Week 11 — Text That Says What It Means

Assignment 10 of the term — split a line of text into pieces, find and count what is inside it, catch a method whose new string was thrown away, and explain it all to someone who has never programmed.

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 builds on Week 3, where you first indexed and sliced a string, and on Week 9, where you met lists: split() hands you a list, and every piece in it is a string. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Coding Lab practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together.

The task

A neighbor who runs a weekend bike-repair stall posted a sign-up note for volunteers and wrote a short program to count how many times the note asks people to bring something:

note = "  Bring water, bring snacks, BRING a hat  "
note.strip().lower()
print(note.count("bring"))

It printed 1. Your neighbor says, "Python can only find one of the three." Your job is to check what Python really did, the way a programmer would: predict each output before you run it, run it in a free browser Python runner, and explain what happened. All four problems are illustrative; Problem 1 uses this week's reading log, and Problems 2 and 3 use the stall's repair log line, line = "fixed: 12 tires, 5 chains".

Work these four problems. For each one, write your prediction first, then run the code and write the actual output beside your prediction:

1. The reading log's line entry = "day 3: 25 pages" is split with parts = entry.split(), and the program runs print(int(parts[2]) + 5). What does it print?
2. The repair log's line is split with pieces = line.split(), and the program runs print(int(pieces[1]) + int(pieces[3])). What does it print?
3. The program runs print(line.find("tires")) on the repair log's line. What does it print?
4. Your neighbor's program is fixed so the second line reads clean = note.strip().lower() and the last line reads print(clean.count("bring")). What does it print?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: state what type parts[2] holds before int() converts it, and report what print(parts[2] + "5") prints when you run it.
• Problem 2: state how many items pieces holds, and explain why the comma stays attached to the word tires.
• Problem 3: explain what kind of value find() hands back, and report what print(line.find("brakes")) prints when you run it.
• Problem 4: run your neighbor's original version, report what it prints, name the bug, and explain why the one-line change fixes it.

Explain it to a non-programmer

Write a 3–5 sentence message to your neighbor that explains, in everyday words, why Python seemed to find only one of the three, and how changing one line fixes it. Use the idea that a tidied-up copy of the note is a new piece of text that has to be kept, not a change to the note itself, and name one limit or caveat, such as the fact that counting also finds the letters inside a longer word like bringing. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good message is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a roommate whose grocery app splits a shopping list on spaces when the list was typed with commas. Model message: "Your app cuts the list wherever it sees a space, the way you told it to, so a two-word item like olive oil turns into two separate items, and the commas stay glued to the words. Python did exactly what the instruction said, which is why there was no error message, only a strange list. If you tell it to cut at the commas instead, each item stays whole. One catch: any spaces typed after the commas stay at the front of each item until you trim them."

Use that pattern for your neighbor's question, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four predictions, the four actual outputs, the four brief interpretations, and your message to your neighbor before opening a chatbot. Run every program yourself in a browser Python runner.
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 your traces when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one trace or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
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, and it does not run your code; your own runs settle every output.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory computer science course taught in Python 3. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about string methods, split and join, find and count, and why a string never changes. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, or a quotation, and never tell me what a line of code prints: ask me to run it in my own browser Python runner and tell you what appeared.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. All four are illustrative. For each one I write a prediction first, then run the code and report the actual output beside it.
PROBLEM P1: The reading-log line day 3: 25 pages is split on whitespace, the third piece is converted to a whole number, and 5 is added inside print. What does the program print?
PROBLEM P2: The repair-log line fixed: 12 tires, 5 chains is split on whitespace, and the second and fourth pieces are each converted to a whole number and added inside print. What does the program print?
PROBLEM P3: The program prints the position that find hands back for the word tires in the repair-log line fixed: 12 tires, 5 chains. What does the program print?
PROBLEM P4: The neighbor's note, with spaces at both ends and the word bring written once in small letters, once with a capital B, and once in capitals, is stripped and lowered into a new name, and the program prints how many times bring appears in that new name. What does the program print?
After the four answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, say what type the third piece holds before it is converted, and run that piece joined to the text 5 and say what prints; for P2, say how many pieces the split makes and why the comma stays attached to the word tires; for P3, say what kind of value find hands back, and run find for the word brakes and say what prints; for P4, run the neighbor's original version, say what it prints, name the bug, and say why the one-line change fixes it. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a neighbor whose program counted only one of three requests, explaining in everyday words why, how changing one line fixes it, and naming one limit or caveat. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct traces (40 points), reasoning about how string methods work (32 points), clarity for a non-programmer (16 points), and showing the trace and the run (12 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 trace points, 4 reasoning points, 2 clarity points, or 1.5 showing points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my final message only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
TRACE UNITS: A reported value that matches the run, including equivalent notation = 2; the right pieces and steps with only an arithmetic or counting slip = 1; a missing value or the wrong pieces or steps = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid way of showing the trace.
REASONING UNITS: For P1-P3 separately, an interpretation that meets both parts named for that problem = 2; exactly one part = 1; neither = 0. For P4, the original run reported AND the bug named and explained AND a neighbor message with the fix and a named limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0; naming a term alone does not earn a unit. A counting slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone who has never programmed, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the final message with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING UNITS: For each problem, a step-by-step trace plus the reported output of an actual run = 2; a relevant but incomplete step or run output = 1; a final value alone or no trace = 0. A visible trace stays checkable despite a counting slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. 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, usually by running the program again. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer 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 answers with their runs and brief interpretations AND written my message to the neighbor AND revised at least one trace 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 traces, runs, 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 predictions and actual outputs, their brief interpretations, the runs of print(parts[2] + "5"), print(line.find("brakes")), and your neighbor's original version, and your message to your neighbor — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled screen capture of your runs with a short note for each; 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 11 skills — splitting a line of text into a list and converting a piece, reading find() as a position, counting matches, and spotting a string method whose new string was never kept — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems with your predictions and runs, the four brief interpretations, the runs of print(parts[2] + "5"), print(line.find("brakes")), and your neighbor's original version, and the message to your neighbor. 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 trace or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change (for example, a run that disagreed with your prediction), and one question you still have. 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 predictions, runs, reasoning, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment, to tell you what a program prints, or to add evidence you did not produce. 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