Title: Week 4 Discussion
Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-Week Generic Edition)

Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-week generic edition) Objective: Objective 3 (association vs. causation; lurking variables) · SLO B (communicate to a non-technical audience) Discussion 4 · 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. Study after study reports the same association: heavier evening screen time tends to go with shorter, worse sleep. You live inside that dataset — your phone probably tracks both. This week you learned that an association like that has three possible explanations, and only one of them is "the screen causes it." You'll interrogate your own case in a back-and-forth conversation with an AI chatbot. 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 4 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 their causal verdict: did they convince you the arrow points where they say it does?

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 4 of my college Introduction to Statistics course. We are going to have a real back-and-forth about screen time and sleep — and whether the well-known link between them is actually a cause. 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 Research keeps finding a negative association: more evening screen time tends to go with shorter, worse sleep. Looking at MY OWN life: is the screen the cause of worse sleep, is it the other way around (bad nights send me scrolling), or is something else driving both — and what would it take to change my mind? We'll dig into my actual evenings, which of the three explanations fits them best, and what evidence could ever settle the arrow.

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (use these privately to steer the conversation — do NOT read them to me as a checklist): 1. My own two variables — roughly how my evening screen time and my sleep actually run, and whether my personal pattern even matches the famous association (an honest "mine doesn't" is a great answer). 2. The three-explanations framework from this week: screens → worse sleep; worse sleep → more screens (the backward arrow — lying awake and scrolling BECAUSE I can't sleep); or a lurking variable driving both (stress, deadlines, caffeine, an erratic schedule…). Make me actually argue for and against each. 3. The direction-of-the-arrow problem — why my own observational experience, however vivid, can't separate the three; connect to why r or any measured association stays silent about causes. 4. At least one complication or counterpoint — e.g., that real randomized experiments on this exist in principle (assign phone-free evenings — would I trust a small one over my own experience?), that "screen time" lumps passive scrolling with reading, or that the association might run differently for different people. 5. My verdict — which explanation (or mix) I find most plausible FOR ME, what evidence would change my mind — stated plainly enough for a friend who's never taken statistics (SLO B).

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 describe my own typical evening — screens and sleep. (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 from a specific recent night, or how a Week-4 concept applies. - Introduce at least one counterpoint ("couldn't the arrow run the other way on your worst nights?" / "you named stress — doesn't that third hand explain both sides of your story?") 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 — walk me through last night, hour by hour."). - 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 screens-and-sleep 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, contradicts itself, or quietly assumes the arrow it's supposed to be questioning, say so kindly and ask me to address it.

THE EXIT CONDITION After at least 5 substantive exchanges AND once I have (a) described my own screen/sleep pattern honestly, (b) argued through ALL THREE explanations — the forward arrow, the backward arrow, and at least one named lurking variable, (c) explained why my own observational experience can't settle the arrow, (d) engaged with at least one counterpoint, and (e) reached a plain-language verdict including what evidence would change my mind — 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 4 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — The Scroll-and-Sleep Question Student: [name] | Date: ___ My own pattern (screens & sleep): ___ The forward arrow (screens → sleep) — my case for/against: ___ The backward arrow (sleep → screens) — my case for/against: ___ A lurking variable I named, and how it could drive both: ___ A counterpoint I weighed: ___ My verdict — and the evidence that would change my mind (for a non-expert): ___ Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 4 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 — all three explanations genuinely argued, not listed; verdict is reasoned, not reflexive (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Correct use of Week-4 concepts — association vs. causation, the backward arrow, and a named lurking variable used accurately (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Engaged a counterpoint — names and genuinely weighs an opposing read (an experiment's verdict, the lumping problem, individual differences…) (2) | 2 | 1 | 0
Peer replies + clarity for a non-expert — two substantive replies engaging classmates' causal verdicts; 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. The failure mode to watch: a summary whose three "explanations" are one-line fill-ins from a thin chat — the rubric rewards visible back-and-forth, not the AI's prose.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object = DiscussionTopic title = "Week 4 Discussion — The Scroll-and-Sleep Question (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."