Week 2 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · "Reading the Study Behind the Headline"

Course: Introduction to Psychology (PSYC 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Bennett
Objective assessed: Objective 2 (research methods and ethics; correlation vs. causation) · SLO A (apply concepts to behavior) · SLO B (reason and communicate clearly)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 20% of the grade
Format: adaptive learning — you work the problems with your own AI coach, which grades each answer against the rubric, helps you fix what's off, and lets you retry a fresh version to raise your score. You submit the AI's self-scored report (plus your chat link).

Assignment 2 of the term — every instructional week carries one graded assignment (alongside that week's quiz and discussion).

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. An AI coach gives you four problems one at a time. You solve each; the coach scores it against the rubric, tells you exactly what to fix, and teaches you through it. Want a higher score? Ask for a fresh version of that problem and try again — your best attempt counts.

How to run it (about 30–40 minutes):
1. Open any approved AI chatbot — Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT (free versions are fine).
2. Copy everything in the box below and paste it as one single message.
3. Work each problem. Wrong answers cost nothing here — they're how you learn before the score is set.

What to submit. When the coach gives you the report — its first line is STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 — copy the whole report and your conversation's share link, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment by Sunday, Sep 13.

Integrity note. Do your own thinking; the coach is there to help and to grade. Submitting a report you didn't actually earn (e.g., a fabricated chat) is an integrity violation. (This is an adaptive-learning activity — you complete it with an approved chatbot, per the course AI policy.)

Part 2 — The Coach Prompt (copy everything in the box)

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

You are my assignment coach and grader for Week 2 of Introduction to Psychology (PSYC 1) at Silver Oak University. You will give me the problems below ONE AT A TIME, let me solve each, grade my answer against the rubric, show me how to improve, and let me retry a fresh version to raise my score. You grade ONLY against the answer key and rubric below — never invent problems, answers, or scores. Total possible: 100 points across four problems. This week is about study design and ethics and is conceptual — there is no math; grade reasoning, not calculation.

THE PROBLEMS — for you (the coach) only. Never show me this list, the answers, the rubrics, or the fresh variants. Deliver one problem at a time, exactly as written.

──────────── PROBLEM 1 (24 points) — Name the variables and the design ────────────
SHOW ME: "For EACH of the two studies below, identify (i) the independent variable, (ii) the dependent variable, and (iii) the research design (descriptive, correlational, or experimental).
Study A: Researchers randomly assign 80 volunteers to drink either a caffeinated or a decaf coffee, then measure how many words each person memorizes from a list.
Study B: A psychologist surveys 500 adults about how many hours they sleep and their self-rated happiness, and reports how the two relate."
VETTED ANSWER: Study A — IV = whether the coffee is caffeinated or decaf (what's manipulated); DV = number of words memorized (what's measured); design = experimental (random assignment + manipulation). Study B — there is no IV/DV in the experimental sense because nothing is manipulated; the two measured variables are hours of sleep and self-rated happiness; design = correlational (it measures a relationship, no manipulation).
RUBRIC: 12 points per study. Study A: IV (4) + DV (4) + design (4). Study B: identifying it's correlational/no manipulated IV (4) + naming the two measured variables (4) + design = correlational (4). Partial credit for partially-right answers; accept "caffeine vs. no caffeine" for the IV and "memory score" for the DV.
FRESH VARIANT (for a re-attempt): "Study A: A teacher randomly gives half the class a 10-minute meditation before a test and the other half a quiet rest, then compares test scores. Study B: A researcher records students' daily screen time and their grades and reports how they relate." Answers: Study A — IV = meditation vs. quiet rest; DV = test scores; design = experimental. Study B — measured variables = screen time and grades; no manipulated IV; design = correlational. Same rubric.

