Week 4 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · "Build the Self"

Course: Introduction to Sociology (SOC 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Adeyemi
Objective assessed: Objective 3 (socialization; the agents; Cooley & Mead) · SLO A (apply theory) · SLO B (reason from evidence, communicate clearly)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% 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 4 of the term — every instructional week carries one graded assignment (alongside that week's quiz, discussion, and workshop).

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 27.

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 4 of Introduction to Sociology (SOC 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, and never assert a statistic or study that isn't in the key. Total possible: 100 points across four problems.

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) — Place the agents of socialization ────────────
SHOW ME: "For each example, name the agent of socialization it best illustrates (family, peer group, school, or media) and give a one-line reason: (a) A toddler learns her first words and that you wash your hands before dinner. (b) A teenager changes how he dresses to fit in with his friend group. (c) Without anyone announcing it, students learn to raise their hand, line up, and wait their turn. (d) A child learns from cartoons and ads what toys are 'for boys' and what toys are 'for girls.'"
VETTED ANSWER: (a) family — the first agent; language, basic norms, earliest self. (b) peer group — age-mates shaping belonging and day-to-day behavior in adolescence. (c) school — specifically the hidden curriculum (implicit lessons like punctuality, order, obedience). (d) mass media — transmitting norms and images of what's 'normal'/expected.
RUBRIC: 6 points per item (3 for the correct agent + 3 for a valid reason). Partial: agent right, reason weak = 3–4; agent wrong = at most 1 for a sensible but mistaken reason. Accept "school's hidden curriculum" or just "school" for (c).
FRESH VARIANT (for a re-attempt): "(a) A new employee learns the unwritten rules of how to talk to the boss. (b) A child plays 'house,' taking turns being the parent. (c) A young person's sense of what a 'normal' body looks like is shaped by what they scroll past online. (d) A family teaches a child the prayers and holidays of their religion." Answers: (a) the workplace (an agent that resocializes adults — accept "workplace"); (b) family (or accept "play"/peers if reasoned — the clearest answer is the home/family context, and this also illustrates Mead's play stage); (c) media; (d) family (and religion as the institution). Same rubric; judge meaning.

──────────── PROBLEM 2 (26 points) — Cooley & Mead: keep them straight ────────────
SHOW ME: "(a) Name the thinker behind the 'looking-glass self' and state, in one sentence, what the idea means. (b) Name the thinker behind the stages of self-development, list the three stages IN ORDER, and name the endpoint where the child internalizes society's general expectations. (c) In Mead's theory, briefly distinguish the 'I' from the 'me.'"
VETTED ANSWER: (a) Charles Horton Cooley — the looking-glass self: we develop a self-image from how we imagine others see and judge us. (b) George Herbert Mead — stages in order: imitation → play → game; endpoint = the generalized other (the internalized attitudes/expectations of society as a whole). (c) the "I" = the spontaneous, impulsive, acting self; the "me" = the socialized self (the internalized expectations of others / the generalized other).
RUBRIC: (a) 8 — correct thinker (4) + correct meaning (4). (b) 12 — correct thinker (3) + correct stage order (6) + generalized other named (3). (c) 6 — correct I/me distinction. Deduct heavily for swapping Cooley and Mead, or misordering the stages.
FRESH VARIANT: "(a) Which thinker said other people are the 'mirror' in which we see ourselves, and what are the three moments of that process? (b) Put Mead's stages in order and explain the difference between the play stage and the game stage. (c) Which part of Mead's self knows 'I shouldn't do that' — the 'I' or the 'me'?" Answers: (a) Cooley; three moments — we imagine how we appear to another, imagine their judgment, and form a self-feeling (pride/shame). (b) imitation → play → game; play = taking ONE role at a time, game = holding SEVERAL roles at once and seeing how they interlock. (c) the "me" (the socialized self). Same rubric weighting.

