Purpose

This exercise helps you evaluate and plan revisions for your Methodological Critique by using GenAI tools as diagnostic partners. You will prompt multiple GenAI systems with the official grading rubric, compare their assessments, and decide which feedback to act on. The goal is not to rewrite your critique now but to produce an informed, prioritized plan for revision that strengthens reasoning, coherence, and methodological precision while preserving your authorial voice.

Instructions

Step 1 – Prepare your draft

Skim your submitted critique and note which areas you most want to test:
• clarity of reasoning
• alignment of purpose, method, and critique
• depth of epistemological insight
• organization and coherence

Step 2 – Use the rubric with GenAI feedback

1. Copy the official Creative Challenge 4 rubric into a prompt.
2. Paste your full critique below it.
3. Ask the GenAI system to evaluate your work according to that rubric and to explain the reasoning behind each score.
4. Repeat with at least one additional GenAI system (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) to compare interpretations.
5. Compile or summarize the most useful insights from each system.

Step 3 – Draft a concrete revision plan

Create a short, bulleted plan (1–2 pages) outlining the changes you will make before resubmitting your critique. Organize by:
• Global revisions – logic, organization, comparative reasoning
• Section revisions – clarity of methods summary, application of critique criteria
• Local revisions – precision, terminology, concision, citation or APA fixes
For each change, briefly explain why it matters and which GenAI feedback or rubric criterion it addresses.

Step 4 – Reflect on process (≈250 words)

Discuss what you learned by comparing GenAI feedback with your own judgment.
Address:
• which tools you used and why
• how their evaluations differed
• which advice you accepted or rejected and why
• what this exercise taught you about assessing methodological rigor and credibility

End by stating how you used GenAI responsibly—as a diagnostic assistant, not as a coauthor.

Submission requirements

• Self-evaluation and revision plan (1–2 pages)
• Reflection (≈250 words)
• Table or short summary comparing feedback from at least two GenAI systems
Do not submit a revised critique here; that is a later deliverable.

Evaluation Rubric – 100 Points

Use of rubric and multiple GenAI systems – 30 pts

Effectively applies the official assignment rubric within at least two GenAI platforms and compares results. Shows understanding of how rubric criteria guide revision.

Quality and specificity of revision plan – 30 pts

Provides a concrete, prioritized, and actionable plan that references global, section, and local levels. Links planned changes to rubric categories or GenAI observations.

Reflection on GenAI feedback and authorial agency – 20 pts

Critically evaluates AI feedback, explaining what was accepted, rejected, or modified and why. Demonstrates responsible, author-centered decision making.

Insight into methodological rigor and credibility – 10 pts

Shows growing ability to recognize methodological strengths, weaknesses, and epistemological assumptions in one’s own work.

Clarity and PTC style – 10 pts

Writing is clear, concise, coherent, and professional; uses appropriate headings and APA 7 where applicable.