Week 14 Child Observation Workshop: Ten Minutes with a Teen Leadership Group

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Ten minutes of teens talking about plans, friends, beliefs, and family can show every one of Marcia's identity statuses, if you write down what each teen says before you decide what it means. This week you learned to rate a statement on two dimensions, exploration and commitment, to name the status it fits, and to remember that statuses can change and can differ across areas of life. In this workshop you work from an illustrative running record of a teen leadership group at a community center. You sort each statement by area of life, code its status, count the codes as an event sample, follow one teen across four areas, compare two theories on one statement about family background, and catch a chatbot turning a short record into a label for a teen.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: In ten one-minute entries from an illustrative teen leadership group, how are the statements split among Marcia's four identity statuses, how does one teen's status differ across areas of life, and what can one short conversation not tell you?

Workshop data: An illustrative ten-minute group conversation among four teens at a community center

Source: A ten-entry running record of a group conversation among four teens, ages 15 to 17, at a community center's teen leadership group, given with the program's written permission and written for this workshop as an illustrative example; it is printed in full in Part 4, describes no real teen, family, or program, and names nobody.

• Rows: 10 timed entries, one per minute from 3:00 to 3:09, one row each in the data table
• Columns: time, teen by letter and age, what the teen said, and blank columns for your area of life and your status code
• Scope: four teens, A to D, ages 15 to 17, at one illustrative group meeting, Day 1, spring

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A notebook or any free note-taking app for observation records kept in two columns (behavior and words; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for time and event sample counts and percentages; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about age norms, studies, and health guidance the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them
• a notebook or any free note-taking app
• a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet)
• one approved chatbot

Ways of working

• running-record
• sampling
• apply-the-theory

Procedure

1. Read the ten entries in the data table in Part 4. They are an illustrative running record, built for this workshop, of a group conversation among four teens, ages 15 to 17, at a community center's teen leadership group on Day 1, in spring, from 3:00 to 3:10; no real teen, family, or program is described, and teens appear only by letter and age. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: You can say in one sentence what the record shows and that it is illustrative.
2. For each entry, write the area of life it is about (career, beliefs, friendships, family background, or activities), then rate it present or absent on exploration and on commitment and give it one code: D for identity diffusion (neither), F for identity foreclosure (commitment only), M for identity moratorium (exploration only), or A for identity achievement (both). Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Every one of the ten rows carries one area and exactly one code.
3. Open a blank sheet. Type Time, Teen, Area, and Code in cells A1 to D1, enter your ten rows in rows 2 to 11, then count each code with =COUNTIF(D2:D11,"D"), =COUNTIF(D2:D11,"F"), =COUNTIF(D2:D11,"M"), and =COUNTIF(D2:D11,"A"). Tool: a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet). Check: The four counts add up to 10, the number of one-minute intervals.
4. Turn each count into a percent of all intervals: divide the count by 10 and multiply by 100. Add the F and A percents to get the percent with a commitment, add the M and A percents to get the percent with exploration, then find the gap, in percentage points, between the M percent and the F percent, and write each step in the count table. Tool: a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet). Check: The four status percents add up to 100, and the gap is written in percentage points.
5. Complete the area table for Teen D: copy each of Teen D's four statements, its area of life, and its code, then note what the four codes show together. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Teen D's four rows are filled, and no code is written about Teen D as a person.
6. Complete the theory table: for the entry at 3:05, write what Marcia's identity statuses explain and what Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems add or dispute, then answer the five analysis questions. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Each theory has one specific sentence tied to the 3:05 entry.
7. Paste the Part 6 prompt into one approved chatbot after your completed tables, read its reply, and write your critique report; or complete the equivalent route instead. Tool: one approved chatbot. Check: You have at least three quoted errors, each corrected by hand.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if no spreadsheet is available.

Code and count the entries by hand from the data table: mark D, F, M, or A beside each entry, count each mark, divide each count by 10, and multiply by 100. Complete every scaffold table, analysis question, and the critique step on paper, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

The data come first: an illustrative ten-minute running record of a teen leadership group, Day 1, spring, with columns for your area and code.

