# Feedback on Your Practice (6 Feb 2026)

## Overview
Your practice piece attempts to synthesize two conflicting perspectives on human-chatbot relationships. The core ideas are present, but the execution needs refinement to meet AWQ standards. **Current estimated score: 55-65/100 (D+ to C-)**

---

## Strengths ✓

1. **Clear Identification of Opposing Views**
   - You correctly identify that Article A is positive and Article B is negative
   - Both perspectives are mentioned

2. **Basic Structure**
   - You have an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion
   - Good attempt at paragraph organization

3. **Some Citation Attempts**
   - You attempt to cite sources (Sklav et al., Laetadius et al.)

---

## Critical Issues to Fix 🔴

### 1. **Synthesis Missing (Most Important)**
**Issue:** Your piece describes each article separately rather than synthesizing them.

**Your current approach:**
- Para 1: Article A says X
- Para 2: Article B says Y
- Conclusion: They disagree

**What's needed (synthesis):**
- Show the *relationship* between the two views
- Highlight the *tension/contradiction*
- Use comparative language: "whereas," "in contrast," "conversely"

**Example of better synthesis:**
> "While Article A finds that chatbot interactions build trust and improve emotional wellbeing, Article B raises significant concerns that the same technology creates unhealthy emotional dependence. The core tension is whether human-chatbot relationships fundamentally support or harm users."

### 2. **Incomplete or Missing In-Text Citations**
**Issue:** You mention author names but lack proper APA format and citation placement.

**Current:** "Sklav et al. (2021) discuss..." ✓ (This is good!)  
**But:** "Laetadius et al. (2021) pointed..." — Missing proper parenthetical citation at the end

**Actionable Fix:**
- Use consistent author-prominent style: `[Author](Year) [reporting verb]...`
- Or signal-phrase style: `According to [Author](...), [idea].`
- Cite after each key claim, not just at paragraph start

### 3. **Unclear Thesis Statement**
**Issue:** Your intro doesn't preview the main arguments or establish the debate clearly.

**Your current thesis:** "researches about human-chatbot relationship are still in progress." ✗  
This is a fragment and doesn't summarize the debate.

**Better thesis might be:**
> "While Article A argues that AI chatbots foster beneficial trust-based relationships, Article B contends that emotional dependence on chatbots poses serious mental health risks, reflecting an ongoing debate about human-technology relationships."

### 4. **Grammatical & Clarity Issues**

| Issue | Your Text | Suggested Fix |
|-------|-----------|---------------|
| Fragment | "By reading Researches..." | Remove or rephrase  |
| Vague pronoun | "their conclusions are totally different" | Specify conclusions about what |
| Missing verb | "talking to chatbot will yield mental issues" | Add subject: "Frequent talking to chatbots..." |
| Informal tone | "mix the reality of chatbot" | "confuse the chatbot with reality" or "anthropomorphize the chatbot" |

### 5. **Paraphrasing Needs Work**
**Issue:** Some sentences are too close to the original text.

**Example - your text:**
> "users tend to share deeper conversations and self-disclose after receiving an AI chatbot's positive, accepting, and non-judgmental responses"

**Problem:** This is nearly copied from Article A.

**Better paraphrase:**
> "According to Hong et al., users are willing to open up when chatbots provide supportive and impartial feedback."

---

## Actionable Improvement Plan (Priority Order)

### ⭐ **PRIORITY 1: Strengthen Synthesis (Highest Impact)**
**DO THIS FIRST** — This accounts for ~30% of the grade

- [ ] Add a comparison sentence in your introduction: "Whereas Article A finds... Article B argues..."
- [ ] Use contrast words (whereas, conversely, in contrast, however, yet) between summaries
- [ ] In your conclusion, explicitly state the nature of the disagreement (e.g., "values vs. risks," "short-term benefits vs. long-term harm")

**Example revision for introduction:**
```
These two articles examine the human-chatbot relationship, reaching
opposite conclusions. Whereas Sklav et al. (2021) emphasize the positive 
effects of AI chatbots on user wellbeing and emotional expression, 
Laetadius et al. (2021) warn that such relationships escalate mental health 
risks through emotional dependence. This summary presents both perspectives 
on this contested issue.
```

### ⭐ **PRIORITY 2: Fix Citations (15% of grade)**
- [ ] Add APA citations after each key claim (not just at paragraph start)
- [ ] Ensure author names and years are in parentheses: `(Sklav et al., 2021)`
- [ ] Vary citation styles for academic tone (mix author-prominent with signal phrases)

**Example:**
```
Users show greater self-disclosure in chatbot conversations when they 
perceive the bot as non-judgmental (Sklav et al., 2021), suggesting that 
trust is central to the human-chatbot bond.
```

### ⭐ **PRIORITY 3: Revise Introduction & Conclusion (10% of grade)**
- [ ] Rewrite thesis to clearly forecast the two opposing views
- [ ] Conclusion should go beyond "researches are in progress" — explain WHY this debate matters

### **PRIORITY 4: Improve Paraphrasing (10% of grade)**
- [ ] Reread your text for phrases lifted directly from the articles
- [ ] Rewrite in your own words using synonym substitution and sentence restructuring
- [ ] Example: "share deeper conversations" → "engage in more intimate discussions" or "reveal more personal thoughts"

### **PRIORITY 5: Proofread Grammar (10% of grade)**
- [ ] Fix fragments (e.g., the last sentence)
- [ ] Replace informal phrases ("mix the reality," "will yield") with academic language ("conflate," "produce," "contribute to")

---

## Scoring Rubric (What's Being Graded)

| Criterion | Full (18–20) | Good (15–17) | Acceptable (12–14) | Poor (0–11) |
|-----------|-------------|------------|------------------|------------|
| **Summary Accuracy** | Both articles accurately summarized | Minor omissions | Key points missing | Inaccurate/vague |
| **Synthesis** | Explicit comparison & contrast of both views | Attempts comparison | Limited connection | No synthesis |
| **Paraphrasing** | Original wording throughout, clear meaning | Mostly paraphrased, minor copying | Some direct phrases | Heavy copying |
| **Academic Tone** | Formal, precise, objective language | Mostly formal with minor lapses | Mixed formality | Informal/conversational |
| **Citations (APA)** | Correct format, placed after claims | Minor format issues | Missing some citations | Missing/incorrect |

---

## Next Steps

1. **Rewrite your introduction** with a clear thesis that previews both arguments
2. **Add synthesis language** connecting the two perspectives (aim for 1-2 sentences)
3. **Revise for paraphrasing** – check each sentence against the original articles
4. **Insert citations** after each major claim
5. **Proofread** grammar and tone

---

## Learning Resources  
- Study Guide to Academic Writing Quiz: `/workspaces/genAI2026/courses/UCLC1008/materials/course materials in MD/Study Guide to Academic Writing Quiz.md`
- Sample A Answer (80/100): `/workspaces/genAI2026/courses/UCLC1008/materials/course materials in MD/Sample Academic Writing Quiz (Student_Answer).md`
- AWQ Instructions: `/workspaces/genAI2026/courses/UCLC1008/materials/course materials in MD/Academic Writing Quiz Instructions.md`

**Estimated time to revise:** 60–90 minutes  
**Expected score after revision:** 70–80/100 (B range)

---

*Generated: 6 February 2026*