Discussion Board Post on Evaluating Sources
Budget: $30 – $250 USD
Description
Primary Response is due by Thursday (11:59:59pm Central), Peer Responses are due by Saturday (11:59:59pm Central).
Primary Response: Within the Discussion Board area, write 200–250 words that respond to the following questions with your thoughts, ideas, and comments. This will be the foundation for future discussions by your classmates. Be substantive and clear, and use examples to reinforce your ideas.
For this Discussion Board, please complete the following:
Purpose of This Discussion
Every writer has a unique voice—the way they choose words, structure sentences, and express ideas. However, sometimes it's hard to recognize our own voice until we see it transformed. This week, you'll use artificial intelligence (AI) to help you discover what makes your writing distinctly yours by comparing it to a speaker you admire.
This isn't about copying someone else's style. It's about understanding your own voice more clearly by seeing how it differs from others.
Your Task
Complete the following:
Write a 100–150-word paragraph on any topic that interests you. You can write about any topic, big or small. For example, you could consider a big topic such as climate change, social media’s impact on communication, or the value of a college degree to society. Alternatively, you could write about a small topic such as your favorite food, a funny memory from childhood, or the reason you prefer cats over dogs. Write naturally—don't try to imitate anyone else. This should sound like you.
Choose a favorite speaker or writer (could be a public figure, author, podcaster, and so on).
Use AI to transform your paragraph by doing the following:
Paste your paragraph into your preferred AI tool.
Ask it to rewrite your paragraph "in the voice and style of [your chosen speaker]."
Keep the same content and ideas, but let AI adjust the tone, word choice, and sentence structure.
In 100–150 words, reflect on the comparison by answering the following questions:
What differences do you notice between your original voice and the AI's version?
What stayed the same? What changed?
What does this reveal about your natural writing voice?
Which version feels more authentic to you, and why?
Submit the following in your Discussion Board post:
Your original paragraph
The prompt you submitted to the AI generator
The response AI gave you
Your reflection
Peer Responses (Due Saturday)
Reply to at least 2 classmates. In your replies, do the following:
Comment on what you noticed about their original voice.
Share your thoughts on how the AI transformation compared.
Reflect on any insights about voice that their post sparked for you.
AI Use for This Assignment
You must use AI to transform your paragraph, but your original writing and reflection should be entirely your own. This is about discovering your authentic voice through comparison.
Watch the following video for help with accessing Copilot:
Responses to Other Students: Respond to at least 2 of your fellow classmates with at least a 50–100-word reply about their Primary Response regarding items you found to be compelling and enlightening. To help you with your discussion, please consider the following question:
What differences or similarities do you see between your posting and other classmates' postings?
For assistance with your assignment, please use your textbook and all course resources.
Discussion Board Rubric
Grading Criteria Excellent Proficient Developing Not Demonstrated Points Possible Points Earned
Assignment Completion and Organization: The post follows all instructions and includes all four required parts. Word counts are met, and the submission is clearly organized. All 4 components included (original paragraph, AI prompt, AI response, reflection). Meets 100-150 word count for both paragraph and reflection. Clear organization with logical structure. (13-15 points) 3-4 components present, minor word count issues, generally well-organized structure (9-12 points) 2 components present or incomplete sections, significant word count problems (20+ words off), poor organization. (5-8 points) Major elements missing, severe word count issues, no clear organization. Evidence of AI misuse (using AI for original writing or reflection). (0-4 points)
15
Critical Analysis and Comparison: The post identifies specific differences between the student’s original writing and the AI version. It analyzes what changed and what stayed the same with concrete examples. Identifies specific differences with concrete examples from both versions. Analyzes word choice, sentence structure, and tone changes. Addresses both what changed AND what stayed the same. (19-20 points) Identifies several differences with some specific examples. Shows good understanding of how versions differ. Covers most comparison elements adequately. (13-18 points) Makes general observations about differences but lacks specificity. Surface-level analysis without deeper insights. Limited use of examples. (6-12 points) Vague or missing identification of differences. Little to no meaningful comparison between versions. Evidence of AI misuse in analysis or reflection. (0-5 points)
25
Self-Awareness and Voice Recognition: The post shows the student learned something about their own writing voice. They explain what makes their writing style unique. Demonstrates clear insights about personal writing voice. Identifies specific characteristics that make their writing unique (rhythm, vocabulary, perspective). Shows genuine learning about their own style. (15 points) Shows good awareness of writing voice with solid observations. Identifies some unique writing elements. Evidence that exercise enhanced self-understanding. (9-14 points) Basic awareness of writing voice but lacks depth. Makes general statements about style without specificity. Minimal evidence of learning. (1-8 points) Fails to demonstrate awareness of personal writing voice. Doesn't identify unique characteristics or show learning from exercise. Evidence of AI misuse in reflection. (0 points)
