Week 16 · Lecture outline

Week 16 — Lecture Outline · Final Review & Exam

English Composition · ENGL 1A Fall 2026 · Prof. Lindgren Fictional sample

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objectives covered: cumulative — Objectives 1–8 (Weeks 1–15). Obj 1 — the rhetorical situation & the writing process; Obj 2 — critical reading (summary & response); Obj 3 — the paragraph, thesis & essay structure; Obj 4 — composing in multiple modes (narration/exposition, rhetorical analysis, argument); Obj 5 — finding, evaluating & integrating sources without plagiarism; Obj 6 — MLA documentation; Obj 7 — revision & editing (grammar/mechanics); Obj 8 — reflection & the writing portfolio.
SLOs touched: A (composition & argument) · B (source-based research & academic integrity)
Meeting pattern: 2 sessions × 75 min = 150 min. Segment minutes below total ~150; scale to your own pattern.

This is the final review-and-exam week — no new content. It is cumulative over the entire course (Weeks 1–15, Objectives 1–8). Each segment briskly re-teaches one or two objectives with its highest-yield ideas, one signature example (a worked writing move, a before/after, or a verified MLA model), and the single misconception most likely to cost points; the final segment frames the comprehensive Final and how to prepare. Built to be taught from cold as a capstone review: an instructor (or a substitute) can run it without having taught the course, because every definition, worked example, and cure travels with the segment. This week's only graded item is the Final (25%) — there is no quiz, no discussion, no assignment, and no Writing Studio this week; the Final stands in for all of them. The Final pairs with a Study Guide + Exam-Prep Tutorial + Practice Final, built separately and referenced here by name. (Every MLA and grammar model below is correct and was verified against the MLA Style Center / Purdue OWL and the can-it-stand-alone test — the same vetted forms used on the Final.)

Week at a Glance


The week's big question	"Across the whole course — the rhetorical situation and the process, reading and the paragraph, thesis and the modes, argument, sources, MLA, revision and editing, and reflection — what is the one move each topic asks of us, and where does everyone slip?"
By the end of the week, students can…	(1) re-run each objective's core move on demand — name the rhetorical situation and tell revision from editing (Obj 1); tell a summary from a response and a claim from its support (Obj 2); tell an arguable thesis from a topic/fact/question and place each essay part (Obj 3); name the appeals, the Toulmin parts, and a fallacy (Obj 4); evaluate a source and tell an acceptable paraphrase from patchwriting (Obj 5); write a correct MLA in-text citation and order the Works-Cited elements (Obj 6); tell global revision from local editing and catch a fragment / comma splice / run-on (Obj 7); define metacognition / reflection / portfolio / transfer (Obj 8); (2) name and avoid the highest-cost misconception in each theme; (3) walk into the Final knowing its coverage, its weight (25%), and a concrete plan built around the Study Guide, the Exam-Prep Tutorial, and the Practice Final.
Key vocabulary (all review)	rhetorical situation (writer/audience/purpose/genre/context), the writing process, recursive, revision vs. editing/proofreading; summary, analytical response, claim, support, "they say / I say"; topic sentence, unity, coherence, arguable thesis, introduction/body/transition/conclusion, synthesis; narration/exposition, ethos/pathos/logos/kairos, anaphora, claim/grounds/warrant (Toulmin), counterargument/rebuttal, qualifier, logical fallacies (straw man, slippery slope, false dilemma, ad hominem, hasty generalization, post hoc, bandwagon, circular reasoning); research question, primary/secondary source, scholarly/popular, lateral reading, CRAAP, quotation/paraphrase/summary, signal phrase, patchwriting, plagiarism, common knowledge; MLA 9, in-text/parenthetical citation, author-page method, core elements, container, "Works Cited," hanging indent, alphabetical order, citation generator; global revision, local editing, concision, deadwood, sentence variety, active/passive voice, emphasis/end-weight, fragment, comma splice, run-on/fused sentence, subject–verb agreement, its/it's; metacognition, reflection, portfolio, reflective cover letter, transfer
Materials	slides (Deck 16 — the final-review deck), the Study Guide, the Exam-Prep Tutorial (AI), the Practice Final, one approved chatbot (Gemini / Claude / ChatGPT) for the audit-the-AI review moment
Timing note	8 segments, ~150 min total. Session 1 (Tue) = Segments 1–4 (~75): the map + Objectives 1–4 (the situation & process → reading → thesis & structure → the modes/argument). Session 2 (Thu) = Segments 5–8 (~75): Objectives 5–8 (sources → MLA → revision & editing → reflection) + the Final frame. Scale to your own pattern.

