Deliverables

If you used GenAI to complete any deliverable, you must submit a Metacognitive Report alongside your assignment. For the exercises, the report can be as concise as 250 words. For the Creative Challenge, the report should be more substantive because it should summarize how you used GenAI across the exercises leading up to it as well as during the Creative Challenge itself, reflect on the key decisions you made independently to preserve your own voice and judgment, and explain how your use of GenAI evolved across the module.

Student Learning Outcomes

By the end of this project, you will be able to:

1. Analyze how professional and technical communicators use visual language, information architecture, and document design to support clarity, credibility, and usability in workplace contexts.
2. Explain and illustrate key stylistic principles—clarity, brevity, coherence, flow, inclusivity, simplicity, and unity—and evaluate how real workplace documents uphold or violate these principles.
3. Deliver an oral presentation that explains how writers apply stylistic principles to achieve clarity and coherence, demonstrating professional tone, pacing, structure, and visual support.
4. Differentiate academic and professional writing by comparing their rhetorical purposes, stylistic conventions, information architectures, and visual strategies in an infographic-style comparison.
5. Design professional documents that apply core visual design principles (proximity, alignment, repetition, contrast, and hierarchy) to help non-expert readers quickly interpret complex information.
6. Evaluate peer drafts using shared criteria for professional and technical communication and justify your rankings with reference to stylistic and design principles.
7. Use at least two GenAI tools as structured revision partners, interpreting their feedback across global, section, paragraph, sentence, and visual levels while maintaining control over your voice, purpose, and rhetorical choices.
8. Translate a scholarly research article into a professional-style executive summary and visual summary that accurately represent the study’s methods and findings while emphasizing practical implications for workplace audiences.
9. Produce a metacognitive report that documents and critically evaluates your GenAI use, articulating how iteration, prompting decisions, and tool selection shaped your composing process and agency.

Introduction to the Module

Professional writing is transactional: you write because someone needs to act, decide, or solve a problem. Readers scan first and only slow down when you earn their attention. To meet these expectations, you will study how knowledge workers build authority through purposeful structure, visual hierarchy, rhetorical awareness, and audience-centered language.

Across eleven assignments, you will learn how professional and technical communicators use design principles, stylistic control, and rhetorical strategies to guide interpretation. You will practice explaining design logic in an instruction manual, teaching coworkers how proximity, alignment, repetition, and contrast shape clarity and credibility. You will apply and illustrate the core stylistic principles from The Elements of Style by recording a short training presentation. You will then create an infographic that distinguishes academic and professional genres, examining how each community uses layout, structure, and visual logic to shape meaning.

Because GenAI now plays a significant role in workplace writing, you will also learn how to work with AI tools responsibly. Rather than accepting automated text at face value, you will evaluate, direct, and refine AI output to protect accuracy, rhetorical fit, and your own voice. These habits prepare you to judge AI contributions, not simply reproduce them—an essential skill in a labor market where knowledge workers increasingly supervise, audit, and improve machine-generated content.

By the end of this learning module, you will be able to distinguish academic and professional discourse conventions, design visually coherent documents that meet workplace expectations, explain how stylistic and rhetorical moves build clarity and credibility, and demonstrate how human judgment shapes effective communication—even when AI is part of the process.

Guidelines and Evaluation

Guidelines for Visual Language in Professional and Technical Communication

Writing Prompt

In approximately 250 words, explain why visual language—including layout, organization, hierarchy, and design—is increasingly important in professional and technical communication. What design or structural principles from the readings stood out to you, and why? What do they reveal about how knowledge workers communicate in high-stakes settings?

You must reference at least three assigned readings by title and exemplify the principles they introduce. You should provide at least one quote from each of the readings. Be sure to use quotation marks to set off the citation but otherwise don’t worry about citation style. You do not need to list references at end of your note.

Required Readings

1. Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World
2. Workplace Writing
3. Design – The Visual Language That Shapes Our World
   • Design Principles – The Big Design Principles You Need to Know to Create Compelling Messages
   • Page Design – How to Design Messages for Maximum Impact
   • Information Architecture
   • Elements of Art – How to Leverage the Power of Art to Make Visually Compelling Documents
4. Organizational Patterns
   • Organizational Structures
   • Paragraphs

Requirements

• Minimum 250 words
• Reference at least three readings
• Posts that fail to engage with the readings or rely on vague generalities will receive no higher than a C
• One-paragraph responses will not be accepted

Submission

Post your response on Canvas by the required due date.

---

Guidelines for Designing for Clarity and Authority – Instruction Manual for Coworkers

    Designing for Clarity and Authority
        A Three-Stage Professional Workflow

            ▼  Stage 1: Substantive Draft
               • Create your best independent draft
               • Export as PDF and post in the forum
               • Establish your baseline before review

            ▼  Stage 2: Ranking Exercise
               • Read your classmates’ drafts
               • Rank the Top 3 using course principles
               • Post your justifications with word count
               • Learn by comparing diverse models

            ▼  Stage 3: Final Draft Submission
               • Revise with insight from peer models
               • Strengthen clarity, structure, and design logic
               • Submit polished PDF to Canvas
               • Graded using the full assignment rubric

Understanding the Three-Stage Workflow

Professional and technical communicators rarely produce polished documents in a single attempt. Instead, they move through a cycle: drafting, sharing, evaluating peer models, and revising. To align with this real-world process, this assignment includes three separate deliverables completed in sequence:

• Deliverable 1: A substantive draft of your instruction manual section, shared in the discussion forum.
• Deliverable 2: A Ranking Exercise, where you read peers’ drafts and evaluate the Top 3 using course criteria.
• Deliverable 3: A polished final draft submitted to Canvas for instructor evaluation.

This staged structure strengthens your understanding of design principles by allowing you to compose, compare, reflect, and revise. Even though these steps may feel repetitive, each deliverable builds your ability to assess and create professional communication.

Writing Prompt (for a Substantive Draft of the Instructions Manual)

Write a short instruction manual section that teaches coworkers in a small business how to recognize core design principles in professional communication. Your focus is not the content of the assigned reports but the design logic—how the authors of the reports used visual language and information architecture shape clarity, authority, and readability.

In approximately 500 words, create an instructional section titled with an H2 style tag . In this section, you will:

• Define 3 key design principles from the readings (recommended: contrast, alignment, repetition, proximity, hierarchy, unity, emphasis, rhythm, organization).
• Apply each principle by analyzing screenshots from the three assigned professional reports.
• Explain how the screenshots exemplify the design principle and why these moves matter for workplace clarity, credibility, and usability.

