Week 8 Discussion — Does the Claim Match the Design? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
You meet claims about people every day: a post that says students who sleep more get better grades, an ad that says a drink boosts your mood, a coworker who is sure that people remember faces forever. This week you built a checklist for any such claim: what design produced it, what that design is allowed to conclude, and what third variable could explain it. Now put it to work on something real, where the question is genuinely arguable.
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: Find a real claim about why people think, feel, or act the way they do — a headline, an ad, a social media post, a chatbot's confident answer, or something a friend or coworker said. Run the three steps of the "how do we know?" checklist on it: what design most likely produced it, what that design is allowed to conclude, and what third variable could explain it. Then argue: does the wording of the claim match what its design earned, and if not, how would you rewrite it?
Option B: Pick one finding from the first half of the course — Loftus and Palmer's verbs and broken glass, Milgram's obedience study, Ebbinghaus's forgetting curve, Bandura's Bobo doll study, or the sleep and quiz-score data — and a real setting you know, such as a courtroom, a classroom, a workplace, a clinic, or a family. Using the checklist, argue how far that finding can be carried into your setting: what its design lets you claim there, and what you would still want to check before acting on it.
There is no single right answer. The same claim can be read as earned or overstated, depending on what you find out about its design, and the same finding can travel well into one setting and poorly into another. Pick one you actually care about, and tell us how you checked it.
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.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- Describe the claim or the finding and the setting, and run all three checklist steps: design, allowed claim, third variable.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (the "how do we know?" checklist, causal claim, association claim, correlational study, experiment, random assignment, random sampling, third-variable problem) correctly.
- Give your position with a reason: is the claim's wording earned, or how far does the finding travel?
- 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 third variable the classmate missed, ask whether anyone was randomly assigned, or suggest the study that would settle the claim. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option A. A fitness app told me that people who log their meals lose more weight. Step one: the app only watched what users did, so the design is correlational. Step two: that earns an association claim, so the honest wording is that meal logging is associated with more weight loss among app users. Step three: people who bother to log every meal may also be more motivated, which could drive both the logging and the weight loss. I would rewrite the claim, and the study that could test a cause would randomly assign some users to log and others not to.
Notice how it names the design with a reason, matches the wording to the design, and names a specific third variable. 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.
| Criterion | Full credit | Partial credit | No credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | A real, specific claim or setting is described, all three checklist steps are run, and the position is backed by a reason | A claim or setting is present, but a checklist step is skipped or the position is asserted without a reason | Missing, off-topic, or no reasoning about how the claim is known |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses the checklist terms precisely, keeping a causal claim apart from an association claim and random assignment apart from random sampling, and names a specific third variable | Uses a term loosely or with a small error | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that extend or challenge a classmate's reasoning | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
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