Segment 1 — Hook & the Map of the Whole Course (10 min) · Session 1 opens

Hook. Put one line on the board with no comment: "There's such a thing as 'good writing' — a piece is either well-written or it isn't, no matter who reads it." Ask: "True or false — and how do you know?" Let the room react, then point out they're reaching for exactly the move Week 1 taught: a brilliant text to a friend is a terrible cover letter; writing is good for a reader, a purpose, and an occasion — there's no situation-free scorecard. (It's false.)
- "That instinct — to ask who's reading, why, and in what form before judging or making any piece of writing — is the entire course, sixteen weeks and eight objectives. They line up into one story: read the situation, read a text, build the structure, choose the mode, make the argument, use sources honestly, document them, polish the prose, and reflect. Today we walk the whole story once, fast, and find the exact spot in each chapter where points get lost. That's the Final."

The promise (write it on the board): "By Thursday you'll be able to take any of the eight big areas — read the situation, read a text, build a thesis, choose a mode, make an argument, use sources, cite in MLA, revise and edit, reflect — and on demand state the one move it requires and the one mistake that sinks it."

The map (one slide, say it out loud — this is the photograph slide of the week):

WRITING AS A PROCESS & A SITUATION: Obj 1 the RHETORICAL SITUATION & the writing process (who's reading, why; invent → draft → revise → edit → reflect).
READING & BUILDING: Obj 2 CRITICAL READING (summary vs. response) · Obj 3 THESIS & STRUCTURE (the paragraph, the arguable thesis, arrangement).
PERSUASION — THE MODES: Obj 4 COMPOSING IN MODES (narration/exposition; the APPEALS; ARGUMENT — claim/grounds/warrant + fallacies).
USING SOURCES WELL: Obj 5 FIND/EVALUATE/INTEGRATE SOURCES (paraphrase vs. plagiarism) · Obj 6 MLA DOCUMENTATION.
POLISH & LOOK BACK: Obj 7 REVISION & EDITING (global vs. local; the sentence-boundary errors) · Obj 8 REFLECTION & the PORTFOLIO (metacognition; transfer).

Why it matters line (memory hook): "The whole course is one sentence — writing is a process of making choices for a real reader: read the situation, build and support a claim, use other people's words honestly and document them, polish the prose, and look back so the skill transfers."

Segment 2 — Objectives 1 & 2 Review: The Situation, the Process & Reading (20 min)

Re-teach Obj 1 in plain language. Every time you write, you stand inside a rhetorical situation with five parts — writer · audience · purpose · genre · context. Change the audience and your purpose and genre usually change too (the same "I need more time" is a text to a friend and a formal email to a professor). Writing is a process: invention → drafting → revision → editing → reflection, and it's recursive — drafting sends you back to invention; revising can change your thesis. Lock the term's highest-value distinction: revision = re-seeing the big stuff (ideas, focus, structure); editing/proofreading = cleaning up the small stuff (sentences, grammar, typos).

Re-teach Obj 2 in plain language. Reading critically means two separable jobs: a summary (neutrally report what the text says — comprehensive, in your own words, no opinion) and an analytical response (your reasoned evaluation, with reasons). Inside any text, tell the claim (the arguable point) from its support (the reasons and evidence), and from the topic (what it's merely about). Academic writing summarizes fairly before responding — the "they say / I say" order — so you argue with what the writer actually said, not a straw man.

One quick worked example (do it out loud):

Summary or response? Take the sentence: "That argument is unconvincing because it offers only one anecdote and no data."
- It evaluates ("unconvincing") and gives a reason ("one anecdote, no data") → that's a response, not a summary. A summary would report the writer's claim with no judgment attached. Watch the trap: mentioning the author doesn't make a sentence a summary.

Highest-cost misconception + cure:
- ❌ "Revising means fixing grammar and spelling," and "a summary can just be the author's best sentences copied in."
✅ Cure: fixing grammar is editing/proofreading; revision re-sees ideas and structure. And copying the author's words is quoting (unmarked, it's plagiarism) — a summary is in your own words. (Bonus: a thesis is a claim, not a question; a claim is not the topic.)

