Fluent but Not Their Own

Émile's first need is ownership and evidence, not more fluency. The teacher should ask him to identify which sentences came from the model, explain what claim each generic sentence is supposed to prove, and replace at least two generic claims with specific evidence from the sources or his own data. A short conference and a revision log are more useful than line editing. Aïcha's first need is control at the sentence and paragraph level, but the teacher should protect her ideas. Mark two or three problematic sentence boundaries and one pronoun pattern, not every error; ask her to read the draft aloud and divide it into paragraphs by function. The feedback sequence should be: ideas and evidence first, organisation second, then a focused language edit. If the teacher corrects all of Aïcha's grammar, she may lose the strong survey and counterargument that make the letter worth reading. The different feedback reflects different learning priorities, not different standards.

The ownership criterion should be applied through a process, not an accusation. The teacher can ask Émile to explain two sentences and to show his planning notes or source list. If the sentences closely match the model, the teacher can frame it as a learning issue: the class analysed the model to learn moves, not to reuse sentences. The student should paraphrase, cite the source of ideas, and add evidence from his own survey or the provided articles. The teacher should document the conversation and follow the school's academic-integrity policy if the overlap is extensive. Suspicion alone should not produce a zero. A fair response is to require a revision with a source log and to assess the revised version, while recording that the original did not meet the ownership criterion. The same process protects students who have been helped too much by a tutor or by a writing tool: they must be able to explain and revise their choices.

The drafts suggest a task-design adjustment more than a rubric overhaul. The rubric already includes ownership, so the teacher should clarify what evidence counts: planning notes, source log, ability to explain choices, and revision history. The task should include a required evidence bank before drafting, such as two sources or a small class survey, and an in-class planning page that stays with the draft. That makes generic claims harder and gives the teacher process evidence. The teacher should not lower the language weight for Aïcha; instead, she needs focused mini-lessons and a revision opportunity. For Émile, the ownership weight should remain meaningful, but the teacher should not add a new punishment criterion after the fact. The change is to build the conditions for ownership into the task and to communicate them before the next draft. If the class has already submitted, the teacher can apply the clarified criterion consistently and offer revision.