15
Authenticity Assessment and Writing Quality: The post thoughtfully explains which version feels more authentic and why. Overall, the writing is clear and error-free. Provides thoughtful, well-reasoned explanation of which version feels more authentic and why. Writing is error-free, clear, and professionally polished. (10 points) Explains authenticity preference with reasonable justification. Good writing quality with minor errors that don't interfere with meaning. (6-9 points) Brief mention of authenticity preference with limited explanation. Some writing errors that occasionally affect clarity. (1-5 points) Missing or unclear authenticity assessment. Poor writing quality with multiple errors that impede understanding. Evidence of AI misuse in writing or reflection. (0 points)
10
Participation: Include at least 2 substantive follow-up responses to peers. At least 2 substantive peer responses that demonstrate careful reading. Adds meaningful value to discussion with professional, encouraging tone. (4 points) 2 peer responses. Shows good engagement with peers' work and contributes to discussion appropriately. (3 points) 1-2 responses that are brief or superficial. Shows minimal engagement with peers' work, basic politeness but lacks depth. (1-2 points) Missing required responses or fails to engage meaningfully with peers' work. May be disrespectful or unhelpful. Evidence of AI-generated peer responses. (0 points)
4
Peer Responses: Peer responses bring additional information to the conversation, such as offering additional tips for staying motivated, sharing examples of how you stay motivated, or providing additional suggestions on the benefits of earning a degree. Offers specific, insightful comments about classmates' original writing voices. Thoughtfully discusses AI transformations and contributes new perspectives that enhance understanding. (6 points) Makes solid observations about peers' writing and transformations. Shows understanding of the exercise and offers reasonable insights with supportive feedback. (4-5 points) Makes basic comments but lacks depth or specificity. Shows minimal insight and provides generic feedback without substantial contribution. (1-3 points) Responses are superficial, generic, or missing. Fails to engage meaningfully with assignment or provide helpful feedback. Evidence of AI-generated responses. (0 points)
6
Total Points
Primary Response is due by Thursday (11:59:59pm Central), Peer Responses are due by Saturday (11:59:59pm Central).
Primary Response: Within the Discussion Board area, write 200–250 words that respond to the following questions with your thoughts, ideas, and comments. This will be the foundation for future discussions by your classmates. Be substantive and clear, and use examples to reinforce your ideas.
For this Discussion Board, please complete the following:
Purpose of This Discussion
Every writer has a unique voice—the way they choose words, structure sentences, and express ideas. However, sometimes it's hard to recognize our own voice until we see it transformed. This week, you'll use artificial intelligence (AI) to help you discover what makes your writing distinctly yours by comparing it to a speaker you admire.
This isn't about copying someone else's style. It's about understanding your own voice more clearly by seeing how it differs from others.
Your Task
Complete the following:
Write a 100–150-word paragraph on any topic that interests you. You can write about any topic, big or small. For example, you could consider a big topic such as climate change, social media’s impact on communication, or the value of a college degree to society. Alternatively, you could write about a small topic such as your favorite food, a funny memory from childhood, or the reason you prefer cats over dogs. Write naturally—don't try to imitate anyone else. This should sound like you.
Choose a favorite speaker or writer (could be a public figure, author, podcaster, and so on).
Use AI to transform your paragraph by doing the following:
Paste your paragraph into your preferred AI tool.
Ask it to rewrite your paragraph "in the voice and style of [your chosen speaker]."
Keep the same content and ideas, but let AI adjust the tone, word choice, and sentence structure.
In 100–150 words, reflect on the comparison by answering the following questions:
What differences do you notice between your original voice and the AI's version?
What stayed the same? What changed?
What does this reveal about your natural writing voice?
Which version feels more authentic to you, and why?
Submit the following in your Discussion Board post:
Your original paragraph
The prompt you submitted to the AI generator
The response AI gave you
Your reflection
Peer Responses (Due Saturday)
Reply to at least 2 classmates. In your replies, do the following:
Comment on what you noticed about their original voice.
Share your thoughts on how the AI transformation compared.
Reflect on any insights about voice that their post sparked for you.
AI Use for This Assignment
You must use AI to transform your paragraph, but your original writing and reflection should be entirely your own. This is about discovering your authentic voice through comparison.