Segment 3 — Objective 3 Review: Thesis & Essay Structure (22 min)

Re-teach in plain language. A paragraph needs a topic sentence (one controlling idea), unity (every sentence serves it), and coherence (transitions that show how sentences relate). An essay needs an arguable thesis — a claim a reasonable person could disagree with, specific enough for one essay — not a topic ("social media"), not a fact ("billions use social media"), not a question ("Is social media harmful?"), and not an announcement ("In this essay I will discuss…"). The parts each have one job: the introduction hooks, gives brief context, and lands the thesis; body paragraphs each develop one supporting point; transitions bridge ideas by showing a relationship; the conclusion synthesizes (shows what the points add up to and why the claim matters) rather than merely restating.

One quick worked example (read it out loud):

Thesis or impostor? Compare four lines about phones in school:
- "Schools and phones are connected." → too vague (a topic).
- "Billions of teenagers own phones." → a fact (nothing to argue).
- "Should schools ban phones?" → a question (asks, doesn't claim).
- "Schools should ban phones during the school day, because the attention cost outweighs the convenience." → an arguable, specific thesis (picks a side and says why).
Tie-in: a reverse outline (one phrase per paragraph, then read only the list) tests whether the structure holds — a revision move, not a surface pass.

Highest-cost misconception + cure:
- ❌ "A thesis can be a question," and "the conclusion just restates the thesis."
✅ Cure: a question opens; the thesis answers it with a contestable claim. And a conclusion synthesizes — what the points mean together and why they matter — without springing a brand-new argument. (Bonus: "arguable" is not about length or fancy words; it's whether a reader could take the other side.)

Segment 4 — Objective 4 Review: The Modes, the Appeals & Argument (23 min) · Session 1 closes (~75)

Re-teach in plain language. Narration/exposition carry concrete detail and "showing vs. telling." Rhetorical analysis explains how a text persuades — its strategies and their effects — not whether you agree (that's your position on the issue) and not a summary (what it says). The four appeals: ethos (the speaker's credibility/character), pathos (the audience's emotions), logos (logic, evidence, reasoning), kairos (the timeliness of the moment). Naming an appeal is step one of three — analysis also needs the how (the move that creates it) and the effect (on which audience). Argument (Toulmin) has a claim (the position), grounds (the evidence), and a warrant (the often-unstated assumption that links the evidence to the claim), plus optional backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. A strong argument steel-mans the opposing view in a counterargument and then answers it with a rebuttal — which builds ethos. And know the common logical fallacies (straw man, slippery slope, false dilemma, ad hominem, hasty generalization).

One quick worked example (do it out loud):

Name the appeal, then the fallacy. "As an ER nurse for fifteen years, I have watched these cuts play out at the bedside." → leaning on the speaker's experience to earn trust is ethos. Now: "We have two choices: cut the whole music program, or watch the school go bankrupt." → reducing a complex issue to only two options is a false dilemma (either/or) — the tell is naming only two "choices" when others exist (trim elsewhere, fundraise, a smaller program).

Highest-cost misconception + cure:
- ❌ "Rhetorical analysis means saying whether you agree," and "a strong argument leaves out the other side."
✅ Cure: analysis explains how a text persuades (appeals + devices + effects), and can be written about a text you disagree with. And ignoring the strongest counterargument is a weakness a reader notices — steel-man the other side and answer it. (Bonus: don't confuse ethos [trust the speaker] with logos [the reasoning itself]; "the author uses pathos" is a label, not yet analysis.)

Segment 5 — Objective 5 Review: Finding, Evaluating & Integrating Sources (24 min) · Session 2 opens

Hook back in: "Session 1 we built and supported a claim. Now we bring in other people's words and ideas — and the whole game is using them honestly, because the #1 way writers (and chatbots) go wrong here is fabricating or stealing."

Re-teach in plain language. A research question is focused and answerable with evidence (not a topic). Tell a primary source (the original, first-hand thing) from a secondary one (about it); a scholarly/peer-reviewed source from a popular one. Evaluate with lateral reading (leave the page; check what independent sources say about who's behind it) and the CRAAP lens (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose). Domain isn't credibility: .com, .org, .net can be registered by anyone; only .edu and .gov are restricted. Integrate three ways: a quotation (exact words, in quotation marks, copied word-for-word), a paraphrase (one passage in your own words and structure, cited), and a summary (a longer passage condensed, cited), each introduced by a signal phrase ("According to Holloway…"). The load-bearing line: an acceptable paraphrase changes the words and the sentence structure; keeping the structure and swapping a few synonyms is patchwriting — plagiarism, even with a citation. You credit the idea, not just the words; only true common knowledge goes uncited.

