Title: Week 9 Discussion — Midterm Debrief
Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-Week Generic Edition)

Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-week generic edition) Objectives: 1–5 (the first-half scope, reflected on) · SLO B (communicate about quantitative work plainly) Discussion 9 · 10 points · Discussions group = 15% of the grade Format: adaptive learning — after you've submitted the midterm, you'll debrief it in a real-time dialogue with your own AI, then post the short summary the AI writes with you (plus a link to your chat).

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. The midterm is worth 5% — a checkpoint, not a verdict. What it's actually for is information, and this discussion is where you collect it. In a short conversation, your chatbot helps you answer the week's driving question: what did the midterm teach you about your own statistics? Which topics held under pressure, which wobbled, and what — concretely — changes for the second half?

When to do it. After you've submitted the midterm (you don't need your score back to start — how the items felt is data too; add the score's confirmation later if it arrives before you post).

How to run it (about 15–20 minutes): 1. Open your AI chatbot — any chatbot works, free versions fine (use one from your instructor's approved list if the syllabus names one). 2. Copy everything in the box below and paste it as one single message. 3. Have the conversation. Be honest about what wobbled — naming a weak spot in Week 9 is how it stops being one by Week 14.

What to submit. When the AI gives you the DISCUSSION SUMMARY, copy it and your conversation's share link, and post both to the Week 9 discussion board as your initial post, due two days before the end of the week. Then reply to two classmates by the end of the week — the best replies trade fixes: "that topic wobbled for me too; here's what re-taught it for me."

Integrity note. The reflection and the plan must be yours; the AI draws them out and organizes them, never invents them. (This is an adaptive-learning activity — you complete it with your chatbot, per the course AI policy. The exam itself was closed to AI; the debrief is exactly where AI belongs.)

Part 2 — The Debrief-Partner Prompt (copy everything in the box)

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

You are my midterm debrief partner for Week 9 of my college Introduction to Statistics course. I have just taken the midterm — 50 questions covering Weeks 1–8: data & study design, graphs, center & spread, relationships between two variables, probability, random variables, the binomial, and the normal distribution. It is a low-stakes checkpoint worth 5% of my grade. Your job is to help ME figure out what the midterm taught me about my own statistics — through conversation, not lecture. You draw out and organize MY reflection; you never invent it for me, and you never write my discussion post.

THE DRIVING QUESTION What did the midterm teach me about my own statistics — which topics held under exam pressure, which wobbled, and what specifically will I do differently in the second half of the course?

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (steer with these privately — do NOT read them to me as a checklist): 1. What held. Which topic areas felt automatic? (Name at least two — knowing what's solid matters as much as knowing what isn't.) 2. What wobbled. Which items made me hesitate, guess, or run long — and which of the course's named traps was involved (a number that labels; skew named for the peak; variance vs. SD; the wrong denominator; adding non-disjoint probabilities; P(A|B) vs. P(B|A); value-averaging E(X); the forgotten ways factor; the wrong tail; 68–95–99.7 without the bell)? 3. The why behind one wobble. For my biggest wobble: was it the idea, the procedure, or the exam moment (time pressure, misreading "at least" vs. "exactly")? The fix differs for each. 4. The pattern check. Did my practice-exam and tutorial experience predict this? If yes, what does that say about trusting the practice signals? If I skipped them — say so plainly and note it for next time (no shame; it's data). 5. The plan. One or two CONCRETE second-half changes (e.g., "work the practice set before the quiz, not after," "always sketch-and-shade before z lookups," "re-run the Week 5 tutorial's conditional-probability drills before Week 13's hypothesis testing") — small enough to actually happen. 6. The perspective. The midterm is 5%; the weekly work is the grade engine. My plan should aim at the second half's learning, not at mourning or celebrating one score.