Your coworkers need concise explanations and concrete visual examples—not academic theory. Use screenshots to illustrate the principles you discuss.

Guiding Question

How do professional writers use design and information architecture to make complex information clear, credible, and usable—and what can your coworkers learn from these examples?

Structure (Recommended)

• 2–3 sentence introduction grounding this section as part of an internal instruction manual
• Three design principle sections
  • Use H2 style tags for these headings
  • Under each heading:
    • A clear definition based on the Writing Commons readings
    • A labeled screenshot from one of the reports
    • A short explanation of how the screenshot demonstrates the principle

Analyze These Reports (APA 7 References)

Use two or more of the following:

• Gotham Ghostwriters, & WOBS LLC. (2025). A.I. and the writing profession: A comprehensive survey & analysis. https://gothamghostwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/AI-Writing-Survey.pdf
• Ellingrud, K., Sanghvi, S., Dandona, G. S., Madgavkar, A., Chui, M., White, O., & Hasebe, P. (2023, July 26). Generative AI and the future of work in America. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/generative-ai-and-the-future-of-work-in-america
• Microsoft, & LinkedIn. (2024, May 8). 2024 Work Trend Index annual report: AI at work is here. Now comes the hard part. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/ai-at-work-is-here-now-comes-the-hard-part

Requirements

• Use H2 style tags for your principle-section headings.
• Define each principle using at least one paraphrase from the Writing Commons readings.
• Include one labeled screenshot per principle.
• The screenshot must clearly exemplify the principle being discussed.
• Provide APA 7 in-text citations only next to screenshots/examples (no full References list needed).
• Include Word Count at the top.
• Submit to Canvas by the posted deadline.

Evaluation Rubric

Clarity (30 points)

Writing is well structured, framed as an instructional guide, and uses H2 headers for design principles. Sentences are concise, direct, and easy to follow.

Understanding (30 points)

Demonstrates accurate understanding of the selected design principles and explains their rhetorical function for workplace communication.

Screenshots and Examples (30 points)

Includes clear, relevant screenshots and/or excerpted examples from the assigned reports. Screenshots are labeled, exemplify the design principle being discussed, and are referenced with APA 7 in-text citations.

Citation (10 points)

Uses correct APA 7 in-text citations only for screenshots/examples. No final reference list required.

Submission

Submit a substantive draft of this assignment by the due date listed in Canvas. This draft should reflect the best work you can complete independently—before receiving feedback from peers, GenAI, or your instructor. It should be shared as a pdf.

---

Guidelines for the Ranking Exercise (Top 3 Drafts)

Substantive Draft (Completed First & Submitted to Canvas Discussion Forum)

Submit your substantive draft of the instruction manual section to the Canvas discussion forum by the due date listed in Canvas. This draft should reflect the strongest work you can complete independently, before receiving feedback from peers, GenAI, or your instructor. Submit as a PDF.

After you post your draft, begin reviewing the drafts submitted by your classmates.

Purpose

This ranking exercise teaches you to evaluate peer models using the same criteria that will guide your own revision. By studying how peers apply clarity, coherence, brevity, flow, audience awareness, and visual design principles—proximity, alignment, repetition, and contrast—you will sharpen your rhetorical judgment and prepare to strengthen your own final submission.

Writing Prompt

Review at least six peer drafts posted in the Canvas discussion forum. Consider how effectively each draft addresses the assignment prompt and applies the design principles from the course readings.

By the due date listed in Canvas, submit a ranking post that includes a Top 3 list (#1–#3) with student names, a 125–150 word justification for your #1 choice, a 75–100 word justification for your #2 and #3 choices, and a word count at the top of the post. Submit your ranking in the Canvas discussion forum.

Guiding Questions

Consult the rubric above for assessing the substantive and final draft. Also, use these questions to guide your rankings and to identify what makes the strongest drafts effective.

1. Clarity and coherence: Does the draft communicate ideas clearly? Does the information follow a logical, instructional sequence?
2. Audience awareness: Does the draft explain design principles in accessible, workplace-appropriate language for coworkers who may not have design or rhetorical training?
3. Accuracy: Are definitions consistent with the assigned readings? Does the explanation correctly identify how the screenshot illustrates the principle?
4. Visual and structural organization: Do headings, screenshot placement, and paragraphing support readability and quick interpretation?
5. Proximity, alignment, repetition, and contrast: Does the draft model these design principles in its own layout? Does the screenshot analysis show clear understanding of why these principles matter in workplace documents?
6. Overall usefulness: Would this instruction manual help a real coworker quickly understand and apply the design principles?

Why This Matters

Ranking peer drafts gives you the opportunity to compare a range of rhetorical and visual strategies. This comparative judgment strengthens your ability to revise your own instruction manual and deepen your understanding of design principles in professional and technical communication.

Evaluation Rubric (A/B/C Scale Converted to 100 Points)

A (100 points)
The ranking is complete, detailed, and professionally written. Justifications apply course principles accurately and specifically. Reasoning is clear, fair, and well supported with evidence from the drafts. Word count is included.

B (85 points)
The ranking is complete but offers less precise or somewhat general justifications. Course principles are referenced but applied inconsistently. Writing is clear and professional. Word count is included.

C (75 points)
The ranking is incomplete, vague, or minimally developed. Justifications rely on general impressions rather than specific evidence. Limited application of course principles. Word count may be missing.

Below C (65 points)
Ranking is missing, incomplete, unprofessional, or not submitted by the due date listed in Canvas.

---

Guidelines for Final Draft Submission – Instruction Manual for Coworkers

Purpose

The final draft represents the polished version of your instruction manual section. It should show how you strengthened clarity, structure, accuracy, design logic, and workplace usability after completing the Ranking Exercise. Your goal is to produce instructions that help coworkers understand and apply core design principles to improve internal communication.

Writing Prompt

Revise your substantive draft using the insights you gained from:

• Your own rereading
• The peer drafts you evaluated in the Ranking Exercise
• Your improved understanding of proximity, alignment, repetition, contrast, hierarchy, and information architecture

Your revision should improve clarity, audience awareness, and precision in explaining each design principle. Ensure that screenshots are labeled, well-chosen, and clearly connected to your explanations.

Submit your revised instruction manual section to Canvas by the due date listed in Canvas.