One quick worked example (read it out loud — uses the course's clearly-labeled sample source, not a real publication):

Sample-source sentence (from the fictional course sample — Holloway, "The Attention Economy and the Student Reader," Riverbend Review, 2021, p. 14): "When a notification interrupts a reader every few minutes, the mind never settles into the slow, sustained focus that deep comprehension requires…"
- ❌ Patchwriting: "When a notification disrupts a reader every few minutes, the brain never settles into the slow, steady focus that deep understanding requires…" (same sentence, synonyms swapped — plagiarism even if cited).
- ✅ Acceptable paraphrase: "Holloway argues that frequent digital interruptions keep students from the deep focus real understanding requires, so they gradually skim instead of read (14)." (new words and new structure, meaning kept, cited).

Highest-cost misconception + cure:
- ❌ "Changing a few words makes it a paraphrase," and "more sources automatically make a paper stronger."
✅ Cure: a real paraphrase changes words and structure and cites; a few synonyms over the same structure is patchwriting. And a long Works Cited isn't an argument — three credible, relevant sources beat ten weak ones. (Bonus: an AI "quotation" you didn't verify may be fabricated or misattributed — you're responsible for it.)

Segment 6 — Objective 6 Review: MLA Documentation (22 min)

Re-teach in plain language. MLA answers a careful reader's two questions: "Says who?" (the in-text citation) and "Where can I find it?" (the Works-Cited entry) — a matched pair. MLA uses the author-page method: author's last name + page, with two forms — name the author in a signal phrase and put only the page in parentheses, or put both author and page in parentheses (parenthetical form). The comma rule is the most-tested mechanic: inside the parentheses there is NO comma between author and page, and no "p." A Works-Cited entry is built from the core elements in a fixed order: Author. "Title of Source." Title of Container, Contributor, Version, Number, Publisher, Publication date, Location. Include only the elements your source actually has. The container is the larger whole that holds the source (a website, journal, or anthology). Format: heading "Works Cited" (centered, not italicized — not "References"/"Bibliography"), alphabetical by the first element, hanging indent.

One quick worked example (do it out loud — these are REAL MLA 9 models, verified against the Purdue OWL):

Signal-phrase form: Wordsworth stated that Romantic poetry was marked by a "spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings" (263). → author named in the sentence, so parentheses hold only the page.

Parenthetical form: Human beings have been described as "symbol-using animals" (Burke 3). → author not named, so both go in the parentheses — no comma, no "p."

Each points to a Works-Cited entry that begins with the author so the reader can find it: Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. University of California Press, 1966.

Highest-cost misconception + cure:
- ❌ "A comma separates items in parentheses, so it's (Smith, 42)," and "the list is called References / ordered by when I cited each source."
✅ Cure: in MLA in-text it's (Smith 42) — author, space, page, nothing else. And the list is "Works Cited," alphabetical by the first element. (Bonus: never invent a paragraph number for a web page with no page numbers — use the author's name alone, e.g., (Lee), or name them in the sentence; and a citation generator's output is a draft to check, not an authority.)

Segment 7 — Objective 7 Review: Revision & Editing (24 min)

Re-teach in plain language. Global revision re-sees the big stuff (thesis, structure, argument, evidence — e.g., reordering paragraphs, sharpening the thesis); local editing/proofreading polishes the small stuff (sentences, grammar, typos). Style moves: concision (make every word earn its place — cut deadwood like "due to the fact that" → "because"; concise ≠ merely fewest words); sentence variety (mix lengths, combine choppy sentences to show relationships); active voice (name the doer — "Jordan revised the essay," not "the essay was revised"); emphasis (readers remember the end of a sentence — put the key idea there). The four most-tested sentence-boundary errors and the fix: a fragment can't stand alone ("Although the comments were harsh."); a comma splice joins two complete sentences with only a comma ("I finished the essay, I submitted it early."); a run-on/fused sentence joins them with no punctuation ("The lab was closed the computers were all in use."); the correct joins are a comma + a coordinating conjunction (FANBOYS), a semicolon, or a period. Plus subject–verb agreement (find the real subject; ignore the of ___ phrase) and its/it's (read it as "it is" — if that's nonsense, use the possessive its).

