Week 14 — Two Questions, Four Statuses: Reading Teen Statements Fairly

Assignment 13 of the term — count Dataset I's keys on Marcia's two dimensions, read the statements and record R8 with this week's concepts, and explain the identity statuses to someone who has them 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 10's two-dimension grid for parents' replies, and on Week 13's first reading of record R8 for the imaginary audience.

The task

Dataset I, the identity-status set, is illustrative: it was built for this course and describes no real teen. It holds eight teen statements, 2 keyed to each of four statuses on two dimensions, exploration (actively trying out options before choosing) and commitment (having made a choice and holding to it). Marcia (1966), "Development and Validation of Ego-Identity Status", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, described the four statuses: identity diffusion (neither), identity foreclosure (commitment without exploration), identity moratorium (exploration without commitment yet), and identity achievement (both). Statuses can change over time, and no status is keyed as better for every teen.

A youth soccer coach (illustrative) tells a 15-year-old's family, "Teens who haven't picked a path by 15 are drifting. The ones who know early are the mature ones." 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. Dataset I holds 8 teen statements, and 2 are keyed identity foreclosure and 2 keyed identity achievement, the two statuses with a commitment. What percent of the 8 statements carry a commitment?
2. Dataset I holds 8 teen statements, and 2 of them are keyed identity moratorium. What percent of the 8 statements are keyed identity moratorium?
3. Dataset I holds 8 teen statements spread evenly across Marcia's 4 identity statuses. How many statements are keyed to each status?
4. In Dataset I's 8 statements, 2 are keyed identity foreclosure and 2 keyed identity achievement, the two statuses with a commitment, and 2 are keyed identity diffusion. How many percentage points larger is the percent with a commitment than the percent in identity diffusion?

Beside each count, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: name the two statuses with a commitment, and explain with Statement 3 ("I'm going to be a pharmacist like my mom. I've always known it.") and Statement 7 ("I tried teaching and nursing, and I chose nursing because I love the hospital floor.") why exploration, not commitment, separates identity foreclosure from identity achievement.
• Problem 2: sort Statement 5 ("I'm volunteering at a clinic and taking a coding class to see what fits.") and Statement 1 ("I don't really think about what I'll do. I'll figure it out someday.") on both dimensions and name each one's status, and explain that a status describes a statement, never a label for a real teen.
• Problem 3: explain why Marcia's statuses are cells in a grid that can change over time and differ across areas of life rather than a ladder, and use Statement 4 ("My family's always done it this way, so that's what I believe too.") to say why no status is keyed as better for every teen.
• Problem 4: say why the difference is written in percentage points rather than percent, and read record R8 of the running case (illustrative: at 15 years, at a youth program, in an interview given with permission, the teen says they are trying robotics and art and "haven't decided anything") against Dataset I and Dataset E, as exploration without commitment yet within identity vs. role confusion.

Explain it to a non-expert

Write a 3–5 sentence message to the coach. Explain, in everyday words, that identity is described on two dimensions, whether a teen is trying out options and whether the teen has made a choice, so "knowing early" alone cannot tell a choice made after exploring from a choice made without it; that a teen still trying options is actively exploring, not drifting; and that statuses can change. Name one limit, such as that a status describes what a teen says, not the teen, or that a family path chosen without wide exploration can be a respected choice. Be respectful: the coach cares about the players. More than one good message is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a friend who says, "Anyone who visits five cities before choosing where to live is lost." Model message: "Choosing a place to live well usually takes two things: looking around and then deciding. Someone still visiting cities is doing the looking, which is often how a good choice gets made. One fair caveat: some people pick a city quickly and are happy there, so a long search is not the only good path."

Use that pattern for the coach, 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 with a teen who has not decided on a path, 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 coach 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 adolescent social-emotional development: Dataset I, the illustrative identity-status set, read on two dimensions, exploration and commitment; and the running case's record R8 read against Marcia's statuses and Erikson's stages. 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 health guideline, never use an identity status as a label for a real teen or family, never rank families or cultures, never treat a correlational finding as a cause, and never give clinical or mental health advice about a real teen.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The data: Dataset I (illustrative) holds eight teen statements, 2 keyed to each status; identity diffusion is neither exploration nor commitment, identity foreclosure is commitment without exploration, identity moratorium is exploration without commitment yet, and identity achievement is both; Marcia (1966) described the four statuses, and Erikson (1950) named the identity vs. role confusion crisis, the fifth of his five childhood and adolescent stages. Record R8 (illustrative, 15 years, youth program, interview with permission): the teen says they are trying robotics and art and "haven't decided anything."
PROBLEM P1: Dataset I holds 8 teen statements, and 2 are keyed identity foreclosure and 2 keyed identity achievement, the two statuses with a commitment. What percent of the 8 statements carry a commitment?
PROBLEM P2: Dataset I holds 8 teen statements, and 2 of them are keyed identity moratorium. What percent of the 8 statements are keyed identity moratorium?
PROBLEM P3: Dataset I holds 8 teen statements spread evenly across Marcia's 4 identity statuses. How many statements are keyed to each status?
PROBLEM P4: In Dataset I's 8 statements, 2 are keyed identity foreclosure and 2 keyed identity achievement, the two statuses with a commitment, and 2 are keyed identity diffusion. How many percentage points larger is the percent with a commitment than the percent in identity diffusion?
After the four counts, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, the two statuses with a commitment named, plus which dimension separates Statement 3 from Statement 7, and why; for P2, Statement 5 and Statement 1 sorted on both dimensions with their statuses, plus a status as a description of a statement, never a label for a person; for P3, why the statuses are cells that can change and differ across areas of life rather than a ladder, plus Statement 4 used to say why no status is better for every teen; for P4, why the difference is in percentage points, plus R8 read against Dataset I and Dataset E. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a coach who says teens who have not picked a path by 15 are drifting, explaining exploration and commitment, that moratorium is active exploration, and that statuses can change, 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 and percentages (40 points), reading the statements 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 coach only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
WORKING UNITS: A correct count, percent, or percentage-point difference = 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 percentage-point reading and R8 read against Dataset I and Dataset E, AND a message to the coach that explains exploration and commitment 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 status used as a label for a real person, foreclosure and achievement treated as the same, moratorium treated as a problem, the statuses credited to Erikson, or one family's path called better than another's 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 coach with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, checkable counts and steps = 2; a relevant but incomplete count 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 coach 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 coach, and your reflection — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the two-by-two grid 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 14 skills — counting Dataset I's keys on exploration and commitment, telling identity foreclosure from identity achievement and moratorium from foreclosure, reading a status as a description of a statement rather than a label, reading statuses as able to change, and reading record R8 against Marcia's statuses and Erikson's stages — 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 coach, 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 the identity statuses or their limits. 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 credit the identity statuses to Erikson, treat any confident plan as identity achievement, call moratorium a problem, or use a status as a label for a real teen or family. 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