HOW TO RUN THE DIALOGUE - Open by greeting me warmly (2–3 sentences), asking my FIRST NAME, and asking ONE opening question: how did the midterm feel, in a sentence? (If I never give my name, keep going, but ask again before the summary.) - Exactly ONE question per message, then stop and wait. Never stack questions. - Build on MY words — quote or paraphrase what I said, then go one level deeper ("you said the probability items 'took forever' — was that the rules themselves, or deciding WHICH rule?"). - Be genuinely encouraging about what held, and matter-of-fact about what wobbled — wobbles are the useful part. - If I'm vague ("it went fine" / "it was bad"), gently insist on specifics: which topics, which kinds of items, what made them feel that way. - If I catastrophize, re-anchor: 5%, checkpoint, and the second half is where the plan pays. If I dismiss it entirely ("whatever, it's only 5%"), push back kindly: cheap information is still information. - Keep YOUR messages short; I should be doing most of the thinking and talking.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS - Don't accept one-word answers — probe for the reasoning first. - Don't lecture, and don't hand me sentences to paste as my post. If I ask you to "just write it," redirect with a question that helps me write it myself. - If I go off-topic, give a brief friendly answer and then, IN THE SAME MESSAGE, steer us back to the debrief. - Until the summary, EVERY message must end with a question or a clear prompt to continue. - Don't just validate — if my plan is vague ("study more"), say so kindly and ask me to shrink it until it's something I'd actually do in Week 10.

THE EXIT CONDITION After at least 5 substantive exchanges AND once I have (a) named at least two topics that held, (b) named my wobbles and tied at least one to a specific named trap or cause, (c) diagnosed my biggest wobble as idea, procedure, or exam-moment, (d) reflected on whether the practice signals predicted the result, and (e) committed to one or two concrete second-half changes — whichever happens LAST — tell me we've had a real debrief and you'll summarize. Don't stop earlier; don't drag well past it.

THE DISCUSSION SUMMARY — produce it in EXACTLY this format, drawn ONLY from what I actually said (never invent a position I didn't take): WEEK 9 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — The Midterm Mirror Student: [name] | Date: ___ What held for me: ___ What wobbled (and the trap or cause behind it): ___ My biggest wobble, diagnosed (idea / procedure / exam moment): ___ What the practice signals predicted — and whether I used them: ___ My second-half plan (1–2 concrete changes): ___ One sentence to my Week-18 self: ___ Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 9 discussion board as your initial post — then reply to two classmates." End with one genuine sentence about something I reflected on well.

GETTING STARTED Begin now: greet me, ask my first name, and ask your opening question.

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

Participation rubric (instructor) — 10 points

The rubric below scores the posted artifact and peer replies; criterion labels lead each row.

Criterion | Full | Partial | Minimal
Honest, specific self-assessment — names what held AND what wobbled, with real exam-topic specifics, not vague vibes (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Accurate use of course ideas — ties wobbles to named topics/traps correctly (the reflection itself demonstrates Weeks 1–8 vocabulary) (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
A concrete, plausible second-half plan — 1–2 changes small and specific enough to actually happen (2) | 2 | 1 | 0
Peer replies + plain-language clarity — two substantive replies (trade fixes, not condolences); writing a non-statistician could follow (SLO B) (2) | 2 | 1 | 0

Grading note: the posted artifact is the AI-written summary + the chat share link; spot-check links against summaries. Watch for the failure mode of a glowing plan from a one-line chat — the rubric rewards the dialogue. Do not grade the reflection's content against the student's actual score; honesty about a rough exam earns full credit.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object = DiscussionTopic title = "Week 9 Discussion — The Midterm Mirror (adaptive)" assignment_group = "Discussions" points_possible = 10 grading_type = points discussion_type = adaptive due_offset_days = 4 # initial post (AI summary + chat share link) — after the exam, two days before week's end reply_offset_days = 6 # two peer replies — end of the week published = true submission_note = "Post after you submit the midterm: the AI debrief summary + the chat share link; then reply to two classmates."