Watch the following video for help with accessing Copilot:
Responses to Other Students: Respond to at least 2 of your fellow classmates with at least a 50–100-word reply about their Primary Response regarding items you found to be compelling and enlightening. To help you with your discussion, please consider the following question:
What differences or similarities do you see between your posting and other classmates' postings?
For assistance with your assignment, please use your textbook and all course resources.
Discussion Board Rubric
Grading Criteria Excellent Proficient Developing Not Demonstrated Points Possible Points Earned
Assignment Completion and Organization: The post follows all instructions and includes all four required parts. Word counts are met, and the submission is clearly organized. All 4 components included (original paragraph, AI prompt, AI response, reflection). Meets 100-150 word count for both paragraph and reflection. Clear organization with logical structure. (13-15 points) 3-4 components present, minor word count issues, generally well-organized structure (9-12 points) 2 components present or incomplete sections, significant word count problems (20+ words off), poor organization. (5-8 points) Major elements missing, severe word count issues, no clear organization. Evidence of AI misuse (using AI for original writing or reflection). (0-4 points)
15
Critical Analysis and Comparison: The post identifies specific differences between the student’s original writing and the AI version. It analyzes what changed and what stayed the same with concrete examples. Identifies specific differences with concrete examples from both versions. Analyzes word choice, sentence structure, and tone changes. Addresses both what changed AND what stayed the same. (19-20 points) Identifies several differences with some specific examples. Shows good understanding of how versions differ. Covers most comparison elements adequately. (13-18 points) Makes general observations about differences but lacks specificity. Surface-level analysis without deeper insights. Limited use of examples. (6-12 points) Vague or missing identification of differences. Little to no meaningful comparison between versions. Evidence of AI misuse in analysis or reflection. (0-5 points)
25
Self-Awareness and Voice Recognition: The post shows the student learned something about their own writing voice. They explain what makes their writing style unique. Demonstrates clear insights about personal writing voice. Identifies specific characteristics that make their writing unique (rhythm, vocabulary, perspective). Shows genuine learning about their own style. (15 points) Shows good awareness of writing voice with solid observations. Identifies some unique writing elements. Evidence that exercise enhanced self-understanding. (9-14 points) Basic awareness of writing voice but lacks depth. Makes general statements about style without specificity. Minimal evidence of learning. (1-8 points) Fails to demonstrate awareness of personal writing voice. Doesn't identify unique characteristics or show learning from exercise. Evidence of AI misuse in reflection. (0 points)
15
Authenticity Assessment and Writing Quality: The post thoughtfully explains which version feels more authentic and why. Overall, the writing is clear and error-free. Provides thoughtful, well-reasoned explanation of which version feels more authentic and why. Writing is error-free, clear, and professionally polished. (10 points) Explains authenticity preference with reasonable justification. Good writing quality with minor errors that don't interfere with meaning. (6-9 points) Brief mention of authenticity preference with limited explanation. Some writing errors that occasionally affect clarity. (1-5 points) Missing or unclear authenticity assessment. Poor writing quality with multiple errors that impede understanding. Evidence of AI misuse in writing or reflection. (0 points)
10
Participation: Include at least 2 substantive follow-up responses to peers. At least 2 substantive peer responses that demonstrate careful reading. Adds meaningful value to discussion with professional, encouraging tone. (4 points) 2 peer responses. Shows good engagement with peers' work and contributes to discussion appropriately. (3 points) 1-2 responses that are brief or superficial. Shows minimal engagement with peers' work, basic politeness but lacks depth. (1-2 points) Missing required responses or fails to engage meaningfully with peers' work. May be disrespectful or unhelpful. Evidence of AI-generated peer responses. (0 points)
4
Peer Responses: Peer responses bring additional information to the conversation, such as offering additional tips for staying motivated, sharing examples of how you stay motivated, or providing additional suggestions on the benefits of earning a degree. Offers specific, insightful comments about classmates' original writing voices. Thoughtfully discusses AI transformations and contributes new perspectives that enhance understanding. (6 points) Makes solid observations about peers' writing and transformations. Shows understanding of the exercise and offers reasonable insights with supportive feedback. (4-5 points) Makes basic comments but lacks depth or specificity. Shows minimal insight and provides generic feedback without substantial contribution. (1-3 points) Responses are superficial, generic, or missing. Fails to engage meaningfully with assignment or provide helpful feedback. Evidence of AI-generated responses. (0 points)
6
Total Points