One quick worked example (do it out loud):

Name the error, then fix it. "My evidence was thin, my thesis was strong." → two complete sentences joined by only a comma = a comma splice. Three valid fixes: add a coordinating conjunction ("My evidence was thin, but my thesis was strong."), a semicolon ("…thin; my thesis…"), or a period. The test for a run-on vs. a splice is what sits between the two complete sentences: a lone comma (splice) vs. nothing (run-on).

Highest-cost misconception + cure:
- ❌ "Revising means fixing grammar," and "a long sentence is automatically a run-on."
✅ Cure: revision re-sees ideas/structure; editing fixes sentences — different passes. And length is not the run-on test — clause structure is; a long sentence can be perfectly correct, and a short string can be a fragment. (Bonus: a comma alone can't join two sentences; a comma + a FANBOYS conjunction can.)

Segment 8 — Objective 8 Review + The Final Frame (15 min) · Session 2 closes (~75)

Re-teach Obj 8 in plain language. Metacognition is thinking about your own thinking — your process and your choices; reflection is that thinking written down as specific, evidence-based self-assessment (name a real skill and point to where it shows — not "I worked hard"). A portfolio is a curated collection (chosen, ordered, introduced with a rationale — not a folder of everything), and its reflective cover letter explains what you chose, why, what you learned, and how you revised. Transfer is the payoff: carrying a named skill into other courses and contexts. Skills transfer best when you can name and explain them — which is the whole point of reflecting.

Audit-the-AI review moment (the course's recurring habit, one last time before the exam):

Paste to an approved chatbot: "Give me an MLA in-text citation and a one-sentence paraphrase of [a source you can open], and tell me whether 'I finished the essay, I submitted it early' is correct."
Check it against what we taught. Chatbots routinely flip the in-text citation to (Smith, 42) (comma), hand you a paraphrase that's really patchwriting (or a quotation/citation for a source that doesn't exist), and miss the comma splice (or "fix" a correct sentence into one). The tool drafts; you judge. Catch the slips and you're ready. (Reminder: AI is allowed for prep, but not on the Final.)

What's on the Final (state it plainly — put it on the closing slide):
- Coverage: cumulative over the whole course — Weeks 1–15, Objectives 1–8. The rhetorical situation & the writing process; critical reading; the paragraph, thesis & structure; the modes, the appeals & argument; finding, evaluating & integrating sources; MLA documentation; revision & editing; and reflection. The midterm already covered the first half (Objectives 1–4), so those early objectives are foundations the later ones use — fair game, but the back half (Objectives 5–8) leans heaviest since it wasn't on the midterm.
- Format & weight: 20 items, 100 points (5 each) — auto-gradable only (multiple-choice, multiple-answer, matching, and true/false). No free-response/essay items — your essay-writing was assessed all term by the assignments and studios. The Final is 25% of the course grade — the single largest assessment — and replaces Week 16's quiz, assignment, and Writing Studio. AI is not permitted on the Final. (There is no Quiz 16, Discussion 16, Assignment 16, or Writing Studio 16 — the Final stands in for all of them.)
- Coverage weight (so you study proportionally): Obj 1–4 ≈ 8 items (the W1–7 foundations) · Obj 5 ≈ 4 (sources) · Obj 6 ≈ 3 (MLA) · Obj 7 ≈ 3 (revision/editing) · Obj 8 ≈ 2 (reflection) — proportional to teaching time, with the back half (Obj 5–8) carrying the heaviest weight since the midterm covered 1–4.

The preparation plan (point at each artifact by name):
1. Study Guide — work it first; it's the checklist of every move across the eight objectives, with fresh self-check practice.
2. Exam-Prep Tutorial — run it with an approved chatbot (Gemini / Claude / ChatGPT) and submit the share link; it diagnoses and drills your weak spots adaptively across all eight objectives.
3. Practice Final — sit it like the real thing, then review every miss against the Study Guide.

Callback + send-off:
- Callback: "Every item on the Final is a move you already made this term — Week 1 you learned that writing is a set of choices for a real reader, and that instinct runs through all eight objectives: read the situation, read a text, build a thesis, choose a mode, make an argument, use sources honestly, cite in MLA, revise and edit, and reflect."
- Send-off: "You don't need to cram everything — you need the honest moves and the mistake that sinks each one. Work the Study Guide, run the Exam-Prep Tutorial, take the Practice Final, then sit the Final. You've built every one of these skills across fifteen weeks. Go show them."

