Week 2 — Whom Does the Number Speak For? A Short Data-Reading Report

Assignment 2 of the term — read a real survey figure and two illustrative towns, work out what each number says, and explain to someone outside sociology what a figure can and cannot claim.

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. Last week you learned to ask four questions of any statistic and to compare places by rate rather than count; this week you learn where evidence comes from and whom it can speak for. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Sociology in Action Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together.

The task

You will use these figures, all from this week's chapter:

• Pew Research Center's Mobile Fact Sheet: in a 2025 survey of 5,022 U.S. adults, 91% said they own a smartphone and 98% said they own a cellphone of some kind. When Pew first measured smartphone ownership in 2011, 35% of U.S. adults owned one.
• Two illustrative towns built for this course (not real places): Town A records 12 events among 40,000 residents in one year, and Town B records 15 events among 30,000 residents in the same year.

Work these four problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. Pew Research Center reports that 35% of U.S. adults owned a smartphone in 2011 and 91% in 2025. By how many percentage points did ownership rise?
2. The same rise, from 35% in 2011 to 91% in 2025, is what percent change from the 2011 level?
3. Illustrative Town B records 15 events among 30,000 residents in one year. What is its rate per 100,000 residents?
4. Illustrative Town A records 12 events among 40,000 residents and Town B records 15 events among 30,000 in the same year. By how many events per 100,000 residents is Town B's rate higher than Town A's?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation of what that value shows and one limit of it. For problem 1, say what the figure measures and name its population and its sample. For problem 2, explain why 56 percentage points and your percent change describe the same rise in different units, and say whether the Pew figure is a correlation, a cause, or neither. For problem 3, explain why a rate, not a count, is the fair way to compare the towns. For problem 4, name one research method you would use to learn why Town B's rate is higher, say what that method could and could not show, and name one ethics protection your study would owe the residents you study.

Explain it to a non-expert

The host of a community radio show has never studied sociology and plans to announce, "Town B is more dangerous because its residents are careless." Write a 3–5 sentence message to the host that recommends a more accurate way to say it, explains in everyday words why the rate per 100,000 residents is the fair comparison, says what the rates do not show (they describe the towns, not why the gap exists or what any one resident does), and names one limit, such as that the towns are illustrative or that the figures cover one year. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one accurate wording can be defensible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a volunteer at a public library who read on the library's website that most people who answered its online poll want longer weekend hours. Model answer: "I'd say 'Most people who chose to answer our website poll want longer weekend hours,' not 'Most of our town wants longer hours.' Only people who visit the website and decided to vote are in that poll, so it may leave out people who rarely go online or rarely visit. That kind of sample speaks for the people who opted in, not the whole town. If the library wants the town's view, it could ask a group of residents picked at random from a full address list."

Use that pattern for your message to the host, with your own recommendation and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief interpretations, and your message to the radio host 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 report for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about reading social data: percentage points and percent change, rates and counts, populations and samples, research methods, and research ethics. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The data: Pew Research Center's Mobile Fact Sheet, a 2025 survey of 5,022 U.S. adults: 91% own a smartphone and 98% own a cellphone of some kind; 35% owned a smartphone in 2011. Two illustrative towns built for the course (not real places): Town A records 12 events among 40,000 residents in one year; Town B records 15 events among 30,000 residents in the same year.
PROBLEM P1: Pew Research Center reports that 35% of U.S. adults owned a smartphone in 2011 and 91% in 2025. By how many percentage points did ownership rise?
PROBLEM P2: The same rise, from 35% in 2011 to 91% in 2025, is what percent change from the 2011 level?
PROBLEM P3: Illustrative Town B records 15 events among 30,000 residents in one year. What is its rate per 100,000 residents?
PROBLEM P4: Illustrative Town A records 12 events among 40,000 residents and Town B records 15 events among 30,000 in the same year. By how many events per 100,000 residents is Town B's rate higher than Town A's?
After the four answers, I must briefly interpret each one: what that value shows and one limit of it; for P1, what the figure measures and its population and sample; for P2, why 56 percentage points and the percent change describe the same rise in different units, and whether the Pew figure is a correlation, a cause, or neither; for P3, why a rate, not a count, is the fair comparison; for P4, one research method I would use to learn why Town B's rate is higher, what it could and could not show, and one ethics protection the study would owe the residents. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a community radio host who is new to sociology and plans to say "Town B is more dangerous because its residents are careless," recommending a more accurate wording, explaining why the rate per 100,000 residents is the fair comparison, saying what the rates do not show, and naming one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations from the data (40 points), methods and interpretation reasoning (32 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (16 points), and showing work so it can be checked (12 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 computation points, 4 reasoning points, 2 clarity points, or 1.5 showing-work points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my final message only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct difference, percent change, or rate = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing result or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1-P3 separately, an accurate account of what that value shows plus a limit tied to that figure = 2; exactly one of the two = 1; neither = 0. For P1, calling the 5,022 adults the population does not count. For P2, calling 56 a percent change does not count. For P4, BOTH an appropriate method with what it could and could not show plus one named ethics protection AND a final message that recommends an accurate wording, explains the rate comparison, says what the rates do not show, and names a limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to sociology, 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-WORK UNITS: For each problem, checkable values and steps = 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. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied all four answers and their brief interpretations AND written my message to the radio host 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; 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 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 data-reading report, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised data-reading report with all four answers, their brief interpretations, and your message to the radio host — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled diagram of the two towns' rates and the Pew shares 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 2 skills — reporting a change in percentage points and as a percent change, comparing places by rate rather than count, separating a population from a sample, matching a question to a research method, and naming the protections research participants are owed — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, the four brief interpretations, and the message to the radio host. 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 data-reading report, 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