Week 12 — Rules, Fairness, and the Word "Bullying": Reading a School-Age Child's Words

Assignment 11 of the term — work four small counts from this week's pinned models, read record R7 and two school scenes with this week's concepts, and explain the bullying definition to a parent who has it wrong.

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 Child Observation Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together. It builds on Week 3's habit of keeping what a child said apart from what it might mean, and on Week 10's point that aggression can mean shutting a child out on purpose.

The task

Record R7 of the running case is illustrative: it was built for this course and describes no real child. At 11 years, in an after-school club, the child argues that a game's rule "is the rule, but it isn't fair if new kids never get a turn", and says a best friend is "someone who has your back". This week you also met two illustrative school scenes. In the lunchroom seating dispute, two friends of equal standing argue once over a seat and one pushes the other's tray aside; the next day they sit together and it does not happen again. In the group chat, several classmates leave one classmate out of the class group chat on purpose, week after week, and post jokes about them.

A parent picking a child up from the club (illustrative) says, "My kid argued with a friend at lunch once. That's bullying, and the school should punish the other kid." Your job is to answer the way a child development student would, starting from a few plain numbers.

Work these four problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. Kohlberg described 3 levels of moral reasoning, each with 2 stages. How many stages are there in all?
2. Dataset E lists 5 of Erikson's childhood and adolescent stages, and industry vs. inferiority is stage 4. How many of the 5 stages come after it?
3. Stopbullying.gov's definition of bullying has 3 elements, and the lunchroom seating dispute meets 1 of them. How many elements are missing?
4. Record R7 was written at 11 years, and middle childhood runs at about 6 to 11. How many years does that approximate range span?

Beside each count, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: name Kohlberg's three levels in order, and explain with R7's rule statement why its reason is not about punishment or reward and why one sentence earns the child no level.
• Problem 2: name the crisis at stage 4 and its approximate period, and explain with the class election from the chapter (a child of about 9 who loses and says, "I'm bad at everything") that social comparison is typical and that self-esteem becomes differentiated by area.
• Problem 3: name the two elements the lunchroom dispute is missing and say why it is conflict rather than bullying, and name the type of bullying the group chat shows.
• Problem 4: say why the range is approximate, and read R7's rule statement through Gilligan's ethic of care, attention to who is being left out.

Explain it to a non-expert

Write a 3–5 sentence message to the parent. Explain, in everyday words, that stopbullying.gov counts something as bullying only when it is unwanted and aggressive, involves a real or perceived difference in power, and is repeated or likely to be repeated; that a one-time argument between friends of equal standing is conflict; and what the site tells adults to do when they do see bullying. Name one limit, such as that a power imbalance can be hard to see from outside, or that this course describes scenes and never decides about a real child. Be respectful: the parent cares about their child. More than one good message is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker who says, "My phone dropped one call in a tunnel, so the phone is broken." Model message: "A phone counts as broken when it fails in more than one way and keeps failing, not when one call drops in a place with no signal. One dropped call in a tunnel is the tunnel, not the phone. One fair caveat: if calls keep dropping in places with a strong signal, that is worth checking."

Use that pattern for the parent, with your own wording and evidence.

