Week 14 Discussion — Should a Teen Be Pushed to Decide? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

A high school counseling office wants to hang a poster that reads, "Pick your path by junior year." Down the hall, a youth program is drafting a one-page handout for families about teens and social media, and nobody can agree on the first sentence. This week you met identity vs. role confusion, Marcia's four identity statuses on two dimensions, exploration and commitment, parents and friends, and digital media and well-being as an area of active research.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: A high school counseling office plans a poster that urges every student to "pick your path by junior year." Should the poster push teens toward an early commitment, invite them to keep exploring, or say something else? Use identity moratorium versus identity foreclosure, exploration and commitment, the point that statuses can change and can differ across areas of life, and Statement 4 in Dataset I (illustrative: "My family's always done it this way, so that's what I believe too."), and give the strongest case for a choice you did not make.

Option B: A youth program (illustrative) is writing a one-page handout for families about teens and social media. Should the handout lead with the risks, with the benefits, or with what research does not yet know? Use correlational versus experimental research, peer influence, and the American Academy of Pediatrics' policy statement "Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents" (February 2026), stated as that body's position, and give the strongest case for a lead you did not choose.

There is no single right position. A clear deadline helps some teens and pressures others, and a handout that leads with risk can protect a family or scare it; where you land depends on which teens you picture, what a family values, and what the evidence can carry.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Working on your own: this version of the discussion is written entirely from your own reasoning, in your own words.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• For Option A, say whether the poster should push for an early commitment, invite exploration, or say something else, and why; for Option B, say whether the handout should lead with risks, benefits, or what research does not yet know, and why.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (exploration and commitment, the four identity statuses, peer influence, correlational versus experimental research) correctly.
• Give your judgment, with a reason, and give the other choice its strongest case. Never label a real teen or family with an identity status.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: name a teen the classmate's poster or handout might leave out, offer the strongest case for the view they did not take, or point to Statement 4 in Dataset I or the correlational limit to support or complicate their reading. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option A and would invite exploration rather than set a deadline. A teen who is still trying options is in moratorium, which Marcia's model treats as active exploration, not a problem, and statuses can change and differ across areas of life. The other side has a point: some teens drift without a nudge, and a teen like Statement 4 may be proud to follow a family path. I would want to hear how first-year and final-year students read the poster before hanging it.

Notice how it uses exploration and commitment, names moratorium correctly, ties the point to Statement 4, gives the other side its due, and says what it would still check. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com