Student scaffold table 1

Time	Teen (letter, age)	What the teen said (words only)	Area of life	Your code (D, F, M, or A)
3:00	Teen A, 16	Says, "I'm taking a welding class and a photography class to see which one I like."
3:01	Teen B, 15	Says, "My aunt runs a bakery, and I've always known I'll take it over."
3:02	Teen C, 17	Asked about religion, shrugs and says, "I don't really think about it."
3:03	Teen D, 16	Says, "I went to three youth groups with friends last year, and I picked the one that fits what I believe."
3:04	Teen B, 15	Says, "I'm still figuring out which friend group feels like me. I sit with different people at lunch."
3:05	Teen D, 16	Says, "I've been asking my grandparents where our family comes from and learning their language, but I don't know yet what it means to me."
3:06	Teen A, 16	Says, "My parents have always told me what's right and wrong, so that's what I go by."
3:07	Teen D, 16	Asked about jobs after school, laughs and says, "I'll worry about that later."
3:08	Teen C, 17	Says, "I volunteered at an animal shelter and a clinic, and I've decided to study to be a vet tech."
3:09	Teen D, 16	Says, "I'm trying out for both the debate team and the school band this spring."

Count each code across the ten one-minute intervals, then turn each count into a percent of the ten intervals.

Student scaffold table 2

Code	Count	Percent of 10 intervals	How you worked it
D — identity diffusion
F — identity foreclosure
M — identity moratorium
A — identity achievement
With a commitment (F plus A)
With exploration (M plus A)
Gap between the M and F percents

Follow Teen D across four areas of life; the codes describe statements, never the teen.

Student scaffold table 3

Time	Teen D's statement (words only)	Area of life	Code	What the four codes show together
3:03
3:05
3:07
3:09

Compare two theories on the 3:05 entry, where Teen D describes asking grandparents about the family's background.

Student scaffold table 4

Theory	What it explains about the 3:05 entry	What it leaves out or disputes
Marcia's identity statuses (Marcia, 1966)
Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems (family as microsystem, culture as macrosystem)

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your sheet or a hand count, how many intervals carry each code, what percent of the ten intervals is each, what percent carry a commitment, what percent carry exploration, and what is the gap between the M and F percents, in percentage points? Show each count, each division, and the subtraction.
2. Using your area table, describe how Teen D's four statements are coded across four areas of life. What does it tell you that one teen's statements fit different statuses in different areas?
3. In 3–4 sentences, explain why the entries at 3:01 and 3:08 get different codes even though both teens have chosen a path, and why the entry at 3:00 shows active exploration rather than a problem.
4. Using your theory table, in 3–4 sentences say what Marcia's identity statuses explain about the 3:05 entry, what Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems add or dispute, and end with one sentence naming what the comparison shows.
5. Reflection — choose one and answer it in 4–6 sentences. (a) What in your own experience as a teen, or with teens you know, led you to expect a 15-year-old to have a plan, and how did this week's ideas change that? (b) What can ten minutes of a group conversation not tell you about these teens, such as what they say in other settings or what a family path means in its own culture, and why does that matter before anyone uses a status as a label?

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my completed code table and area table above. They come from an illustrative ten-minute group conversation among four teens, ages 15 to 17, at a community center's teen leadership group, built for a class activity; it describes no real teen or family. In about 200 words, please do eight things. First, say by what age teens should have chosen a career, and whether Teen D is behind or has a problem. Second, give the exact start and end ages of Erikson's identity vs. role confusion stage. Third, say who described the four identity statuses. Fourth, give one statistic and one expert quotation about how many teens are in moratorium. Fifth, say whether identity is settled for good by the end of high school, and whether following a family tradition is less mature than choosing for yourself. Sixth, name each teen's identity status. Seventh, say whether social media causes identity confusion, and what screen-time limit the American Academy of Pediatrics sets for teens. Eighth, give a balanced summary of the debate about social media and teen well-being.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often say teens "should have chosen a career by 16", turning identity work that continues past adolescence into a deadline.
• A chatbot may say Teen D's "I'll worry about that later" shows a problem or that Teen D is behind.
• Chatbots often give identity vs. role confusion exact edges, such as starting at exactly 12 and ending at exactly 18.
• A chatbot may say Erikson described the four identity statuses.
• Chatbots often invent a figure ("60 percent of teens are in moratorium") or a quotation from an unnamed expert.
• A chatbot may state as fact that identity is settled for good by the end of high school.
• Chatbots often say social media use "causes" identity confusion or unhappiness in teens.
• A chatbot may call following a family tradition, as at 3:01 and 3:06, less mature than choosing for yourself.
• Chatbots often attach a status to a person, such as calling Teen D "a moratorium teen".
• A chatbot may say the American Academy of Pediatrics currently sets a fixed daily limit of screen hours for every teen.
• Chatbots often give a "balanced" summary of the social media debate that ends by telling families to take phones away.