Requirements

Submit a polished and carefully edited version of your instruction manual section as a PDF.
Include Word Count at the top.
Ensure that all screenshots, headings, citations, and design components are accurate and complete.
Do not include your Ranking Exercise in this file; that submission is separate.

Evaluation

Your final draft will be evaluated using the 100-point rubric provided above for the substantive draft (see the Guidelines for Designing for Clarity and Authority). All criteria apply to this version: clarity, understanding, effective use of screenshots and examples, and accurate APA 7 in-text citation.

---

Guidelines for Recorded Presentation on The Elements of Style

   Recorded Presentation on The Elements of Style
        A Three-Stage Professional Workflow

              ▼  Stage 1: Substantive Draft
                 • Record your 7–10 minute presentation
                 • Upload your recording file (MP4) to Canvas
                   or share a link from Canva, Google Drive,
                   Microsoft OneDrive, or similar
                 • Upload your slide deck (Google Slides,
                   PowerPoint, or Canva link)
                 • Share presentation link + deck in the forum

              ▼  Stage 2: Ranking Exercise
                 • Watch or skim peer presentations
                 • Select your Top Three
                 • Post justifications + word count
                 • Study strong models before revising

              ▼  Stage 3: Final Draft Submission
                 • Refine clarity, pacing, examples, and slides
                 • Submit your final recording (MP4 or hosted link)
                 • Submit your slide deck (Slides, PPTX, or link)
                 • Evaluated using the assignment rubric

Understanding the Three-Stage Workflow

This assignment follows the same professional communication cycle used in the previous project. You will move through three stages—drafting independently, evaluating peer models, and producing a polished final draft.

Deliverable 1: A substantive draft of your recorded presentation, shared in the discussion forum.
Deliverable 2: A Ranking Exercise of peer presentations, where you identify the Top 3 models using course principles.
Deliverable 3: A final polished recording submitted to Canvas for instructor evaluation.

This staged workflow mirrors the real processes that professional communicators use when preparing training materials: compose, compare, reflect, revise, and publish.

Writing Prompt

Your boss has noticed recurring problems in the clarity and professionalism of memos, reports, and internal communications across the company. To address these issues, your boss has asked you to create a short training presentation that can be shared with current team members and new hires. This presentation should clearly explain the seven stylistic principles from The Elements of Style—clarity, brevity, coherence, flow, inclusivity, simplicity, and unity —and show how writers can revise poorly written passages to improve readability and professional quality.

This exercises teaches you how to explain these principles in plain language and apply them to real workplace examples that require stylistic revision

Instructions

Create a 15-slide presentation and record yourself presenting it in a single, continuous video (no slide-by-slide recordings). You may use any presentation tool (Google Slides, PowerPoint, Canva, Adobe Express, etc.).

Your presentation must include:

• Slide 1: Title slide with your name
• Slides 2–8: One slide per stylistic principle
  • Define the principle in your own words, drawing from the assigned readings
  • Briefly explain why it matters in professional and technical writing
• Slides 9–15: One slide per stylistic principle
  • Provide an excerpt from a professional or technical document that violates the principle
  • Explain what is wrong
  • Revise the passage to improve its style
  • Include an APA 7 citation for the source (in the slide notes or visibly on the slide)

Required Readings

Read the following articles from Writing Commons before completing your presentation:

1. Style – Why Is How You Say Something So Important?
   1. How to Write for the Professional World – Guide to Professional and Business Writing
   2. The Elements of Style
      • Clarity
      • Brevity
      • Coherence
      • Flow, 
      • Inclusivity
      • Simplicity
      • Unity

Deliverables

• A recorded presentation (7–10 minutes) that walks through your slides in one continuous take

Evaluation Criteria

Responsiveness to the Prompt (30 points)

Presentation includes 15 slides: one title slide, seven definition slides, and seven example/revision slides. All stylistic principles are addressed.

Depth of Content (30 points)

Demonstrates understanding of each principle. Definitions are accurate and well-explained. Revisions are rhetorically effective and justified.

Delivery and Visual Clarity (30 points)

Pacing facilities clarity. Presentation is recorded as a single, continuous video. Slides are well-organized, easy to read, and follow basic design principles.

Citation (10 points)

Each example includes a proper APA 7 in-text citation. Sources are credited either in the slide or in the slide notes.

---

Guidelines for the Ranking Exercise – Recorded Presentation on The Elements of StylePurpose

This exercise helps you evaluate how effectively your peers explain stylistic principles and revise real-world examples. By identifying the Top Three presentations, you will deepen your awareness of clear definitions, strong revisions, workplace-friendly explanations, and readable slide design. This evaluative step sharpens your own approach before completing your final recording.

Instructions

After all substantive presentation drafts have been posted, watch or skim each recorded presentation in the discussion forum.

By the due date listed in Canvas, submit a ranking post that includes:

• A Top 3 list formatted as:
#1 – Student Name
#2 – Student Name
#3 – Student Name

• A 125–150 word justification for your #1 selection
• A 75–100 word justification for your #2 and #3 selections
• Word Count at the top of your post

Submit your ranking and justifications in the Canvas discussion forum for this exercise.

Criteria to Consider When Ranking

Clarity and Coherence
Does the presenter define each principle clearly? Does the presentation follow a logical structure?

Effectiveness of Examples and Revisions
Are the stylistic violations easy to understand?
Does the revision meaningfully improve clarity, brevity, coherence, flow, inclusivity, simplicity, or unity?

Slide Design and Delivery
Are slides readable and well-organized?
Does the presenter maintain steady pacing and professional tone?

Your justifications should reference several of these criteria.

Why This Matters

Reviewing peers’ presentations exposes you to a wide range of revision strategies and instructional techniques. This step helps you recognize strong models before revising your own presentation for workplace use.

Evaluation Rubric (A/B/C Scale Converted to 100 Points)

A (100 points)

Ranking is complete and justified with specific, accurate reasoning grounded in stylistic principles. Writing is clear and professional. Word count is included.

B (85 points)

Ranking is complete but less precise or somewhat general. Course principles are referenced but applied unevenly. Writing is clear.

C (75 points)

Ranking is vague, incomplete, or minimally engaged. Limited reference to course principles. Word count may be missing.

Below C (65 points)

Ranking is missing, incomplete, off-task, or not submitted by the due date listed in Canvas.

---

Guidelines for Final Draft – Recorded Presentation on The Elements of Style

Purpose

This final version represents the polished training presentation you would deliver to coworkers and new hires. It should reflect your improved understanding of each stylistic principle, stronger examples and revisions, clearer definitions, and more intentional slide design.