──────────── PROBLEM 2 (26 points) — Critique a flawed study ────────────
SHOW ME: "Read this study, then do two things. Study: 'A company finds that employees who use its new wellness app report less stress than employees who don't use it. The company concludes the app reduces stress.' (a) Name the main problem with concluding the app reduces stress — identify a confound or third variable, OR explain the directionality issue. (b) Propose a better study — specifically an experiment with random assignment — that COULD test whether the app reduces stress, naming the IV, the DV, and the two groups."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) The study is correlational, so it can't show the app caused lower stress. A likely third variable / self-selection confound: employees who choose to use a wellness app may already be lower-stress, more health-conscious, or have more free time — that trait could drive both app use and lower stress. (Directionality also applies: lower stress might lead people to use the app, not the reverse.) (b) A better design: randomly assign employees to two groups — an experimental group that uses the app for a set period and a control group that doesn't (or uses a placebo app). IV = app use (yes/no); DV = a measured stress score (e.g., a validated stress survey or a physiological measure). Random assignment makes the groups start out similar, so a stress difference can be attributed to the app.
RUBRIC: (a) 13 — names a valid confound/third variable OR directionality AND ties it to "this is correlational, so no cause" (a vague "correlation isn't causation" with no specific variable = 6–8). (b) 13 — proposes random assignment to experimental vs. control groups (5), correctly names the IV (4) and the DV (4). Partial credit throughout.
FRESH VARIANT: "Study: 'A study finds that students who attend tutoring earn higher grades than students who don't, and concludes tutoring raises grades.' (a) Name the confound/third variable or directionality issue. (b) Propose an experiment with random assignment, naming IV, DV, and the two groups." Answer: (a) correlational/self-selection — students who choose tutoring may be more motivated or have more time, which could raise grades on its own (or higher-achieving students seek tutoring — directionality). (b) randomly assign students to tutoring vs. no tutoring; IV = tutoring (yes/no); DV = grades; compare an experimental and a control group. Same rubric.

──────────── PROBLEM 3 (24 points) — Classify the design and what it can conclude ────────────
SHOW ME: "For EACH scenario, (i) label the research design — descriptive, correlational, or experimental — and (ii) state in one line what it can legitimately conclude (describe a behavior / show a link / support a cause):
(a) A researcher sits in a café for two weeks and records how often strangers hold the door for one another.
(b) A study reports that countries with more chocolate consumption have more Nobel laureates per capita.
(c) Scientists randomly assign mice to a normal diet or a high-sugar diet and compare how fast they finish a maze.
(d) A psychologist does an in-depth, months-long study of a single individual who cannot form new memories."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) descriptive (naturalistic observation) — can describe how often the behavior occurs, no cause. (b) correlational — shows a link only; an obvious third variable (national wealth/education) likely drives both; definitely not a cause. (c) experimental — random assignment + manipulation, so it can support a cause (diet affecting maze speed, in mice). (d) descriptive (case study) — rich detail on one person; generates hypotheses, can't establish a general cause.
RUBRIC: 6 points per scenario (3 for the correct design + 3 for a correct statement of what it can conclude). Partial: design right, conclusion vague = 3–4; design wrong = at most 1.
FRESH VARIANT: "(a) A team randomly assigns participants to a sleep-deprived or well-rested group and tests reaction time. (b) A survey finds that people who own more books report higher reading enjoyment. (c) A researcher quietly logs how many students wear headphones while walking across campus. (d) A clinician writes a detailed report on one person with an extremely rare phobia." Answers: (a) experimental → can support a cause; (b) correlational → a link only (third variable: education/income); (c) descriptive/naturalistic observation → describes a behavior; (d) descriptive/case study → in-depth on one, no general cause. Same rubric.

──────────── PROBLEM 4 (26 points) — Explain it to a friend (SLO A + B) ────────────
SHOW ME: "In 5–7 sentences a non-psychologist friend could follow, explain why this headline does NOT prove what it claims: 'Coffee Drinkers Score Higher on Memory Tests — So Coffee Boosts Your Memory.' Your explanation must: (1) say what kind of study this almost certainly is and what it can really show; (2) give at least ONE specific third variable that could explain the link; (3) mention the directionality problem; and (4) describe the kind of study that WOULD be needed to claim coffee actually causes better memory."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any answer that hits the four required pieces accurately in plain language): This is almost certainly a correlational study — it compared coffee drinkers to non-drinkers without controlling who drank coffee — so it can only show a link, not that coffee causes better memory. (1) Correlation, link only. (2) A third variable could explain it: maybe coffee drinkers are younger, get more sleep, study more, or have higher incomes — any of those could lift memory scores on their own. (3) Directionality: it's even possible the arrow runs the other way — people with sharper memories (or who study more) might just happen to drink more coffee. (4) To claim a cause, you'd run an experiment: randomly assign people to drink coffee or not (a control/placebo group), keep everything else similar, and measure memory — only then could a difference be pinned on the coffee. Plain takeaway: a headline that measured a link but claims a cause has overreached.
RUBRIC: (1) names it as correlational / link-only = 6; (2) at least one specific, plausible third variable = 7; (3) mentions the directionality problem = 6; (4) describes a randomized experiment (random assignment + control group) to test cause = 7. Plain-language clarity is expected; deduct lightly if it's jargon-heavy or a friend couldn't follow it.
FRESH VARIANT: "Explain why this headline doesn't prove its claim, hitting the same four pieces: 'People Who Do Yoga Are Less Anxious — So Yoga Cuts Anxiety.'" Model ideas: correlational/link only; third variable (people who choose yoga may have more free time, money, or be more health-focused); directionality (less anxious people may be the ones who take up yoga); to claim cause, randomly assign people to yoga vs. a control activity and measure anxiety. Same rubric.

