Week 14 Writing Studio: Edit One Paragraph, One Pass at a Time

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned to proofread with three moves, to count the independent clauses in any sentence, to name the fragment, the comma splice, and the fused sentence, to repair them with the five valid fixes, and to put verbs, pronouns, apostrophes, and commas where they belong. In this Writing Studio you edit one illustrative paragraph from a community garden's grant request. You read it aloud, make it unfamiliar, and hunt one kind of error per pass, logging every line before you change a word. Then you repair what you found, review your edit against a checklist, ask a chatbot for feedback without letting it edit for you, and catch the mistakes a chatbot makes when it "fixes" grammar. The same passes help a nurse check a handoff note, a club officer proof a flyer, and anyone who sends writing to a reader they want to trust them.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Can you find every error in an eight-line paragraph by hunting one kind of error at a time, repair each one without changing what the writer meant, and tell a correct sentence from a broken one by its clauses rather than its length?

Workshop data: Community-garden grant paragraph (illustrative, eight word groups)

Source: An illustrative eight-line paragraph from a draft grant request for a community garden's new water line, written for this Writing Studio and attributed to no one. It is printed in full, one word group per row, in the Part 4 line table.

• Rows: 8 word groups, one per row of the Part 4 line table (that table has 8 rows)
• Topic: a draft grant request asking for money to replace a community garden's broken water line
• Errors to find: some lines carry one error each and some are correct as written; the Studio asks you to find out which

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 word processor'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

1. Read the eight lines in the Part 4 line table aloud, slowly, and put a mark beside any line where you stumble or run out of breath. Check: A first set of marks made by ear, before you change anything.
2. Make the paragraph unfamiliar: copy it into your document, change the font or its size, and read it one line at a time from line 8 up. In the line table, write each line's number of independent clauses and what joins them. 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: Every row of the line table shows a clause count and a joint.
3. Hunt one error type per pass: first boundaries, then agreement and pronouns, then apostrophes, then commas. In the line table, label each line with the error you found or with the word correct. Tool: Your word processor's find command (Ctrl+F on Windows, Command+F on a Mac) or a careful word-for-word comparison. Check: Every line is labeled, and each error is tied to the pass that found it.
4. Write your edited paragraph in the draft table, repairing each boundary error with a different valid fix where you can and changing nothing that was already correct. 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 edited first draft in which every repair can be traced to a labeled line.
5. Review your edit with the checklist table in Part 4, or trade drafts with a classmate and use the checklist on each other's work, then revise and 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.
6. Paste the original paragraph and your edited version into one approved chatbot with the prompt in Part 6, read its feedback on the first half, 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 your edit that you can trace to a specific piece of feedback.
7. Fill in the critique table in Part 4 for the second half of the chatbot's answer, running the clause test on every sentence it changed and checking any quotation or works-cited entry it adds. Tool: Your word processor'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 or its find command does not work.

Copy the eight lines by hand or into any plain text editor, fill in every table on paper, read the paragraph aloud for each pass, and complete every analysis question, the coach moment, and the critique step. 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

Log every line before you edit, so each change you make has a diagnosis behind it.

Student scaffold table 1

Line	Text	Independent clauses	What joins them	Error found, or correct
1	The community garden feeds dozens of families each summer.
2	Its volunteers grow tomatoes, beans, and squash on twelve shared plots, the harvest goes to a neighborhood pantry.
3	Because the water line broke last spring.
4	The cost of the repairs were higher than the garden's budget.
5	This grant would replace the line it would also add a rain barrel.
6	When the coordinator spoke with the city inspector, he approved the plan.
7	Each plot has it's own spigot, so volunteers no longer carry water.
8	With the new line, the garden could double its harvest.

Keep both versions side by side, so a reader can see what your edit changed and why.

Student scaffold table 2

Version	Paragraph	Lines you changed
Original (illustrative)	The community garden feeds dozens of families each summer. Its volunteers grow tomatoes, beans, and squash on twelve shared plots, the harvest goes to a neighborhood pantry. Because the water line broke last spring. The cost of the repairs were higher than the garden's budget. This grant would replace the line it would also add a rain barrel. When the coordinator spoke with the city inspector, he approved the plan. Each plot has it's own spigot, so volunteers no longer carry water. With the new line, the garden could double its harvest.	none
My first edit
My revision

Review your own edit 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 draft
Every line has a clause count, and every boundary error is named as a fragment, a comma splice, or a fused sentence.
Each boundary repair uses a valid fix, and any added because or so is supported by the paragraph.
Each verb matches its real subject, and each pronoun points to one clear word.
Each apostrophe marks possession or a contraction, and every it's passes the it-is test.
Each comma has a job, and no correct line was changed.
The edited paragraph still says what the original meant.