Instructions

Revise your presentation using insights gained from the Ranking Exercise, your own rereading, and your developing understanding of workplace communication.

Your final submission must include:

• A complete 7–10 minute recording of your presentation (MP4 upload or a stable hosted link from Canva, OneDrive, Google Drive, or similar)
• Your slide deck, submitted as a PowerPoint file, Google Slides link, or Canva link

Submit both files to Canvas by the due date listed in Canvas.

Requirements

The final presentation must:

• Include 15 slides following the assignment structure
• Present definitions and explanations that reflect the assigned readings
• Provide clear, well-explained examples and revisions
• Reflect readable, audience-friendly slide design
• Include accurate APA 7 in-text citations for all examples
• Be recorded in one continuous take
• Be professionally paced and easy to follow

Evaluation

Your final submission will be evaluated using the 100-point rubric provided in the assignment guidelines, assessing responsiveness to the prompt, depth of content, delivery and design, and citation accuracy.

---

Guidelines for Infographic Comparison: Academic vs. Professional Writing

Introduction to the Four Deliverables Associated with This Assignment

This assignment helps you deeply understand — and visually demonstrate — that academic writing and professional (business/technical) writing follow very different conventions, even though both aim to communicate clearly and ethically.

You will create a one-page infographic that compares the two styles side-by-side (or in another clear visual structure), highlighting key differences and any similarities in:

• Audience & purpose
• Tone & voice
• Structure & organization
• Use of evidence & citations
• Language choices (e.g., brevity, clarity, formality, jargon)
• Visual & design elements (headings, lists, graphics, layout, scannability)

        ▼  Stage 1: Substantive Draft
           • Create your best independent infographic and design narrative
           • Export infographic as PDF or share a public design link
           • Upload infographic + narrative to the discussion forum
           • Establish your baseline before peer review

        ▼  Stage 2: Ranking Exercise
           • Review all classmates’ drafts in the discussion forum
           • Rank the Top 3 using course principles
           • Post justifications with the required word count
           • Learn by comparing diverse rhetorical and visual models

        ▼  Stage 3: Self-Evaluation (Using the Rubric + GenAI)
           • Use the official rubric to evaluate your own draft
           • Consult two GenAI tools for structured feedback
           • Write a brief self-evaluation using the required format
           • Identify global, section, paragraph, sentence, and visual changes

        ▼  Stage 4: Final Draft Submission
           • Revise based on peer models and your self-evaluation
           • Strengthen clarity, design logic, structure, and visual hierarchy
           • Submit infographic + design narrative to Canvas
           • Graded using the full assignment rubric

Understanding the Four-Stage Workflow

Professional and technical communicators rely on iterative processes that move from independent drafting, to analyzing peer models, to structured self-assessment, and finally to polished revision. Because this assignment combines rhetorical analysis, stylistic principles, and visual communication, you will follow a four-stage workflow common in workplace writing and design.

Deliverables

Deliverable 1: Substantive Draft (Infographic + Design Narrative)

• Create a visual comparison of academic and professional writing that shows key similarities and differences in how each uses visual language, stylistic conventions (brevity, clarity, coherence, flow, simplicity, unity, inclusivity), and information architecture (layout, structure, hierarchy, headings, paragraph organization, document navigation).
• Infographic: one-page visual comparison created in Canva, Adobe Express, or a comparable design tool.
• Design Narrative (≈250 words): short explanation of your design choices that references at least two assigned readings. Use APA 7 for paraphrased foundational principles.
• Export the infographic as a PDF or share a public link.
• Upload both the infographic and the design narrative to the discussion forum by the due date listed in Canvas.

Deliverable 2: Ranking Exercise

• Read all classmates’ drafts in the discussion forum and evaluate the Top 3 based on course principles.
• Submit a Top 3 ranking with required justifications.
• Evaluate drafts using clarity, coherence, brevity, flow, audience awareness, and visual design principles (contrast, alignment, repetition, proximity).Submit your ranking post by the due date listed in Canvas.

Deliverable 3: Self-Evaluation (Using the Rubric + GenAI)

• Use the assignment rubric and two GenAI tools to conduct a structured evaluation of your own draft.
• Follow the required format for global, section, paragraph, sentence, and visual-level analysis.
• Identify revisions you plan to make before submitting the final draft.
• Submit the self-evaluation by the due date listed in Canvas.

Deliverable 4: Final Submission (Infographic + Design Narrative)

• Revise both components based on insights from the Ranking Exercise and your Self-Evaluation.
• Strengthen clarity, rhetorical purpose, layout logic, and visual hierarchy.
• Submit the polished infographic (PDF or public link) and the revised design narrative (PDF or .docx) to Canvas by the due date listed.

---

Note: The next two assignments will be given one grade per this formula–a three-tier scale:

• 50% — Draft submitted, no ranking post (or post missing) You receive credit for making your work available to peers. The ranking post is required to earn additional credit.
• 75% — Ranking post submitted but minimally substantive Your post names top choices but relies on vague impressions (“looks clean,” “I liked the layout”) without connecting observations to specific design decisions or course vocabulary.
• 100% — Ranking post is substantive and specific Your justifications reference particular content and design choices, explain their effect on the reader, and draw on course concepts (proximity, contrast, visual hierarchy, accuracy, comprehensiveness, etc.). Word count targets are met.

---

Guidelines for First Substantive Draft of the Infographic

Writing Prompt

This assignment requires you to create a one-page visual document that compares academic writing and professional (business/technical) writing, clearly showing their different conventions while noting any overlaps. Both styles value clarity and ethics, but they differ significantly in audience expectations, purpose, tone, structure, language, and visual design.

A word on audience — and this distinction is central to your comparison. In professional writing, your reader is coming to your document to solve a problem or make a decision. They aren’t reading for pleasure — they’re busy, goal-oriented, and scanning for what they need. Academic readers are different. They often have genuine interest in the topic, bring deep expertise to it, and are reading to engage with ideas and contribute to a scholarly conversation. These are fundamentally different reading situations, and your design choices should reflect that distinction.

As you build your comparison, keep in mind that both academic and professional writing are broad categories containing many genres. A legal brief and a workplace email are both professional writing; a personal essay and an empirical research article are both academic writing. The strongest comparisons acknowledge that complexity rather than drawing hard lines between the two communities.

