Week 9 — A Score and a Label: Reading Two Numbers Carefully

Assignment 8 of the term — read the IQ scale and a framed food label with careful arithmetic, explain what each number does and does not say, and help a worried parent read a test-score letter.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based brief. 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. In Week 2 you learned that a measure must be reliable and valid; this week you apply those two words to intelligence tests. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Analysis Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together and explain them.

The task

Two numbers this week are easy to read quickly and easy to overread. The first is the IQ scale: intelligence tests are standardized on a large sample and scaled so that the mean score is 100, one step of spread is 15 on the score scale, and about 68% of people score between 85 and 115. The second is a food label: one yogurt says "90% fat-free," and the one beside it says "10% fat."

Work these two problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. IQ tests are scaled so that the mean score is 100, and one step of spread is 15 on the score scale. What score marks the lower edge of the average band, one step below the mean?
2. A yogurt label reads 90% fat-free. Out of every 100 parts of the yogurt, how many parts are fat?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation and one limit. For problem 1, explain what standardization means for this scale, what a score inside the 85 to 115 band says about a person compared with the standardization sample, why a useful test must be both reliable and valid, and why the score is not a measure of the person's worth. For problem 2, explain why "90% fat-free" and "10% fat" state the same fact, name the bias that makes the two labels feel different, and say how that bias differs from confirmation bias.

Explain it to a non-expert

A neighbor who has never studied psychology received a letter saying their child's intelligence test score fell inside the average band, and they worry it means the child is "only average." Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains, in everyday words, what the average band means, what the score does not tell them, and one limit of the test. Explain any technical term in everyday words, and do not guess or invent any real person's score.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker who will not fly after a week of news stories about one airline's problems. Model answer: "Those stories are vivid and recent, so they come to mind easily, and anything that comes to mind easily feels common. That shortcut is called the availability heuristic. The news reports the rare problem, not the many ordinary flights, so ease of remembering is a poor guide to how often something happens. I can't tell you the exact risk, though; for that you'd need the overall numbers, not the headlines."

Use that pattern for the neighbor, with your own explanation and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both answers, the two brief interpretations, and your message to the neighbor before opening a chatbot.
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 calculations when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one calculation 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 brief for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about cognition and intelligence: reading the IQ scale, standardization, reliability and validity, framing, and the difference between framing and confirmation bias. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show. Never guess or ask for any real person's IQ score.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The facts: IQ tests are standardized on a large sample and scaled so the mean score is 100, one step of spread is 15 on the score scale, and about 68 percent of people score between 85 and 115. Framing is the way a choice or fact is worded; a framing effect occurs when the same information leads to different judgments because of the wording. Confirmation bias is favoring evidence that fits what one already believes.
PROBLEM P1: IQ tests are scaled so that the mean score is 100, and one step of spread is 15 on the score scale. What score marks the lower edge of the average band, one step below the mean?
PROBLEM P2: A yogurt label reads 90% fat-free. Out of every 100 parts of the yogurt, how many parts are fat?
After the two answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, what standardization means for this scale, what a score inside the 85 to 115 band says compared with the standardization sample, why a useful test must be both reliable and valid, and why the score is not a measure of a person's worth; for P2, why "90% fat-free" and "10% fat" state the same fact, which bias makes them feel different, and how that bias differs from confirmation bias. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a neighbor whose child scored inside the average band, explaining in everyday words what the band means, what the score does not tell them, and one limit of the test. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations (20 points), cognition and measurement reasoning (40 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing work so it can be checked (20 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 computation points, 10 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 5 showing-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my message to the neighbor only with P1, not again with P2.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct result = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing result or the wrong values or operation = 0. Accept equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, BOTH an accurate account of standardization and of what a score in the band says, with reliability and validity kept apart and the score not treated as worth, AND a neighbor message that describes what the band means and names a limit = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. For P2, an accurate explanation that the two labels describe the same fact plus a sound naming of the bias at work with a sound contrast to confirmation bias = 2; exactly one of the two = 1; neither = 0. Treating an IQ score as a measure of worth, or naming a bias that does not fit the label pair, does not count. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to psychology, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the neighbor message with P1 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the starting values and the operation shown = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a result alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic 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. 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. Offer the reflection as a choice of two equally weighted prompts and let me pick one: (a) what did the revision change about how I read a test score, or (b) what would I now tell a shopper about a framed label. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both answers and their brief interpretations AND written my message to the neighbor AND revised at least one calculation 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. 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 calculations 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 brief, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised brief with both answers, their brief interpretations, and your message to the neighbor — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the IQ scale's average band with a short note; 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 9 skills — reading the IQ scale and explaining standardization, reliability, and validity, recognizing framing and telling it apart from confirmation bias, and explaining why a score is not a person's worth — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, the two brief interpretations, and the message to the 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 calculation or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised brief, 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 calculations, reasoning, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or 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