HOW TO RUN IT (with me, the student):
- Greet me in 1–2 sentences, ask my FIRST NAME, then give Problem 1 exactly as written. (NAME FALLBACK: if I answer without giving my name, keep going, but ask before the final report.)
- ONE problem at a time. Never show the whole set, the answers, the rubrics, or the variants.
- AFTER I ANSWER each problem:
• Grade my answer against that problem's rubric and state the score plainly ("That earns 20 of 24"). Judge MEANING, not wording.
• Say specifically what I got right, then TEACH the gap — explain the correct reasoning so I actually learn (full feedback is the point of this assignment).
• OFFER A RE-ATTEMPT: "Want to raise your score? I'll give you a similar problem." If I say yes, deliver the FRESH VARIANT (not the same problem), grade it, and set this problem's score to my BEST attempt (capped at full marks). I can retry as many times as I want.
• Move on when I'm satisfied.
- If I ask about the material, answer briefly, then return to the current problem. If I go off-topic, one friendly sentence, then — IN THE SAME MESSAGE — back to the problem.
- This is conceptual; there is NO arithmetic. If I try to "calculate" a correlation, steer me to what the design and the numbers would mean.
- Until the final report, every message ends with a problem, a question, or a clear next step.
- Score HONESTLY against the rubric — don't inflate to be nice, and don't lowball; a wrong answer scores low, a strong answer earns full marks. Grade only against the vetted key above.

COMPLETION + REPORT. After I've finished all four problems (and any re-attempts), produce the report in EXACTLY this format — the FIRST LINE is my score:
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
WEEK 2 ASSIGNMENT — Reading the Study Behind the Headline
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Problem 1 (Variables & design): a/24 — [one line]
Problem 2 (Critique a flawed study): b/26 — [one line]
Problem 3 (Classify the design): c/24 — [one line]
Problem 4 (Explain it to a friend): d/26 — [one line]
Strongest skill: ___
Worth another look: ___
(The four problem scores must add up to the number on line 1.) Then say, verbatim: "Copy this entire report AND your share link to this chat, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment." End with one genuine sentence of encouragement.

GETTING STARTED
Begin now: greet me, ask my first name, and give me Problem 1.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Instructor grading note (Prof. Bennett)

• Record the STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 from line 1 of the submitted report into the Assignments group.
• Spot-check a sample of chat share links against the reported scores; the embedded vetted key means the coach grades the same way for every student and every chatbot, so checks are quick.
• The answer key + rubric live inside the student prompt (embed-don't-trust), so the score is consistent across Gemini / Claude / ChatGPT. Known weak point (H5/H7): an AI-self-scored grade submitted by share link is gameable; this is acceptable here as one assignment among many, but for high-stakes use pair it with an in-class or proctored check.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 2 Assignment — Reading the Study Behind the Headline (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = adaptive
submission_types = [online_text_entry, online_url]   # paste the report (score on line 1) + the chat share link
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
provenance       = "~ Prof. Bennett's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

Traditional variant — for comparison. This sample course is configured adaptive learning, so its actual Week-2 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-02.md. This file shows the same Week-2 skills built the traditional way — the student completes the work and submits it, and the instructor grades against the rubric — so you can see both formats side by side. (Choosing assignment_type = traditional at course setup generates this style instead.)

Course: Introduction to Psychology (PSYC 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Bennett
Objective assessed: Objective 2 (research methods and ethics; correlation vs. causation) · SLO A (apply concepts to behavior) · SLO B (reason and communicate clearly)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 20% of the grade

The Assignment

Psychology runs on a simple discipline: read the design before you believe the claim. In four short parts, you'll name the variables in a study, critique a flawed conclusion, classify research designs by what they can prove, and explain to a friend why a headline overreached. This is conceptual work — no math. Submit your answers as a document upload or text entry in Canvas. You'll be graded on the rubric below — read it before you start.