Required Primary Readings (you MUST draw from both):

• How to Write for the Professional World – Guide to Professional and Business
• Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

You are also encouraged to revisit earlier assigned readings from:

• Design – The Visual Language That Shapes Our World
• The Elements of Style
• Clarity, Coherence, Unity, Flow, Simplicity, Inclusivity, Brevity
• Design Principles
• Information Architecture
• Page Design
• Elements of Art

Deliverable Format: Table or Infographic

For this assignment, you may submit either a comparison table or an infographic — both are legitimate professional communication formats, and both are acceptable here.

A comparison table organizes information into labeled rows and columns. It’s efficient, precise, and easy to scan. You’ll find this format in workplace reports, onboarding documents, and policy summaries where readers need to locate specific information quickly.

An infographic uses visual elements — icons, color fields, spatial arrangement, imagery — to make relationships feel immediate and engaging. It’s well-suited for audiences who need to absorb a message at a glance, often in contexts like presentations, training materials, or public-facing communication.

The choice is yours, but it should be intentional. Ask yourself: which format best serves your comparison, and which would a busy workplace reader find most useful? Your design narrative should briefly explain why you chose the format you did. Regardless of format, all other requirements apply.

Requirements

1. Use Canva, Adobe Express, or a comparable design tool
2. Create a custom visual document that compares academic and professional writing conventions
3. Reference at least two course readings in your infographic and your design narrative
4. Apply core design principles: contrast, alignment, repetition, and proximity
5. Include APA 7 citations:
   • On the infographic: add a small “Sources” footer with full citations, or include a QR code linking to a reference list — both are acceptable professional solutions
   • In-text (optional): include brief parenthetical citations in small type (e.g., (Writing Commons, n.d.))
   • In the design narrative: use standard APA in-text citations and include a full References list
6. Submit both files to Canvas by the posted deadline:
   • The infographic or comparison table (as a PDF or public design link)
   • The design narrative (as a .docx or PDF)

Evaluation Rubric

Design Narrative (~250 words)

Explicitly explain your major rhetorical and design choices and connect them — with APA 7 in-text citations — to both required Writing Commons articles and at least one additional course concept (e.g., CRAP principles, information architecture, visual hierarchy). Your narrative should also explain why you chose the format you did (table or infographic) and how that choice serves your intended audience.

Citation Requirements (APA 7 – strictly enforced)

• Infographic → small “References” footer with full citations for the two Writing Commons guides (and any others you use)
• Design narrative → standard in-text citations + References list at the end

Evaluation Rubric (100 pts)

Accuracy and Comprehensiveness The comparison accurately represents the conventions of both writing communities without misattributing features or overstating differences. Shared features are acknowledged where appropriate. Key dimensions — audience, purpose, tone, structure, evidence, language, and design — are addressed without significant omissions.

Visual Clarity and Design The document is clear, original, and visually effective. CRAP principles are applied intentionally and serve the comparison. A busy workplace reader can grasp the essential comparison at a glance. Format choice — table or infographic — is appropriate for the content and audience.

Design Narrative Clearly justifies design and format choices with reference to course concepts. Correctly cites both required readings plus at least one additional course concept using APA 7, with full URLs for online sources. Analysis goes beyond describing what was done to explaining why those choices serve the reader.

---

Guidelines for the Ranking Exercise (Top 3 Drafts) – Infographic Comparison – Academic vs. Professional Writing

Purpose This exercise develops your evaluative judgment as a professional communicator. Ranking peer drafts before revising your own work mirrors what professionals do constantly — assessing documents, identifying what works, and making principled decisions about design and communication. Your goal is not just to pick favorites but to articulate why specific choices succeed or fall short.

Instructions Review all infographics posted in the Canvas discussion forum. Select the Top 3 drafts you find most effective. Create one discussion post that includes a numbered Top 3 list with the student’s name, a 125–150 word justification for your #1 choice, a 75–100 word justification for your #2 and #3 choices, and a word count at the top of your post. The recommended length is 275–350 words.

What to Look For Your justifications should draw on three core criteria and the design vocabulary we have developed in this course.

Accuracy Does the comparison correctly represent the conventions of each writing community? Are features attributed to the right community, or do they blur boundaries in misleading ways? Keep in mind that both academic and professional writing contain many genres — the strongest comparisons acknowledge complexity rather than drawing hard lines.

Comprehensiveness Does the infographic address the key dimensions of both writing communities — audience, purpose, tone, structure, evidence, language, and design — without significant omissions? Does the shared principles column, if included, reflect genuine overlap rather than vague generalities?

Clarity Is the information immediately readable and logically organized for a busy workplace reader? Evaluate how well the designer applied course concepts to serve the comparison:

• Proximity: Are related ideas grouped so their relationships are visible at a glance?
• Alignment: Do elements line up cleanly, creating order and visual professionalism?
• Repetition: Are colors, fonts, or category labels used consistently to reinforce structure?
• Contrast: Do size, color, or weight draw attention to the most important distinctions?
• Visual hierarchy: Does the layout guide the reader’s eye from most to least important information?
• Scannability: Can a workplace reader understand the essential comparison within ten seconds?

Vague observations like “it looks clean” or “I liked the colors” are not sufficient. Reference specific visual or textual features and explain their effect on the reader.

Rubric

Accuracy and Comprehensiveness of Evaluation (50 points)

Justifications assess whether the infographic accurately and completely represents both writing communities. Feedback references specific content decisions — what was included, what was omitted, what was misattributed — and explains the effect on the reader. Vague praise or general impressions without grounding in course vocabulary will not score in the upper range.

Clarity and Depth of Analysis (50 points)

Justifications explain how the design choices in the top-ranked infographics demonstrate principles of visual communication — proximity, alignment, repetition, contrast, visual hierarchy, scannability, and audience awareness. The goal is not to critique but to articulate what makes effective visual communication work. Strong justifications help the writer — and the whole class — develop a shared vocabulary for talking about design.

---

Guidelines for the Self-Evaluation (Using the Rubric + GenAI) – Academic vs. Professional Writing

Deliverables

1. A 250–300 word Self-Evaluation and Revision Plan (word count must be placed immediately below the title).
2. A copy of the substantive draft you reviewed using GenAI (attach as a separate file).

Purpose

This exercise teaches you how to use two different GenAI tools as revision partners. Using multiple systems helps you compare feedback, identify patterns, detect inconsistencies, and practice the judgment required to maintain your own agency, voice, and rhetorical purpose.

