the one that protects your integrity later.)

---

Part 7 — What to Submit

Submit a single document (or text entry) with: your corrected paragraph (Part 2); your completed error log (Part 3); your checklist marks + any peer fix (Part 4); a one-line note on the coach feedback you acted on (Part 5); and your Part 6 AI-critique paragraph. Due Sunday, Dec 6, 11:59 p.m. (50 points).

---

Instructor answer key & model — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Every correction below has been verified (each planted error truly is that error; each fix is genuinely correct). The corrected paragraph is a valid solution — accept any equivalent correct fix (a period or a comma + conjunction in place of a semicolon, etc.). The only wrong "fixes" leave an error in place or add a new one. No quotations, sources, or citations appear in this studio — every sentence is the instructor's own illustration, attributed to no one — so there is nothing to mis-quote.

Error-by-error key (sentence order):
1. "...a mess of run-ons every sentence crashed into the next one." → run-on (fused): two complete sentences, no punctuation. Fix: "...a mess of run-ons; every sentence crashed into the next one." (semicolon / period / comma + and).
2. "I read it out loud, that is when I started hearing the problems." → comma splice. Fix: "I read it out loud; that is when I started hearing the problems." (semicolon / period / comma + and).
3. "Especially the long sentence in the middle of my second paragraph." → fragment (a phrase, no main verb). Fix: attach → "...hearing the problems, especially the long sentence in the middle of my second paragraph."
4. "I fixed some splices with periods, I fixed others with semicolons." → comma splice. Fix: "I fixed some splices with periods; I fixed others with semicolons." (semicolon / period / comma + and).
5. "The paragraph read better the ideas were finally easy to follow." → run-on (fused). Fix: "The paragraph read better, and the ideas were finally easy to follow." (comma + and / period / semicolon).
6. "Its amazing how much clearer one careful pass make a draft." → its/it's (Its → It's = it is) + subject–verb agreement (pass is singular → makes). Fix: "It's amazing how much clearer one careful pass makes a draft."

One fully corrected version (model):

"My first draft was a mess of run-ons; every sentence crashed into the next one. I read it out loud, and that is when I started hearing the problems, especially the long sentence in the middle of my second paragraph. I fixed some splices with periods; I fixed others with semicolons. The paragraph read better, and the ideas were finally easy to follow. It's amazing how much clearer one careful pass makes a draft."

What the models show (the grading targets):
- Part 2 (corrected paragraph): full credit fixes all seven errors with valid fixes and no new errors, meaning preserved. A "fix" that leaves a splice/run-on/fragment in place (e.g., swapping one comma for another) earns partial credit.
- Error log (Part 3): answers should correctly name the error type and a valid fix for each — this is where you see whether the student can name the move, not just hear that it sounds better.
- Self-/peer-review (Part 4): rewards a genuine pass with the checklist; a peer catch that gets fixed earns full credit.
- AI-critique (Part 6): full credit for a specific catch — most commonly the AI "fixing" the already-correct sentence, changing meaning, or flattening voice — and a justification for keeping the student's own wording.

Grading rubric — 50 points

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Corrected paragraph — all seven errors fixed with valid fixes; no new error; meaning preserved (18)	18	9–14	0–8
Error log — error type + valid fix named for (nearly) all corrections (12)	12	6–9	0–5
Self-/peer-review — checklist applied; any peer catch fixed (8)	8	4–6	0–3
Coach moment — acted on real feedback (or correctly rejected a wrong flag), in the student's own words (6)	6	3	0–2
AI-critique — names a specific thing the AI got wrong/made worse (over-corrected, changed meaning, flattened voice, or just moved a comma) (6)	6	3	0–2

Quality gate (self-checked) — citation-integrity + correct-conventions: PASS. This studio contains no quotations, no external sources, and no citations — every sentence is the instructor's own illustration, attributed to no one — so there is nothing to fabricate or mis-attribute. Every grammar example was mechanically verified: each planted error in the paragraph contains exactly the named error (2 run-ons, 2 comma splices, 1 fragment, 1 its/it's, 1 subject–verb agreement), the corrected model is genuinely correct sentence-by-sentence, and the AI-critique "trap" sentence ("I revised the structure first, and then I edited the sentences.") is genuinely correct (comma + coordinating conjunction joining two independent clauses), so a student who flags the AI for "fixing" it is right. Rules cross-checked against Purdue OWL and Khan Academy Grammar. No student-written correction is asserted as the only answer — the key accepts any valid fix.