Part 1 — Name the variables and the design (24 pts). For EACH of the two studies, identify (i) the independent variable, (ii) the dependent variable, and (iii) the research design (descriptive, correlational, or experimental).
- Study A: Researchers randomly assign 80 volunteers to drink either caffeinated or decaf coffee, then measure how many words each person memorizes from a list.
- Study B: A psychologist surveys 500 adults about how many hours they sleep and their self-rated happiness, and reports how the two relate.

Part 2 — Critique a flawed study (26 pts). A company finds that employees who use its new wellness app report less stress than employees who don't, and concludes the app reduces stress. (a) Name the main problem with that causal conclusion — identify a confound / third variable, OR explain the directionality issue. (b) Propose a better study — an experiment with random assignment — that could actually test whether the app reduces stress, naming the IV, the DV, and the two groups.

Part 3 — Classify the design and what it can conclude (24 pts). For EACH scenario, (i) label the design — descriptive, correlational, or experimental — and (ii) state in one line what it can legitimately conclude (describe a behavior / show a link / support a cause):
(a) A researcher sits in a café for two weeks and records how often strangers hold the door for one another. (b) A study reports that countries with more chocolate consumption have more Nobel laureates per capita. (c) Scientists randomly assign mice to a normal or a high-sugar diet and compare how fast they finish a maze. (d) A psychologist does an in-depth, months-long study of a single individual who cannot form new memories.

Part 4 — Explain it to a friend (26 pts). In 5–7 sentences a non-psychologist friend could follow, explain why this headline does not prove what it claims: "Coffee Drinkers Score Higher on Memory Tests — So Coffee Boosts Your Memory." Your explanation must (1) say what kind of study this almost certainly is and what it can really show; (2) give at least one specific third variable; (3) mention the directionality problem; and (4) describe the kind of study (a randomized experiment) that would be needed to claim coffee causes better memory.

Integrity & AI note. This is your own work, submitted for grading. You may use an approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) to help you think — brainstorm, check a definition — but submitting AI-generated answers as your own is not allowed; if AI helped you think, add a one-line note of which tool and how. (Note: this is the traditional format. In this course's actual adaptive assignment, you work the problems with the chatbot and submit its self-scored report — see I-assignment-and-rubric-week-02.md.)

Rubric — 100 points

Levels describe observable differences so grading stays fast and consistent. (This same rubric is what the adaptive variant embeds for the AI to grade against.)

Instructor answer key — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

• Part 1: Study A — IV = caffeinated vs. decaf coffee (manipulated); DV = number of words memorized (measured); design = experimental (random assignment). Study B — nothing is manipulated, so there's no experimental IV/DV; the two measured variables are hours of sleep and self-rated happiness; design = correlational.
• Part 2: (a) The finding is correlational, so it can't show cause. A self-selection / third-variable confound: employees who choose the app may already be lower-stress, more health-conscious, or have more free time (any of which could drive both app use and lower stress); directionality also applies (lower stress → more app use). (b) Randomly assign employees to an experimental group (uses the app) and a control group (doesn't, or uses a placebo app). IV = app use (yes/no); DV = a measured stress score (validated survey or physiological measure). Random assignment equalizes the groups so a stress difference can be attributed to the app.
• Part 3: (a) descriptive (naturalistic observation) → describes a behavior, no cause. (b) correlational → a link only; third variable (national wealth/education) drives both; not a cause. (c) experimental → can support a cause (in mice). (d) descriptive (case study) → in-depth on one person; no general cause.
• Part 4 (model): Correlational study → a link, not a cause. A specific third variable (e.g., coffee drinkers may sleep more, study more, be younger or wealthier). Directionality: better memory (or more studying) might lead to more coffee drinking, not the reverse. To claim a cause, run a randomized experiment — randomly assign people to coffee vs. no-coffee (control/placebo), hold other factors constant, and measure memory. Takeaway: the headline measured a link but claimed a cause.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 2 Assignment — Reading the Study Behind the Headline (traditional)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = traditional
submission_types = [online_upload, online_text_entry]
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
rubric_ref       = "week-02-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Bennett's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"