Instructions

1. Complete a substantive draft of your executive summary and visual summary—something you believe is ready for instructor review.
2. Review the resource Structured Revision – How to Revise Your Work.
3. Use two GenAI tools to evaluate your draft. Ask each tool for structured feedback at the following five levels:
   • Global: purpose, accuracy, audience fit, overall organization
   • Section: headings, sequencing, proportions, placement of key information
   • Paragraph: unity, coherence, development, transitions
   • Sentence: clarity, brevity, concision, readability, tone
   • Visual: proximity, alignment, repetition, contrast; visual hierarchy and usability
4. Write a 250–300 word Self-Evaluation and Revision Plan using the structure below.
5. Place the word count directly beneath the title.

Required Structure for the Self-Evaluation (250–300 words)

1. Global Revisions (≈60–70 words) Describe two global-level revisions you would make based on feedback from the two GenAI tools.
2. Section-Level Revision (≈40–50 words) Explain one section-level improvement you would implement and why it matters.
3. Paragraph-Level Revision (≈40–50 words) Describe one paragraph you identified for revision and the before/after changes you intend to make.
4. Sentence-Level Revision (≈40–50 words) Identify one sentence you would revise and explain the advice and reasoning behind the change.
5. Visual-Level Revision (≈40–50 words) Explain one improvement you would make to your visual summary based on feedback about proximity, alignment, repetition, contrast, or visual hierarchy.
6. Reflection (≈25–30 words) State what you learned about revision and about directing GenAI systems responsibly and effectively.

Self-Evaluation Rubric (100 Points — A/B/C Scale Converted)

A (100 points) The student includes the required word count beneath the title and completes all required components clearly and professionally. Each revision level—global, section, paragraph, sentence, and visual—is addressed with specific before/after explanations. GenAI feedback is evaluated critically, and revision decisions demonstrate strong editorial judgment and accurate application of course principles (clarity, brevity, coherence, flow, proximity, alignment, repetition, contrast). Writing is concise, coherent, and professionally organized.

B (85 points) The student does not include the required word count beneath the title or the report is complete but provides less specific or uneven explanations across the five revision levels. Course principles may be applied inconsistently. Writing is generally clear but may lack concision or precise organization.

C (75 points) The report is partially complete, missing one or more revision levels, or includes vague descriptions that do not show critical evaluation. Writing may be unclear, unstructured, or not meet professional expectations.
Below C (65 points) The self-evaluation is incomplete, does not follow the required structure, misrepresents GenAI use, or is not submitted by the deadline.

---

Guidelines for the Final Submission of Infographic Comparison – Academic vs. Professional Writing

Purpose

The final submission demonstrates your ability to synthesize design principles, stylistic concepts, and rhetorical analysis into two polished professional documents: a visual comparison and a design narrative. This stage asks you to apply insights gained from the Ranking Exercise and your Self-Evaluation to produce clear, usable communication for workplace readers.

A Note on Audience

As you revise, keep the fundamental audience distinction at the center of your thinking. In professional writing, your reader is coming to your document to solve a problem or make a decision — they’re busy, goal-oriented, and scanning for what they need. Academic readers are different. They often have genuine interest in the topic, bring deep expertise to it, and are reading to engage with ideas and contribute to a scholarly conversation. Your design choices should reflect that distinction throughout.

Deliverable Format: Table or Infographic

You may submit either a comparison table or an infographic — both are legitimate professional communication formats.

A comparison table organizes information into labeled rows and columns. It’s efficient, precise, and easy to scan. You’ll find this format in workplace reports, onboarding documents, and policy summaries where readers need to locate specific information quickly.

An infographic uses visual elements — icons, color fields, spatial arrangement, imagery — to make relationships feel immediate and engaging. It’s well-suited for audiences who need to absorb a message at a glance, often in contexts like presentations, training materials, or public-facing communication.

The choice is yours, but it should be intentional. Ask yourself: which format best serves your comparison, and which would a busy workplace reader find most useful? Your design narrative should briefly explain why you chose the format you did.

Requirements

• Revise your visual document to strengthen clarity, visual hierarchy, readability, and application of contrast, alignment, repetition, proximity, and scannability.
• Review your content for accuracy. Ensure that features are correctly attributed to each writing community and that shared features are acknowledged where appropriate. Both academic and professional writing contain many genres — the strongest comparisons reflect that complexity rather than drawing hard lines.
• Submit the visual document as a PDF or provide a stable public link generated through Canva, Adobe Express, or a comparable tool.
• Revise the design narrative (approximately 250 words) so it explains your design and format choices clearly and references at least two assigned readings using APA 7 style. Analysis should go beyond describing what you did to explaining why those choices serve your reader.
• Include APA 7 citations on the visual document — either a small “Sources” footer with full citations, or a QR code linking to a reference list. Both are acceptable professional solutions.
• Upload both the visual document and the revised design narrative to Canvas by the due date listed in Canvas.

What Your Final Submission Should Demonstrate

Your submission should reflect substantial revision informed by the Ranking Exercise and your Self-Evaluation. Strong final submissions demonstrate accuracy and comprehensiveness in the comparison itself, intentional and effective application of design principles, and a design narrative that connects choices to course concepts with specific analytical reasoning.

Evaluation Rubric

Accuracy and Comprehensiveness

The comparison accurately represents the conventions of both writing communities without misattributing features or overstating differences. Shared features are acknowledged where appropriate. Key dimensions — audience, purpose, tone, structure, evidence, language, and design — are addressed without significant omissions.

Visual Clarity and Design

The document is clear, original, and visually effective. CRAP principles are applied intentionally and serve the comparison. A busy workplace reader can grasp the essential comparison at a glance. Format choice — table or infographic — is appropriate for the content and audience.

Design Narrative

Clearly justifies design and format choices with reference to course concepts. Correctly cites both required readings plus at least one additional course concept using APA 7, with full URLs for online sources. Analysis goes beyond describing what was done to explaining why those choices serve the reader.

---

Guidelines for Creative Challenge – The Language of Work

Introduction to the Creative Challenge

This is the capstone of Module 1. Everything you practiced across the earlier assignments converges here: the design principles you analyzed in the Instruction Manual, the stylistic principles you taught in the Elements of Style presentation, and the visual reasoning you developed in the Infographic assignment. Now you apply all of it to a single, high-stakes professional task.