Hand-off (the week's work): review the Study Guide, run the Exam-Prep Tutorial (submit the share link), take the Practice Final, and sit the comprehensive Final (window opens Mon Dec 14; due six days later). No quiz, discussion, assignment, or Writing Studio this week — the Final is the whole grade for the module.

Instructor FAQ — Common Stumbles (Final-Review Week)

Student says / does	Quick cure
"Isn't good writing just good writing?"	There's no situation-free scorecard. A great text to a friend is a bad cover letter. Writing is good for a reader, a purpose, and an occasion (the five-part rhetorical situation).
Confuses revision and editing.	Revision re-sees ideas/structure; editing/proofreading fixes sentences and typos. The highest-value distinction of the term.
Collapses summary into response (or copies the author's sentences as a "summary").	A summary reports neutrally, in your own words; a response evaluates with reasons. Copying the author's words is quoting (unmarked = plagiarism).
Calls a topic, fact, question, or "In this essay I will…" a thesis.	A thesis is an arguable, specific claim a reasonable person could dispute. A question opens; the thesis answers it.
Says rhetorical analysis = whether I agree.	Analysis explains how the text persuades (appeals + devices + effects); agreement is your position on the issue. You can analyze a text you disagree with.
Confuses ethos and logos, or stops at "the author uses pathos."	Ethos = trust the speaker; logos = the reasoning. A bare label isn't analysis — add the how and the effect.
Mixes up the Toulmin parts, or says a strong argument hides the other side.	Claim (position), grounds (evidence), warrant (the linking assumption). A strong argument steel-mans the counterargument and answers it.
Mis-names a fallacy (straw man vs. ad hominem vs. slippery slope).	Straw man distorts the view; ad hominem attacks the person; slippery slope asserts an unfounded chain to an extreme.
Calls patchwriting an acceptable paraphrase.	A real paraphrase changes *words and* sentence structure and cites. Same structure + swapped synonyms = patchwriting** (plagiarism, even with a citation).
"`.org` means it's trustworthy," or "more sources = stronger."	`.com/.org/.net` are open to anyone; only `.edu/.gov` are restricted — read laterally. And credible, relevant sources beat a long list of weak ones.
Writes (Smith, 42) or (Smith, p. 42).	MLA in-text = author, space, page — no comma, no "p.": (Smith 42). The most-tested mechanic of the MLA week.
Calls the list "References" / "Bibliography," or orders it by citation order.	In MLA it's "Works Cited," centered, not italicized, alphabetical by the first element (usually the author's last name).
Says a long sentence is automatically a run-on, or that a comma can join two sentences.	Clause structure, not length, is the test. A comma alone can't join two complete sentences; use a comma + FANBOYS, a semicolon, or a period.
Calls a portfolio "a folder of everything," or reflection "I worked hard."	A portfolio is curated (chosen, ordered, with a rationale). Reflection is specific and evidence-based — a named skill and where it shows.
Panics that the Final is "literally everything."	It's the eight honest moves plus the two load-bearing mechanics (the MLA comma rule; the sentence-boundary errors), not a thousand facts. The back half (Obj 5–8) leans heaviest. Study Guide → Exam-Prep Tutorial → Practice Final, in that order.

Scope flag

This outline is pure review of Objectives 1–8 — no new material. The framing extras (the five-act "process & situation → reading & building → the modes → using sources → polish & look back" map, the recurring audit-the-AI habit, the carried-over memory hooks like "revision re-sees; editing cleans up" and "author, space, page — no comma") are retained context from the term because they make the cures stick; cut them for a leaner 60-minute review. Every MLA model here is correct MLA 9 and built from a real, verified source (the Purdue OWL's own Burke and Wordsworth examples; the MLA Style Center / Purdue OWL core-elements model); the only named source used for the paraphrase example is the course's clearly-labeled fictional sample (Holloway), and every grammar example was checked against the can-it-stand-alone test (Purdue OWL / Khan Academy). No quotation, source, or citation is fabricated or misattributed, and the instructor and institution remain fictional. The Final and its bundle (Study Guide, Exam-Prep Tutorial, Practice Final) are built separately and only referenced here by name. No quiz, discussion, assignment, or Writing Studio is built for Week 16 — by the course spine, discussions run every week except W16, and exam weeks replace the quiz, assignment, and studio with the exam; the comprehensive Final is the module's only graded item.

~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com