In 4–6 sentences, say what the chatbot got right and quote and correct at least three of its errors by hand, each against a Chapter 14 definition, Marcia's or Erikson's attribution, or the American Academy of Pediatrics' February 2026 statement.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 8 and Objective 2) for comparable effort, about 30 of the 90 minutes, under the same scoring criteria and the same credit. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "Teens should have chosen a career by 16, so Teen D, who will 'worry about that later,' is behind and may have a problem. Erikson's identity vs. role confusion stage begins at exactly 12 and ends at exactly 18. Erikson described the four identity statuses. A recent study found that 60 percent of teens are in moratorium, and one expert said, 'A teen without a plan by 15 is a teen adrift.' Identity is settled for good by the end of high school. Following a family tradition, as Teen B and Teen A do, is less mature than choosing for yourself. Teen D is a moratorium teen and Teen C is an achiever. Social media use causes identity confusion in teens, and the American Academy of Pediatrics says teens should have no more than two hours of screens a day. To give a balanced summary: social media has some benefits and some risks, but sensible families take phones away." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (an age stated as a deadline, a norm used to judge or diagnose one teen, stage ages presented as exact, a term credited to the wrong researcher, an invented study, statistic, or quotation, a myth presented as a finding, a correlation presented as a cause, one family path presented as the norm, a research category used as a label for a person, safety guidance that contradicts the issuing body, and a neutral-sounding summary that quietly takes a side), and correct at least three of them by hand against Chapter 14. Submit the marked-up analysis in place of the chatbot report and share link; it earns the same credit under the same scoring criteria.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• The completed data table with your areas and codes
• The completed count table
• The completed area table for Teen D
• The completed theory table
• Written answers to all five analysis questions, including your reflection
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Child Observation Workshop report on an illustrative ten-minute running record of a teen leadership group: the completed data table with your areas and codes, the count, area, and theory tables, written answers to five analysis questions including a reflection, and a critique of a chatbot's reading of the same record, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. 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. Choose a written, recorded, or visual form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Coding the running record and counting the event sample	Every entry carries an area of life and a defensible D, F, M, or A code, the four counts add to ten, each percent is correct with its division shown, the commitment and exploration totals combine the right codes, and the gap is given in percentage points.	The codes or counts are attempted but one count or percent is wrong or unshown, foreclosure and achievement are swapped, the gap is missing or given in percent, or several entries lack a code.	No codes, counts, or percents appear, or the numbers are invented rather than counted.
One teen followed across areas of life	All four of Teen D's statements are copied with an area and a code, and the answer notes that one teen's statements fit different statuses in different areas, so a status describes a statement, not a person.	The area table is attempted, but a code lacks evidence, moratorium is treated as a problem, or a status is written about Teen D as a person.	No area table or reading of Teen D's statements appears.
Two theories compared on one entry	Both rows of the theory table name something specific about the 3:05 entry, the answer says what the ecological view adds or disputes, and it ends with one sentence naming what the comparison shows.	The table or answer is attempted but one theory is missing or vague, or the comparison stops at listing.	No comparison of theories appears.
The AI slip caught and corrected	Through the chatbot report with its share link or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis, equally, at least three quoted errors are each named and corrected by hand against a Chapter 14 definition, an attribution, or the American Academy of Pediatrics' February 2026 statement.	Through either route, equally, one or two errors are corrected, or corrections lack the definition, attribution, or statement they rest on.	Through either route, no critique is submitted, or chatbot or printed text is pasted without any correction.
Respect for the teens and families, and the reflection	The words column stays free of interpretation, no real teen or family is judged, labelled, or diagnosed, no family path is ranked, and the reflection answers option (a) or (b) with a specific example in 4–6 sentences.	The record or analysis slips once into judging or labelling a teen or ranking a family path, or the reflection is present but general.	A teen or a family is judged, labelled, or diagnosed throughout, or no reflection appears.

Quality Gate

• Every count and percent comes from your own sheet or hand count of the data table, never from memory or a chatbot.
• Each count divided by 10 and multiplied by 100 equals the percent you report for it, and the gap between two percents is reported in percentage points.
• The words column holds only what each teen said, every code describes a statement rather than a teen, and no real teen or family is judged, labelled, or diagnosed.
• No study, statistic, quotation, or health guideline is invented anywhere in the submission, and media guidance appears only as the American Academy of Pediatrics states it.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least three errors with evidence from Chapter 14 or Part 6.