Professional and technical communicators regularly translate complex academic research into clear, actionable documents for non-expert readers. You will select one scholarly research article from the list below and transform it into two professional communication products: an executive summary and a visualization. Both documents should help educated workplace readers understand what the researchers studied, how they conducted the study, what they found, and why those findings matter.

• An executive summary is a concise professional document (~500 words) that explains what a study investigated, how the researchers conducted it, what they found, and why those findings matter for a specific professional or public audience.
• A visualization is a professionally designed visual document that introduces and accompanies your executive summary by telling the story of the study through visual language. Like the opening pages of a Work Trend Index report, a McKinsey brief, or the Gotham Ghostwriters survey you analyzed in the Instruction Manual assignment, a visualization uses hierarchy, data displays, callouts, and structured layout to draw readers in and orient them before they read. It is not a decoration or a poster—it is a narrative told visually. There is no page limit.
  • Important: Your visualization must present the same study you summarized in your executive summary. These are two professional communication products drawn from a single source—not two separate assignments.

Deliverables

Due dates for each deliverable are posted in Canvas. If you use GenAI in any deliverable, submit a Metacognitive Report alongside that submission. See the Metacognitive Report guidelines for details.

Deliverable	Task	Grading
1a. Substantive draft — executive summary	Write and post your executive summary draft to the Canvas discussion forum independently, before receiving any feedback.	50 pts on-time upload + 50 pts evaluated
1b. Peer review — executive summary	Critique two peers’ executive summaries using the requirements as a lens to provide formative feedback.	Evaluated
2a. Substantive draft — visualization	Share a working draft of your visualization with peers. Include a brief note on what you are trying to achieve and where you feel uncertain.	50 pts on-time upload + 50 pts evaluated
2b. Ranking exercise — visualizations	Review peers’ drafts. Rank your top three and explain what makes each effective using course vocabulary.	Evaluated
3. Final submission — Creative Challenge	Revised executive summary, completed visualization, reflection, and Metacognitive Report if AI was used.	Executive summary and visualization carry equal weight. Reflection is a smaller but required component.

Guidelines for the Substantive Draft of the Executive Summary

Articles – Choose One

Select one of the following scholarly articles. Each is a legitimate choice, but they vary considerably in complexity and methodology. Read the full article before drafting your summary.

David, L., Vassena, E., & Bijleveld, E. (2024). The unpleasantness of thinking: A meta-analytic review of the association between mental effort and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 150(9), 1070–1093. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-bul0000443.pdf

• This is a meta-analysis — a study that re-analyzes data from 170 existing studies rather than collecting new data. The researchers did not run new experiments; synthesizing prior research is the study. Understanding this distinction is part of the task. When citing this article, include the journal name, volume, issue, and page numbers in your reference entry.

Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y. T., Situ, J., Liao, X.-H., Beresnitzky, A. V., Braunstein, I., & Maes, P. (2025). Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

• This study is 206 pages long with four experimental sessions. Budget enough reading time before you begin drafting.

Tomlinson, K., Jaffe, S., Wang, W., Counts, S., & Suri, S. (2025, July 22). Working with AI: Measuring the occupational implications of generative AI. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07935

• If you select this article, you will return to it in Module 2 from a different angle. Reading it closely now pays off twice.

Massenkoff, M., & McCrory, P. (2026, March 5). Labor market impacts of AI: A new measure and early evidence. Anthropic. https://www.anthropic.com/research/labor-market-impacts

• Published by Anthropic. Uses real Claude usage data to measure how much AI is affecting different jobs.

Important: The reports listed under Design Models in the Visualization section below are for visual inspiration only. Do not summarize them. Your executive summary must be based on one of the four scholarly articles above.

Requirements

1. Place your name and the exact word count at the top of the page.
2. Use a professional and technical communication (PTC) style—clarity, brevity, coherence, unity, and usability.
3. Explain the research question and its significance.
4. Describe the methods in plain, accessible language.
5. Summarize the key findings accurately and without distortion.
6. Clarify the significance of those findings for your chosen workplace or public audience.
7. Use APA 7 for in-text citations and include a References entry at the end.

This draft should reflect the strongest work you can complete independently—before receiving feedback from peers, GenAI, or your instructor. It is graded for completion, not polished quality.

Submission Guidelines

Submit as a PDF to the Canvas discussion forum by the due date listed in Canvas.

Ranking Exercise – Peer Review

Critique two reviews peers’ executive summary, using the requirements above as a lens to provide formative feedback.

Guidelines for the Visualization

The visualization requires you to apply the design principles—proximity, alignment, repetition, contrast, hierarchy, and scannability—that you studied and practiced throughout this module. Together with your executive summary, it demonstrates that you can communicate research with both verbal and visual authority.

To inform how you design your visualization, analyze how professional designers create websites, visualizations, and copy to popularize and introduce new research findings to a general audience. For sample models, study the use of visual language in the following reports on the future of work:

• Microsoft & LinkedIn. (2024). 2024 Work Trend Index annual report: AI at work is here. Now comes the hard part. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/ai-at-work-is-here-now-comes-the-hard-part
• Microsoft. (2025). 2025: The year the frontier firm is born. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/2025-the-year-the-frontier-firm-is-born
• Ellingrud, K. et al. (2023). Generative AI and the future of work in America. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/generative-ai-and-the-future-of-work-in-america
• Gotham Ghostwriters & WOBS LLC. (2025). A.I. and the writing profession. https://gothamghostwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/AI-Writing-Survey.pdf

Design Principles

When developing your visualization, draw on the principles of art and design you have studied throughout this module:

• Proximity, alignment, repetition, and contrast
• Visual hierarchy and scannability
• Clarity, brevity, and audience-centered structure
• Information architecture—purposeful grouping, sequencing, and sectioning of content so readers can navigate quickly

Requirements

Your visualization should:

1. Include a “Sources” section with an APA 7 citation for your article
2. Communicate the study’s purpose, methods, findings, and significance visually
3. Use callouts, sectional headers, charts, diagrams, or other visual devices where they clarify rather than decorate
4. Support scanning so readers can extract key findings without reading every word

There is no page limit. Some of the strongest models—including the Work Trend Index reports—span many pages. What matters is not length but purposeful design: every visual choice should serve comprehension.

Submission Guidelines

Post your draft to the Canvas discussion forum by due date to receive full credit. Graded for completion. This is your opportunity to get early feedback on your design choices before you finalize. You do not need a polished product—a draft that shows your layout, hierarchy, and content plan is sufficient.