──────────── PROBLEM 3 (24 points) — Nature/nurture & reading a finding ────────────
SHOW ME: "(a) A friend says, 'Personality is all genetic — you're born who you are, and society can't change it.' In 2–3 sentences, correct this using the Week-4 framing of nature AND nurture. (b) A headline reports: 'Teens who spend more time on social media report more anxiety — so social media causes teen anxiety.' In 2–3 sentences, explain what's wrong, using a Week-4/Week-2 idea (correlation vs. causation; third variable; reverse direction)."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) The accurate frame is nature AND nurture, interacting: biology provides raw material (a body, a brain, a capacity for language), but socialization shapes it into a particular self — the same infant raised in different societies becomes a different person, and the self can even be remade (resocialization), so it isn't fixed at birth. (b) This confuses correlation with causation: the data show social-media time and anxiety move together, but that doesn't prove media causes anxiety — the direction could reverse (anxious teens may use social media more) or a third variable (e.g., sleep loss, family stress) could drive both; a bare correlation can't settle it.
RUBRIC: (a) 12 — states nature-AND-nurture with a mechanism/example (not just "both matter"). (b) 12 — names the correlation-vs-causation flaw AND gives a reverse-direction or third-variable reason. Partial: a vague reason without the term = 5–8 each.
FRESH VARIANT: "(a) Someone claims, 'Kids only act the way their parents raised them — environment is everything, genes don't matter.' Correct this with the nature-AND-nurture framing. (b) A post says, 'Children who play more video games get worse grades, so video games lower grades.' Explain the flaw using a Week-4/Week-2 idea." Answers: (a) it's still nature AND nurture — biology and social environment interact; pure-nurture is as incomplete as pure-nature. (b) correlation ≠ causation — could be reverse direction (kids already struggling may game more to cope) or a third variable (less supervision, less sleep) driving both. Same rubric.

──────────── PROBLEM 4 (26 points) — Build the argument (SLO A + B) ────────────
SHOW ME: "In 6–8 sentences a non-sociologist friend could follow, build a short argument that applies socialization theory to a real example of how a SELF or an IDENTITY gets shaped (e.g., gender identity, a professional/occupational identity, a fan/team identity, body image, or how a 'name' or reputation forms). Your argument must: (1) state a clear claim; (2) apply AT LEAST ONE Week-4 concept BY NAME and accurately (an agent of socialization, Cooley's looking-glass self, Mead's stages/generalized other, or resocialization/total institution); (3) back the claim with some evidence or a real pattern (and say where such evidence would come from — e.g., Pew, the Census, peer-reviewed research — without inventing exact numbers or studies); and (4) acknowledge a competing explanation or a limit (e.g., a correlation-vs-causation caution, or the role of biology/agency) and respond to it fairly."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any on-topic argument that hits all four parts accurately): e.g., Claim: professional identity (e.g., "becoming a nurse") is largely socialized, not innate. Concept: anticipatory socialization + resocialization — students adopt the norms of the role before entering it, and clinical training resocializes them into a professional self; Cooley's looking-glass self also operates as instructors' and supervisors' reactions shape the student's self-image. Evidence: point to where one would look — e.g., research on professional socialization, or survey data on identity formation — cited as where to look, not an invented figure. Competing explanation/limit: one might argue some traits are dispositional (biology/agency) — respond with nature AND nurture: disposition may matter, but the professional self is plainly learned, and a correlation between training and identity isn't proof that nothing else contributes. Full credit requires a clear claim, an accurately named Week-4 concept, evidence reasoned (not fabricated), and a fairly-stated competing explanation/limit.
RUBRIC: clear claim (5); at least one Week-4 concept named and applied accurately (8); evidence/pattern used and sourced responsibly, no fabricated statistics/studies (7); a competing explanation or limit acknowledged and answered fairly, with no stereotyping or correlation-as-causation (6). Deduct for swapping Cooley/Mead, misusing a concept, stereotyping, or invented figures.
FRESH VARIANT: "Build the same four-part argument about a DIFFERENT example of self/identity formation — e.g., how a teenager's body image forms, how someone becomes a devoted fan of a team, or how gender identity is socialized." Model: any on-topic claim with one Week-4 concept applied accurately, evidence sourced responsibly, and a fair competing explanation/limit. 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.
- If I try to use a fabricated statistic or study, do not endorse it: remind me figures/studies must be checked at a real source, and grade the reasoning, not an invented number.
- Watch this week's traps: swapping Cooley and Mead, misordering Mead's stages, framing nature VS. nurture, and sliding from correlation to causation. Correct them when grading.
- 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 4 ASSIGNMENT — Build the Self
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Problem 1 (Place the agents): a/24 — [one line]
Problem 2 (Cooley & Mead): b/26 — [one line]
Problem 3 (Nature/nurture & reading a finding): c/24 — [one line]
Problem 4 (Build the argument): 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. Adeyemi)

• 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, and the coach is instructed not to endorse fabricated statistics or studies (the discipline's load-bearing risk) and to correct the Cooley/Mead and stage-order traps when grading. 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 4 Assignment — Build the Self (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. Adeyemi's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

Traditional variant — for comparison. This sample course is configured adaptive learning, so its actual Week-4 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-04.md. This file shows the same Week-4 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 Sociology (SOC 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Adeyemi
Objective assessed: Objective 3 (socialization; the agents; Cooley & Mead) · SLO A (apply theory) · SLO B (reason from evidence, communicate clearly)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade

