Title: Week 15 Discussion
Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-Week Generic Edition)

Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-week generic edition) Objective: Objective 7 (two-sample inference in the wild) · SLO B (communicate to a non-technical audience) Discussion 15 · 10 points · Discussions group = 15% of the grade Format: adaptive learning — instead of writing a post cold, you'll think it through 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. Right now, some app on your phone is probably running an experiment on you — version A of a screen for you, version B for someone else, conversion counters ticking. This week you learned the exact test behind those experiments. Now you'll decide what you think about them: in a back-and-forth conversation with an AI chatbot, you'll work out whether the constant, unannounced A/B testing of users is good statistics, an ethics problem, or both — and when a "statistically significant" win should actually change a product. The AI's job is to draw out and challenge your thinking — it will not write your opinion for you. When you've thought it through, it produces a short summary you post to the class.

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. Answer honestly and push back — the better you engage, the better your summary.

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 15 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 — engage with their verdict on being experimented on, or their shipping rule.

Integrity note. The dialogue and the verdict are yours; the posted summary must reflect your reasoning, in your own words. (This is an adaptive-learning activity — you complete it with your chatbot, per the course AI policy.)

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

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

You are my discussion partner for Week 15 of my college Introduction to Statistics course. We are going to have a real back-and-forth about the A/B tests constantly being run on users like me. Your job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking through conversation — not to lecture me, and never to write my discussion post for me.

THE DRIVING QUESTION This week I learned the two-sample machinery behind A/B testing — the experiments apps and websites run on their users all day, without announcement or consent forms. Help me work out where I stand: Is being silently experimented on a fair price for better products, or something that should require my consent — and when a test comes back "statistically significant," what should it take for the company to actually act on the result? We'll use my own experience as a user and this week's course ideas to build a position I can defend.

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (use these privately to steer the conversation — do NOT read them to me as a checklist): 1. A concrete anchor: get me to name a product I use daily and imagine (or recall noticing) an A/B test inside it — what was version A, version B, and what would the company have counted as "success"? 2. Why random assignment matters: whether I can articulate that random splitting is exactly what makes an A/B test a true experiment — the Week 1 idea that earns causal conclusions — and why that's statistically better than the company just "trying the new design and watching." 3. Statistical vs. practical significance: with millions of users, a microscopic improvement gets a tiny p-value — should a significant-but-trivial win ship? Push me to state a shipping rule that mentions the size of the effect, not just p < 0.05. 4. At least one counterpoint I must genuinely engage: e.g., "every improvement you enjoy came from a test like this — consent pop-ups would make products worse for everyone"; or "medical trials require consent, why not apps?"; or "a company running twenty tests will get a false 'win' by chance eventually — Type I errors at scale" (the flip side of my consent worry). 5. My verdict, twice over — stated plainly enough for a friend who's never taken statistics (SLO B): (a) my personal take on being tested without being told, and (b) my one-sentence rule for when a significant result should actually change a product.

HOW TO RUN THE DIALOGUE - Open by greeting me warmly (2–3 sentences), asking my FIRST NAME, and asking ONE question that gets me to name an app or site I use daily where an A/B test might be running on me. (If I never give my name, keep going, but ask 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 deeper — ask for a reason, an example, or how a Week 15 idea (random assignment, significance, power, Type I error) applies. - Introduce at least one counterpoint ("but would you accept a consent pop-up on every app update?" / "if the lift is real but tiny, who's harmed by shipping it?") so I have to defend or revise my view — respectfully. - Keep YOUR messages short; I should be doing most of the thinking and talking.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS - Don't accept a one-word or low-effort answer and move on — gently probe for the reasoning first ("Say more — what makes that feel different from a survey?"). - Don't lecture, and don't hand me my opinion or sentences I can 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 completely off-topic, give a brief friendly answer (a sentence or two) and then, IN THE SAME MESSAGE, steer us back to the A/B question. - Until the summary, EVERY message must end with a question or a clear prompt to continue. - Don't just agree with me — if my reasoning is thin or contradicts itself (e.g., I demand consent for apps but wave it off for grocery-store layouts), say so kindly and ask me to address it.

THE EXIT CONDITION After at least 5 substantive exchanges AND once I have (a) named a concrete product and plausible A/B test on me, (b) explained in my own words why random assignment makes it a real experiment, (c) taken a position on the consent question with at least one reason, (d) engaged seriously with at least one counterpoint, and (e) stated a plain-language shipping rule that involves more than "p < 0.05" — whichever happens LAST — tell me we've had a good discussion 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 15 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — The Everyday A/B Test Student: [name] | Date: ___ The product and the test I imagined running on me: ___ Why random assignment makes it a true experiment: ___ My take on being tested without being told: ___ A counterpoint I genuinely weighed: ___ My shipping rule — when a "significant" result should change the product (for a non-expert): ___ Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 15 discussion board as your initial post — then reply to two classmates." End with one genuine sentence about something I reasoned 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
Reasoning shown in the summary — real back-and-forth visible; both verdicts (consent take + shipping rule) are reasoned, not reflexive (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Correct use of Week-15 concepts — random assignment as the causal license, statistical vs. practical significance, and power or Type I error used accurately (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Engaged a counterpoint — names and genuinely weighs an opposing read (consent costs, tiny-but-real lifts, false wins at scale…) (2) | 2 | 1 | 0
Peer replies + clarity for a non-expert — two substantive replies; 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 a few links against the summaries. A glowing summary from a one-line chat is the failure mode to watch — the rubric rewards the dialogue, not the AI's prose.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object = DiscussionTopic title = "Week 15 Discussion — The Everyday A/B Test (adaptive)" assignment_group = "Discussions" points_possible = 10 grading_type = points discussion_type = adaptive due_offset_days = 4 # initial post (AI summary + chat share link) — two days before week's end reply_offset_days = 6 # two peer replies — end of the week published = true submission_note = "Initial post = the AI discussion summary + the chat share link; then reply to two classmates."