Week 1 — Reading a Feedback Loop: The Clinic Chart Report

Assignment 1 of the term — read a body-temperature feedback loop from its numbers to its parts, and explain it to someone new to anatomy and physiology.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based report. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and A&P Lab & Inquiry practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put the feedback loop together on one small chart.

The task

The body-temperature loop is an illustrative dataset constructed for this course (not real clinical data). One clinic chart shows three readings: 36.0 °C, 37.0 °C, and 38.5 °C. The set point is 37.0 °C, and the chart reads every value against a model band of 36.5 to 37.5 °C.

Work these four problems, showing your subtraction and the unit each time:

1. On the illustrative clinic chart the set point is 37.0 °C and the low reading is 36.0 °C. How many degrees Celsius below the set point is the low reading?
2. On the same chart the high reading is 38.5 °C and the set point is 37.0 °C. How many degrees Celsius above the set point is the high reading?
3. The chart's model band runs from 36.5 °C to 37.5 °C. How many degrees Celsius wide is the band from its lower edge to its upper edge?
4. The band's lower edge is 36.5 °C and the low reading is 36.0 °C. How many degrees Celsius below the lower edge of the band is the low reading?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: name the receptor, the control center, and at least one effector for the low reading, and explain why the response makes this negative feedback.
• Problem 2: name the two effectors that answer the high reading and say how each one sheds heat.
• Problem 3: explain the difference between a set point and a normal range, and why this band is a teaching model rather than a norm for any one person.
• Problem 4: name one example of positive feedback from this week and explain why the temperature loop is not one.

Explain it to a non-expert

A younger relative asks you, "Why do I shiver when I'm cold, and sweat when I'm hot?" Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains the loop in everyday words: what senses the change, what compares it, and what pushes back. Name one limit of the explanation, such as that the thermostat picture is a classroom model and the body often uses several effectors at once. Describe what bodies do; do not give health advice. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine explaining a car's cruise control to a friend. Model answer: "The car keeps checking its own speed. A small computer compares that speed with the number you picked. If the car slows on a hill, the computer gives it more gas until it is back at your number. It is a simple picture: a real car also has to deal with brakes, wind, and traffic, which this explanation leaves out."

Use that pattern for the body-temperature loop, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief interpretations, and your message to your younger relative before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show each subtraction when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one calculation or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the report for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory human anatomy and physiology course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about reading a feedback loop. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, and never invent a measurement, a study, or a percentage. Never give medical advice and never diagnose me or anyone I describe.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The data: the body-temperature loop, an illustrative dataset constructed for this course (not real clinical data). One clinic chart shows readings of 36.0, 37.0, and 38.5 degrees Celsius. The set point is 37.0 degrees Celsius and the model band runs from 36.5 to 37.5 degrees Celsius.
PROBLEM P1: On the illustrative clinic chart the set point is 37.0 °C and the low reading is 36.0 °C. How many degrees Celsius below the set point is the low reading?
PROBLEM P2: On the same chart the high reading is 38.5 °C and the set point is 37.0 °C. How many degrees Celsius above the set point is the high reading?
PROBLEM P3: The chart's model band runs from 36.5 °C to 37.5 °C. How many degrees Celsius wide is the band from its lower edge to its upper edge?
PROBLEM P4: The band's lower edge is 36.5 °C and the low reading is 36.0 °C. How many degrees Celsius below the lower edge of the band is the low reading?
After the four answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, the receptor, the control center, and at least one effector for the low reading, and why the response makes the loop negative feedback; for P2, the two effectors that answer the high reading and how each sheds heat; for P3, the difference between a set point and a normal range, and why this band is a teaching model rather than a norm; for P4, one positive-feedback example from this week and why the temperature loop is not one. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a younger relative explaining, in everyday words, what senses the change, what compares it, and what pushes back, with one named limit of the explanation.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations (40 points), physiological reasoning (32 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (16 points), and showing work so it can be checked (12 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 computation points, 4 reasoning points, 2 clarity points, or 1.5 showing-work points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my message to the younger relative only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct gap in degrees Celsius = 2; the right two values with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing gap or the wrong values = 0. Do not penalize an equivalent valid method or notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1-P3 separately, an interpretation that meets both parts named for that problem = 2; exactly one part = 1; neither = 0. For P4, BOTH a positive-feedback example with a reason the temperature loop is not one AND a message to the younger relative with the loop in everyday words and a named limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0; calling the control center the part that senses, naming shivering as the response to heat, or calling negative feedback harmful is not accurate. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labelled evidence a newcomer to anatomy and physiology can follow, with technical terms in everyday words = 2; evidence that can be followed but needs a second read because of a missing label or an unexplained term = 1; no readable evidence = 0. Include the message with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear evidence.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, both values, the subtraction, and the unit visible = 2; one relevant value or step = 1; a bare result or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied all four answers and their brief interpretations AND written my message to the younger relative AND revised at least one calculation or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; it may end in .5 and must not be rounded to a whole number. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my calculations and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised clinic chart report, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised clinic chart report with all four answers, their brief interpretations, and your message to your younger relative — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the chart with the band and the three readings plus a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 1 skills — tracing a feedback loop through its receptor, control center, and effector, computing each reading's gap from the set point and the band with every step shown, telling negative from positive feedback, and explaining the loop in everyday words — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, the four brief interpretations, and the message to your younger relative. Then check your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, one criterion at a time, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one calculation or explanation you changed, the evidence that led to the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised report, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The calculations, reasoning, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com