Ranking – Peer Review Exercise

Review your peers’ visualization drafts and identify the three you find most effective as professional communication documents. Your rankings should be grounded in the design principles you have studied, not personal preference.

Purpose: Seeing how others approached the same task sharpens your own design thinking. The goal is not to critique but to articulate what makes effective visual communication work.

• Rank your top three peers’ visualizations.
• For each, write 2–3 sentences explaining what makes it effective. Use course vocabulary: proximity, alignment, contrast, hierarchy, visual storytelling, scannability.
• Submit to the Canvas discussion forum by Mar 27.
• Graded on the specificity and quality of your justifications.

Guidelines for the Final Submission

The final submission is your polished professional deliverable. You will revise your executive summary using what you learned from your draft and the ranking exercise, and submit your completed visualization, reflection, and — if you used AI — a Metacognitive Report.

Executive Summary

Revise your executive summary to:

• Strengthen clarity, organization, coherence, and brevity
• Deepen audience awareness and professional tone
• Verify that your summary faithfully represents the study’s methods and findings
• Confirm the word count appears at the top

Visualization

Complete your visualization by:

• Applying design principles from the module—proximity, alignment, repetition, contrast, hierarchy, and scannability
• Ensuring that visual choices serve comprehension rather than decoration
• Including a “Sources” section with the full APA 7 citation for your article

Reflection (~200 words)

The reflection asks you to step back and consider what you learned across this module—not just in this assignment, but in the full arc from the Instruction Manual through the Elements of Style presentation and the Infographic assignment.

Address the following:

• What did you learn about the language of work across this module?
• How do design principles (proximity, alignment, repetition, contrast, hierarchy) shape clarity and credibility?
• How do stylistic principles (clarity, brevity, coherence, flow, simplicity, unity) distinguish professional from academic writing?
• Which design principles guided your visualization’s layout, hierarchy, and visual logic?
• What proved most challenging? What will you carry forward?

The best reflections are specific — name the exact principle, the exact decision, the exact moment that was hard. This is your chance to show that the module changed how you think about communication.

A Note on Using GenAI

GenAI tools can be useful at several points in this process, but each use requires your active judgment to be worthwhile. Here are some ways to use them effectively:

• Checking your executive summary against the original article. Paste both into a GenAI tool and ask it to identify any places where your summary misrepresents, oversimplifies, or omits something important from the study. Then read its feedback critically—it can miss things and hallucinate.
• Generating a first-pass layout for your visualization. Describe the study’s key findings and ask a tool to suggest how they might be organized visually. Treat this as a rough starting point to react to, not a finished design.
• Testing scannability. Ask a GenAI tool to act as a busy professional and tell you what they can learn from your visualization in 30 seconds of scanning. Use the response to identify gaps in your visual hierarchy.
• Tightening prose. Ask for feedback on a specific paragraph for clarity and brevity. Compare the suggestion to your original and take only what actually improves the sentence.

If you use GenAI for any part of this assignment, you must submit a Metacognitive Report alongside your submission. See the Metacognitive Report guidelines for details.

Optional self-check: Before submitting, consider running your rubric through a GenAI tool to evaluate your own draft against it. Ask the tool to identify any criterion your draft does not yet meet and why. Students who do this step often catch gaps in accuracy or audience framing they would otherwise miss. This is not required, but it is one of the highest-value uses of GenAI in this assignment.

Submission Format

• Executive Summary: PDF
• Visualization: PDF, or if your visualization cannot be uploaded directly, provide a public hyperlink (e.g., Canva or Adobe Express share link)
• Reflection: PDF
• Metacognitive Report: PDF (if you used GenAI)

Evaluation Criteria

The Creative Challenge is graded across three components. Point values are not displayed on individual criteria — they are talking points to guide your work, not a mechanical checklist.

Executive Summary — 45 points

Accuracy and Comprehensiveness

The summary accurately represents the research question, methods, findings, and significance. Key concepts are conveyed without distortion, oversimplification, or omission. The source is cited correctly using APA 7 in-text citations and a complete References entry.

Clarity and Professional Style

The writing is audience-sensitive, concise, and readable. See Clarity at Writing Commons for the full definition. Organization, tone, and framing suit workplace readers rather than academic specialists.

Visualization — 45 points

Visual Storytelling

The visualization tells a coherent story of the study — orienting the reader, building stakes, and making findings scannable — so that a professional can understand the research without reading the executive summary first.

Visual Design

Design principles are applied purposefully: proximity, alignment, repetition, contrast, and hierarchy all serve comprehension rather than decoration.

Accuracy and Completeness

The visualization faithfully represents the study’s purpose, methods, findings, and significance. A “Sources” section includes a full APA 7 citation for the article.

Reflection — 10 points

Addresses all five prompts with specificity. The best reflections connect design and stylistic choices to your actual experience with this assignment — not just a restatement of course vocabulary.

---

Guidelines for the Metacognitive Report

For detailed guidance, examples, and the complete list of legitimate AI roles, see Metacognitive Report – AI Writing Ethics: Balancing Agency, Voice & Disclosure.

Your report must include:

1. Header — Beneath your title, record left-justified:

• Word Count / Name / GenAI Tools Used / Chat Log Links

2. GenAI Usage Table(s) — One table per tool with these columns:

• Step in Writing Process (Prewriting, Drafting, Revising, etc.)
• Number of Chats
• Primary Purpose(s) (Thought Partner, Research Assistant, Teaching Assistant, etc.)
• Notes on Use (2–3 sentences: what you asked, what the AI gave you, and whether you accepted, revised, or rejected it — and why)

3. Critical Reflection (minimum 250 words) — Explain:

• Which roles AI played and why
• At least one moment where you rejected or corrected AI output
• How AI helped you learn something you then applied independently
• Where you made decisions AI could not make for you

Submission Guidelines

Upload your report along with your assignment to Canvas by the required due date.

Evaluation Rubric

Criterion	What Earns Full Points
Required components & specificity (header, table(s), chat logs, word count; concrete examples from every major assignment)	Everything present, accurate, and specific — no vague generalities
Critical analysis of agency, iteration, risks, & lessons learned — including explicit discussion of when and why you accepted chunks of AI-generated text, what you changed or kept, and what that choice reveals about your judgment as a writer	Clear references to required readings; honest discussion of how you stayed in control; accepted passages are identified and defended, not just mentioned
Clarity, organization, & authentic voice	Logical flow, concise sentences, error-free PDF; authentic voice evident — writing does not read as AI-generated