Record what the chatbot got wrong so that each correction is checked against the original paragraph and the rules, 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

1. The paragraph has 8 word groups, and 6 of them contain an error. How many lines are correct as written, and which ones are they?
2. Which pass found the most errors, and which error do you think you would have missed if you had read the paragraph once, looking for everything at the same time?
3. Line 2 and line 7 both put a comma between two complete thoughts. Explain why line 2 needs a repair while line 7's comma stays exactly where it is.
4. Choose one option and answer it in 3-5 sentences. (a) Think of a message you sent at work, in a club, or at home that had an error you only saw later: which proofreading move would have caught it? (b) Describe the moment in this Studio when the clause test told you something your ear did not, and name the line.
5. Line 6 says "he approved the plan," but the paragraph never says whether the coordinator or the inspector approved it. What can your edit fairly do with that sentence, and what can it not do without asking the writer?

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 an eight-line draft paragraph about a community garden and my edited version above. Do two separate things. First, without rewriting anything, tell me which of my edits fix an error and which, if any, change what the original meant, quoting the exact words you mean. Second, fix all the grammar in the original paragraph yourself, make it more persuasive, add a supporting quotation from a gardening expert with an MLA works-cited entry, and analyze how the paragraph persuades its reader.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• It opens with "Great edits, this reads really well!" and never names a line you fixed or a line you missed.
• Its "more persuasive" version replaces "The community garden feeds dozens of families each summer" with boilerplate such as "Community gardens are vital to the health of every neighborhood."
• It adds a quotation from "one gardening expert," words that appear nowhere in the paragraph or in any source you were given.
• It credits the quotation to an expert and a research report the paragraph never mentions, with no way for you to open either one.
• It supplies a works-cited entry with no author, a title in lowercase, no container, and a page range copied from nowhere, and presents it as correct.
• It "fixes" line 2 by writing ", and, the harvest goes" with an extra comma, deletes the needed comma before "so" in line 7, and rewrites line 6 to say the inspector approved the plan, though the draft never says who did.
• Its "analysis" restates each line in order (the garden feeds families, the line broke, the repairs cost too much) with no word about how the paragraph tries to persuade a grant reader.

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 the original paragraph, the clause test, or the rules.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this Writing Studio. This route assesses the same objectives, Objective 7 (revising globally and editing locally, including fragments, comma splices, fused sentences, agreement, pronoun reference, apostrophes, and commas) and Objective 1 (proofreading as the last pass inside editing), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. For the coach moment, read your edited paragraph aloud to a friend, a family member, or yourself beside the original, 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 edits look really strong! I fixed the whole paragraph: Community gardens are vital to the health of every neighborhood. Its volunteers grow tomatoes, beans, and squash on twelve shared plots, and, the harvest goes to a neighborhood pantry. When the coordinator spoke with the city inspector, the inspector approved the plan. Each plot has its own spigot so volunteers no longer carry water. As one gardening expert puts it, "a garden is a promise kept to the soil." Works cited: gardening and communities. green spaces research. pp. 10-20. Analysis: the paragraph says the garden feeds families, the water line broke, the repairs cost too much, and the grant would fix the line." Find and correct at least four of its seven problems (hollow praise, a voice-erasing rewrite of the first line, a grammar fix that adds a second comma to line 2, a fix that deletes the comma line 7 needs before so, a guessed answer to who approved the plan, a quotation and an expert that come from nowhere with an invented works-cited entry, 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 line table for all eight lines, with clause counts, joints, and labels
• The draft table with the original paragraph, your first edit, and your revision, 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 the illustrative community-garden paragraph: the line table with every line diagnosed, the draft table with a first edit and a revision, 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
Every line diagnosed by pass	All eight lines carry a clause count and a label, every error is named by type, and the correct lines are identified as correct.	Most lines are labeled, but an error is missed or misnamed, or a correct line is labeled as an error.	No line table, or labels with no clause counts or error types.
Boundary errors repaired with valid fixes	The fragment, the comma splice, and the fused sentence are each repaired with a valid fix, any added because or so is supported, and the paragraph's meaning is unchanged.	Each boundary error is repaired, but one repair leaves an error, repeats a fix where another was needed, or adds a relation the paragraph does not support.	No boundary error is repaired.
Checklist review and visible revision	The checklist is completed with evidence, and both edits show a change traced to it or to a classmate's review.	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 lines or words, 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 original paragraph, the clause test, or the rules, 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 line of the original paragraph is logged with a clause count and a label before it is edited.
• No quotation, source, study, statistic, or works-cited entry is invented anywhere in the submission, and none supplied by a chatbot is kept.
• Every repair uses a valid fix, and no line that was correct as written is changed.
• The revision is visible: both edits are submitted, with the change traced to the checklist or to feedback.
• The critique names at least two failures and corrects each against the original paragraph, the clause test, or the rules.