In Unit 4, AI is permitted аs а cоllаbоrative partner, the mоst access you have had at any point in this course. Explain what that means: what specific tasks are AI tools allowed to help with in this unit, and what is still not allowed regardless of how AI is used? Then explain why documentation in the Process Log matters just as much this unit as it did in Unit 3, even though the permitted AI uses have expanded.GRADING GUIDANCE:Full credit (9–10): Student accurately identifies permitted AI uses (brainstorming, alternative phrasings, pressure testing arguments, revision support) and the firm line that remains in place (AI-generated writing may not be submitted and presented as the student's own). Explanation of documentation's continued importance is clear: student understands that expanded access does not reduce the need for honest, specific disclosure, and that the Process Log is how genuine collaboration is distinguished from passive acceptance of AI output.Partial credit (6–8): Student identifies most permitted and prohibited uses but may miss a category or give a vague explanation of why documentation still matters at this expanded level of access.Minimal credit (3–5): Student has a partial understanding of the Unit 4 AI policy but cannot clearly articulate the permitted/prohibited distinction or why documentation remains necessary.No credit (0–2): Response is missing, off-topic, or demonstrates no understanding of the unit's AI policy.
Unit 4 аsks yоu tо trаnsfоrm your Pаper 3 research rather than write a new paper from scratch. In your own words, explain the difference between genuinely transforming an argument and simply repackaging it in a new format. Then describe your own Final Project: which format did you choose, what specifically changed between your Paper 3 argument and this project, and what stayed the same?GRADING GUIDANCE:Full credit (9–10): Student clearly distinguishes repackaging (cosmetic change only, same content in a new container) from genuine transformation (real changes to audience, scope, claim, evidence, or structure). Accurately describes their own chosen format and names at least one specific, substantive change from Paper 3, not just a formatting or length difference. Response demonstrates understanding of why the distinction matters.Partial credit (6–8): Student grasps the general distinction but explanation is incomplete or somewhat vague. Description of their own project is present but the named change may be more cosmetic than substantive, or only partially specific.Minimal credit (3–5): Student conflates repackaging and transformation, or cannot clearly describe what changed in their own project beyond format or length. Limited understanding of the unit's central task.No credit (0–2): Response is missing, off-topic, or demonstrates no understanding of the unit's core concept.