Your reflection. After you revise, write two or three sentences on one of these, your choice: (a) which problem changed how you would talk about a conflict between children, and why; or (b) which word or phrase in your first draft you replaced, and what the new wording gets right.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four counts, the four brief interpretations, and your message to the parent 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 calculations 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, and write your reflection.
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 work for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory child development course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about middle childhood social-emotional development: Kohlberg's three levels of moral reasoning and Gilligan's ethic of care read on the running case's record R7, Erikson's industry vs. inferiority, and stopbullying.gov's definition of bullying checked against two illustrative scenes. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a study, a statistic, a quotation, or a piece of bullying guidance, never assign a Kohlberg level to a real child, never call a real child a bully, never rank families or cultures, and never give advice about a real child or school.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The data: record R7 (illustrative, 11 years, after-school club): the child argues that a game's rule "is the rule, but it isn't fair if new kids never get a turn" and says a best friend is "someone who has your back". Kohlberg's levels, in order: preconventional (punishment, reward, self-interest), conventional (approval of others, the group's rules and laws), postconventional (principles such as justice and rights that rules serve), each with two stages; Kohlberg scored reasoning across whole dilemma interviews, so one sentence earns no level. Gilligan argued Kohlberg's scheme undervalued an ethic of care, reasoning centered on relationships, responsibility, and other people's needs; later evidence on gender differences is mixed. Dataset E: trust vs. mistrust, autonomy vs. shame and doubt, initiative vs. guilt, industry vs. inferiority (middle childhood, about 6 to 11), identity vs. role confusion. Stopbullying.gov's definition: unwanted, aggressive behavior among school-aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance and is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time; its types are verbal, social, and physical. The lunchroom seating dispute: two friends of equal standing argue once over a seat and one pushes the other's tray aside; it does not happen again. The group chat: several classmates leave one classmate out on purpose, week after week, and post jokes about them.
PROBLEM P1: Kohlberg described 3 levels of moral reasoning, each with 2 stages. How many stages are there in all?
PROBLEM P2: Dataset E lists 5 of Erikson's childhood and adolescent stages, and industry vs. inferiority is stage 4. How many of the 5 stages come after it?
PROBLEM P3: Stopbullying.gov's definition of bullying has 3 elements, and the lunchroom seating dispute meets 1 of them. How many elements are missing?
PROBLEM P4: Record R7 was written at 11 years, and middle childhood runs at about 6 to 11. How many years does that approximate range span?
After the four counts, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, Kohlberg's three levels named in order, plus why R7's reason is not about punishment or reward and why one sentence earns no level; for P2, the stage 4 crisis and its approximate period, plus social comparison and differentiated self-esteem shown with the class-election remark; for P3, the two missing elements and why the lunchroom dispute is conflict, plus the type of bullying in the group chat; for P4, why the range is approximate, plus R7 read through Gilligan's ethic of care. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a parent who says one lunchroom argument is bullying, explaining the 3 elements, that a one-time argument between equals is conflict, and what stopbullying.gov tells adults to do, with one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words, and then write a short reflection on my revision.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: working the counts (40 points), reading the reasoning and the record (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 working points, 4 reading points, 2 clarity points, or 1.5 showing-work points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my message to the parent only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
WORKING UNITS: A correct count = 2; the right numbers and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing count or the wrong numbers or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
READING 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 the approximate-range reading and R7 read through Gilligan's ethic of care, AND a message to the parent that explains the 3 elements and what stopbullying.gov tells adults to do and names a limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reading = 0; naming a term alone does not earn a unit, and a Kohlberg level assigned to a real child, any conflict called bullying, Gilligan read as saying men and women cannot reason the same way, or a child of divorce called destined for poor outcomes is not accurate. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reading error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to child development, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the message to the parent with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, checkable numbers and steps = 2; a relevant but incomplete number or step = 1; a bare final number 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 reply. 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 reply 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 counts and their brief interpretations AND written my message to the parent 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 counts 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 work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with all four counts, their brief interpretations, your message to the parent, and your reflection — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the three-element check with a short explanation; 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 12 skills — counting Kohlberg's stages and Erikson's stages, reading record R7 through Kohlberg's levels and Gilligan's ethic of care without labelling the child, checking a scene against stopbullying.gov's three elements, and explaining the definition to a parent 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, the message to the parent, and the reflection. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one count or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have about moral reasoning or the bullying definition. Submit the revised work, 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 counts, 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, and do not let it place R7 at a Kohlberg level from one sentence, call the lunchroom argument bullying, say Gilligan proved that men and women reason differently, or add bullying advice that stopbullying.gov does not give. 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