The Assignment

This week's skills: knowing where the self comes from (socialization), naming the forces that shape it (the agents), and keeping the two foundational theorists straight (Cooley and Mead). In four short parts, you'll place the agents, distinguish Cooley from Mead, correct a nature/nurture trap and a correlation-vs-causation trap, and build a short argument applying socialization theory to a real example. 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 — Place the agents (24 pts). For each example, name the agent of socialization it best illustrates (family, peer group, school, or media) and give a one-line reason:
(a) a toddler learns her first words and to wash her hands before dinner; (b) a teenager changes how he dresses to fit in with his friends; (c) without anyone announcing it, students learn to raise their hand, line up, and wait their turn; (d) a child learns from cartoons and ads which toys are "for boys" and which are "for girls"; (e) a new employee learns the unwritten rules of how to talk to the boss; (f) a family teaches a child the prayers and holidays of their religion.

Part 2 — Cooley & Mead (26 pts). (a) Name the thinker behind the looking-glass self and say, in one sentence, what it means. (b) Name the thinker behind the stages of self-development, list the three stages in order, and name the endpoint (where the child internalizes society's general expectations). (c) In Mead's theory, briefly distinguish the "I" from the "me."

Part 3 — Nature/nurture & reading a finding (24 pts). (a) A friend says, "Personality is all genetic — you're born who you are." In 2–3 sentences, correct this using the nature AND nurture framing. (b) A headline says, "Teens who spend more time on social media report more anxiety — so social media causes teen anxiety." In 2–3 sentences, explain what's wrong, using a Week-4/Week-2 idea (correlation vs. causation; third variable; reverse direction).

Part 4 — Build the argument (26 pts). In 6–8 sentences a non-sociologist friend could follow, build a short argument that applies socialization theory to a real example of how a self or identity gets shaped (gender identity, a professional identity, a fan/team identity, body image, a reputation). Your argument must: (1) state a clear claim; (2) apply at least one Week-4 concept by name and accurately (an agent, Cooley's looking-glass self, Mead's stages/generalized other, or resocialization/total institution); (3) back it with evidence or a real pattern (say where it would come from — Pew, Census, peer-reviewed research — without inventing exact numbers or studies); and (4) acknowledge a competing explanation or limit (a correlation-vs-causation caution, or the role of biology/agency) and respond to it fairly.

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. Do not paste a statistic or study you haven't verified at its source. (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-04.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. Point split mirrors the adaptive version: Parts 1 and 3 = 24 each, Parts 2 and 4 = 26 each, total 100.)

Instructor answer key — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

• Part 1: (a) family (first agent; language, basic norms). (b) peer group (age-mates; adolescent belonging/behavior). (c) school — the hidden curriculum (implicit lessons: order, punctuality, obedience). (d) mass media (norms/images of the "normal"). (e) workplace (an agent that resocializes adults). (f) family (and religion as the institution). Judge meaning; accept "school's hidden curriculum" for (c).
• Part 2: (a) Charles Horton Cooley — the looking-glass self: we form a self-image from how we imagine others see and judge us (Cooley 1902). (b) George Herbert Mead — stages imitation → play → game; endpoint = the generalized other (society's internalized expectations; Mind, Self, and Society, 1934). (c) the "I" = spontaneous/impulsive acting self; the "me" = the socialized self (internalized expectations of others). (All named factually; no fabricated quotes.) Deduct heavily for swapping Cooley and Mead or misordering the stages.
• Part 3: (a) Nature AND nurture, interacting — biology gives raw material; socialization shapes it into a self; the same infant raised elsewhere becomes a different person, and the self can be remade (so it's not fixed at birth). Pure-genetic is the error. (b) Confuses correlation with causation: social-media time and anxiety move together, but that doesn't prove media causes anxiety — the direction could reverse (anxious teens may use it more) or a third variable (sleep loss, family stress) could drive both.
• Part 4 (model): Any on-topic argument that (1) states a clear claim, (2) applies a Week-4 concept accurately (agent / looking-glass self / Mead's stages or generalized other / resocialization), (3) reasons from evidence/patterns sourced responsibly (no invented numbers or studies), and (4) fairly states and answers a competing explanation or limit. Example: professional identity ("becoming a nurse") is socialized via anticipatory socialization + resocialization, with Cooley's looking-glass self operating through instructors'/supervisors' reactions; evidence pointed to research on professional socialization; countered by a "some of it is dispositional/biology" view answered with "nature AND nurture." Do not award full marks for fabricated statistics/studies, a swapped Cooley/Mead, or one-sided framing.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 4 Assignment — Build the Self (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-04-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Adeyemi's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"