One of the most urgent challenges in today’s writing classroom is not getting students to submit essays—it’s getting them to think while doing it. As generative AI continues to automate grammar, structure, and even “voice,” the real question is this: How do we reward intellectual work in an age when polished prose can be faked?
One answer is deceptively simple: grade the thinking, not just the product.
To do that, we must build assignments that expose the messy, iterative, and reflective nature of real analysis. We’re talking about work that requires metacognition, self-assessment, and visible decision-making—tools like reflective annotations, process journals, and “thinking out loud” assignments. These formats ask students not just to present a claim but to show how they arrived at it.
Let’s take the following essay prompt as a case study:
In World War Z, a global pandemic rapidly spreads, unleashing chaos, institutional breakdown, and the fragmentation of global cooperation. Though fictional, the film can be read as an allegory for the very real dysfunction and distrust that characterized the COVID-19 pandemic. Using World War Z as a cultural lens, write an essay in which you argue how the film metaphorically captures the collapse of public trust, the dangers of misinformation, and the failure of collective action in a hyper-polarized world. Support your argument with at least three of the following sources: Jonathan Haidt’s “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” Ed Yong’s “How the Pandemic Defeated America,” Seyla Benhabib’s “The Return of the Sovereign,” and Zeynep Tufekci’s “We’re Asking the Wrong Questions of Facebook.”
To ensure students are doing the cognitive heavy lifting, pair this prompt with a process journal designed to track how students analyze, revise, and reflect. Here’s how that works:
Assignment Title: Thinking in the Rubble: A Process Journal for the Collapse of Trust Essay
Overview:
As students build their World War Z argument, they’ll also keep a process journal—a candid record of how they think, doubt, change direction, and use (or resist) AI tools. Think of it as a behind-the-scenes cut of their essay in the making. The journal is worth 20% of the final grade and will be assessed for clarity, critical insight, and honest engagement with the writing process.
Journal Requirements:
1. Reflective Annotations (Pre-Writing)
Choose one paragraph from each of the three sources you plan to use. For each, write a 4–5 sentence annotation addressing:
- Why you chose it
- What it reveals about trust, misinformation, or institutional failure
- How you might use it in your essay
📌 Goal: Show how you’re thinking with your sources—not just cherry-picking quotes.
2. Thesis Evolution Timeline
Document your thesis at 2–3 stages of development. For each version:
- State your working thesis (even if it’s a mess)
- Explain what caused you to change or clarify it
- Note the moment of insight or struggle that sparked the revision
📌 Goal: Track the intellectual arc of your argument.
3. Thinking Out Loud Log
Choose one option:
- Audio: Record a 3–5 minute voice memo in which you talk through a draft issue (e.g., integrating a source, clarifying your angle, or refining a counterargument)
- Written: Compose a 300-word journal entry about a problem spot in your draft and how you’re trying to fix it
📌 Goal: Reveal the inner dialogue behind your writing decisions.
4. AI Transparency Statement (If Applicable)
If you used ChatGPT or any AI tool at any point, briefly document:
- Your prompt(s)
- The output you received
- What you kept, changed, or rejected
- Why
📌 Goal: Reflect on AI’s influence—not to punish, but to encourage digital literacy and self-awareness.
5. Final Reflection (Post-Essay, 300 Words)
After submitting your essay, write a closing reflection that answers:
- What new insight did you gain about public trust or misinformation?
- What was the hardest part of the process—and how did you push through?
- What part of your final paper are you proudest of, and why?
📌 Goal: Practice self-assessment and connect the work to broader learning.
Submission Format:
Submit as a single Google Doc or PDF titled:
LastName_ThinkingInTheRubble
Assessment Criteria (20 Points Total):
- Depth and honesty of reflection
- Evidence of critical engagement with readings and ideas
- Clear documentation of thesis development and revision
- Intellectual transparency (especially regarding AI use)
- Clarity, specificity, and personal insight across all entries
This process journal does more than scaffold an essay—it teaches students how to think. And more importantly, it gives instructors a way to see that thinking, reward it, and design grading practices that can’t be hijacked by a chatbot with decent syntax.
Cinemorphosis 
Leave a comment