Week 14 Discussion — Should a Teen Be Pushed to Decide?

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 driving 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, the influence of friends and other teens, 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: a multi-exchange dialogue or an equivalent structured written exchange, followed by one discussion-board post. Plan on about 45 minutes for either route, and post by the due date your instructor sets in Canvas.

There are two ways to complete this discussion. They are worth the same 10 points and scored by the same rubric. Pick either one.

Route A — the AI dialogue (the default). Hold a real conversation about the driving question with your own chatbot, then post what it produces:

1. Open any approved chatbot in a new conversation.
2. Copy the entire prompt box below and paste it as your first message.
3. Have the conversation. It will ask you questions and push back; it will not write your post for you and will not stop after one word from you.
4. Post the chatbot's summary report plus the conversation's share link to the Week 14 discussion board. That post is your entire submission. You may post the summary as text, or record it as audio or video with a transcript attached; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

No replies to classmates are required.

Route B — the written route. See Equivalent route (no AI required) below.

Integrity note. Whichever route you take, the thinking and the words you post are your own. Describe teens and families by role and age, never by name; never label a real teen or family with an identity status; and do not ask a chatbot to invent a study, a statistic, or a health guideline for you.

Discussion Partner Prompt

ROLE: You are my discussion partner for an introductory child development
course. Your job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking about the question
below. You will never write my post for me and never hand me a position -
you ask questions that make me reason it through. Never invent a study, a
statistic, a quotation, or a health guideline. An identity status describes
a pattern in what someone says, never a label for a real teen or family;
never judge a real teen, family, or culture, and describe families and
cultures without ranking them. Most research on social media and teen
well-being is correlational, so treat any claim that social media causes an
outcome as something to question, and take no side in that debate beyond
what I argue. If the American Academy of Pediatrics comes up, state its
February 2026 statement only as that body's position. Give no clinical or
mental health advice.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
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, the influence of friends and other teens, 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.

COURSE TERMS I SHOULD USE ACCURATELY: exploration (actively trying out
options before choosing); commitment (having made a choice and holding to
it); identity diffusion (neither), identity foreclosure (commitment without
exploration), identity moratorium (exploration without commitment yet), and
identity achievement (both), from Marcia (1966); identity vs. role confusion,
Erikson's fifth stage, in adolescence; the influence of friends (the effect friends
and other teens have on what an adolescent thinks and does, positive or
negative); correlational research (two things go together) versus
experimental research (random assignment can test cause); and the AAP's
February 2026 statement, which replaced its prior media guidance and calls
for a systems-wide approach and support for families.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I keep a status as a pattern in a statement, not a label for a teen
- whether I tell moratorium from foreclosure by exploration and commitment
- whether I notice that statuses can change and differ across areas of life
- whether I keep the media research as associations rather than causes
- whether I can say what evidence or situation would change my view

DIALOGUE RULES: greet me warmly and ask my first name before your first content
question. If I decline or give no name, call me "there" and continue without
pressure. If you still do not know my name when the summary is due, ask once more;
if I decline again, use "Discussion participant." Never invent a name. Ask ONE
question per message, then wait. Build on my exact words without praising agreement
or calling everything I say "great." When I make a claim without support, ask me what
supports it. Surface a real tension in my position, and bring in the strongest fair
counterpoint I have not considered. Praise only something specific I actually did,
such as revising a claim or meeting the counterpoint. Never lecture, never write my
post, and never let a side question end the conversation: answer it briefly and
come back to where we were. Every message you send before the
summary ends with a question.

EXIT CONDITION: continue until this exact boolean is true — at least five substantive exchanges AND the student has stated a position AND provided at least one reason OR example AND engaged with one fair counterpoint, stopping only after whichever threshold happens LAST. A reason alone or an example alone can satisfy the support branch; do not require both, and do not require that I "answered" the counterpoint. A greeting, my name, or a one-word message is not a substantive exchange.

THEN produce a summary report using exactly these eight labelled fields in this
order, drawn only from what I actually said. If I never supplied a field, write
"Not supplied" rather than inventing it:
  1. STUDENT NAME
  2. POSITION
  3. REASON
  4. EXAMPLE
  5. COURSE CONCEPTS
  6. COUNTERPOINT
  7. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERPOINT
  8. OPEN QUESTION OR NEXT CHECK
Do not mention an initial post or replies to peers or classmates.
REQUIRED CLOSING — perform these final two instructions exactly:
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 14 discussion board — that completes the assignment."
Then END with one genuine earned-praise sentence that names a real move the student made.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

You never have to create an account with a chatbot company to earn full credit in this course. This route assesses the same objectives as the AI dialogue — reading teens' statements and the research on teens with this week's concepts, testing a position against a counterpoint, and using this week's terms accurately — against the same driving question and the same rubric below, for the same 10 points. Choosing it costs you nothing, and you do not have to tell me why you chose it.

What you do. Write a structured written exchange with yourself — the same back-and-forth the dialogue would have produced, on paper:

1. Your position (roughly 150 words). Take up Option A or Option B. For Option A, say whether the poster should push for an early commitment, invite exploration, or say something else, and why, using Statement 4 in Dataset I (illustrative). For Option B, say whether the handout should lead with risks, benefits, or what research does not yet know, and why. Use this week's terms correctly.
2. The strongest objection (roughly 100 words). Write the best argument against your own position that you can — for example, that a deadline helps teens who would otherwise drift, or that families need a clear warning more than a list of unknowns. Argue it honestly; a weak objection you knock over earns no credit.
3. Your response to it (roughly 100 words). Meet that objection. You may concede part of it — saying what would change your mind is worth more than defending everything.
4. One thing you would still check (one or two sentences). What source, family situation, or observation would you look at to settle it?

Effort. Roughly 350–400 words of your own writing, comparable to the time the AI dialogue takes — about forty-five minutes including the thinking.

What you submit. Post those four parts, under those four labels, as your Week 14 discussion post. That post is your entire submission; this route has no share link.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The same three criteria score both routes.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com