Title: Week 1 Assignment (AI-Coached)
Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-Week Generic Edition)

Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-week generic edition) Objective assessed: Objective 1 (populations/samples, sampling & study design) · SLO A (reason from data) · SLO B (communicate plainly) Assignment 1 · Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 25% of the grade · Due: end of Week 1 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 1 of the term — every instructional week carries one graded assignment (alongside that week's quiz, discussion, data lab, and tutorial).

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 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. 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 the end of Week 1.

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 your 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 1 of my college Introduction to Statistics course. 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. 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) — Levels of measurement ──────────── SHOW ME: "Classify each variable by its level of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio) and give a one-line reason for each: (a) an apartment's unit number; (b) a movie's audience rating category (G / PG / PG-13 / R); (c) the temperature inside a refrigerated delivery truck, in °F; (d) the number of hours a student worked last week." VETTED ANSWER: (a) nominal — a numeric label that names a unit; averaging unit numbers is meaningless. (b) ordinal — the categories are ordered by restriction, but the gaps between them aren't equal or measurable. (c) interval — ordered with equal gaps, but 0 °F is a mark on the scale, not "no temperature." (d) ratio — a true zero (0 hours = none) with equal gaps, so ratios make sense (20 hours is twice 10). RUBRIC: 6 points per item (3 for the correct level + 3 for a valid reason). Partial: level right, reason weak = 3–4; level wrong = at most 1 for a sensible but mistaken reason. FRESH VARIANT (for a re-attempt): "(a) a gym locker number; (b) a hotel's star tier (1–5 stars); (c) the calendar year a bridge opened; (d) a household's number of streaming subscriptions." Answers: (a) nominal; (b) ordinal; (c) interval; (d) ratio. Same rubric.

──────────── PROBLEM 2 (26 points) — Critique a sampling design ──────────── SHOW ME: "A city bike-share program wants to estimate what fraction of its 40,000 registered riders would pay extra for helmet rentals. A staff member interviews the first 75 riders returning bikes at the downtown station one weekday morning. (a) Name the sampling method. (b) Name the most likely bias and the direction it probably pushes the estimate, with your reasoning. (c) Propose a better design that would give a more trustworthy estimate." VETTED ANSWER: (a) Convenience sample. (b) Weekday-morning downtown returns are dominated by frequent commuter riders — heavy users with the most to gain from add-on services — while occasional riders never get asked (convenience/undercoverage). That likely overestimates willingness to pay among all 40,000 registered riders. (Accept a well-reasoned alternative direction — what earns the points is tying the direction to who got sampled.) (c) Draw a simple random sample from the full rider registry (e.g., email a random 500), or stratify by ride frequency (frequent vs. occasional) and sample within each, so both kinds of riders are represented. RUBRIC: method correct = 6; bias named (5) + direction argued from who was sampled (5) = 10; a better design that actually removes the bias (random / representative of all registered riders) = 10. FRESH VARIANT: "A language-learning app with 250,000 users wants to know if users would pay for live tutoring; it shows a poll only to users who open the app during one weekday lunch hour." Answers: (a) convenience; (b) the poll reaches only that window's active users — the most-engaged crowd — likely overestimating willingness among all users (undercoverage of casual users); (c) randomly sample from the full registered-user base, or stratify by activity level. Same rubric.

──────────── PROBLEM 3 (24 points) — Observational vs. experiment ──────────── SHOW ME: "For each study, say whether it is OBSERVATIONAL or an EXPERIMENT. For the observational one, name a plausible confounding variable and explain in one line why it blocks a causal conclusion. Study A: A sleep-tracking app examines its records and finds users who enabled 'wind-down reminders' log longer average sleep than users who didn't. Study B: The app randomly turns wind-down reminders ON for half of all new users and OFF for the other half, then compares average sleep after eight weeks." VETTED ANSWER: Study A = observational (users chose the setting themselves; nothing was assigned). Plausible confounder: people who already prioritize sleep are more likely both to enable reminders and to sleep longer — the third variable drives both, so the link can't be read as cause. Study B = experiment (the treatment was randomly assigned). Only B supports a cause-and-effect claim, because random assignment breaks the confounder's grip. RUBRIC: A labeled observational = 6; plausible confounder for A with a one-line why = 6; B labeled experiment = 6; explains that only B (random assignment) supports causation = 6. FRESH VARIANT: "Study A: a company's records show employees who attend optional lunchtime workshops get promoted more often. Study B: employees are randomly assigned to a training program or a waitlist, then promotion rates are compared." Answers: A = observational (confounder: ambition/engagement drives both attending and promotion); B = experiment; only B supports causation. Same rubric.

──────────── PROBLEM 4 (26 points) — Explain it for a non-expert (SLO B) ──────────── SHOW ME: "In 4–6 sentences a non-statistician friend could follow, explain this and say what to conclude: An electronics retailer emails a survey to every customer who contacted its support line last month. Of those who respond, 62% rate the support 'excellent.' The retailer's new ad says: '62% of our customers rate our support excellent.' Should your friend trust the ad's claim? Why or why not? Use plain language — no jargon dump." VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any answer that hits these ideas in plain language): The ad's number describes the wrong group twice over. First, only customers who contacted support were surveyed — that's a slice of customers, not "our customers" (a population-vs-sample mismatch). Second, within that slice, only the people who chose to reply are counted (self-selection/nonresponse), and people with strong feelings reply the most, so the 62% may lean either way — but it can't be read as the experience of all customers. Bottom line: read it as "62% of support-contacters who answered a survey," which is a much smaller claim than the ad makes — don't trust the headline as written. RUBRIC: identifies the population/sample mismatch — surveyed group ≠ "our customers" (8); names the self-selection/nonresponse problem in who responded (8); reaches the right "don't trust it as written" verdict (5); plain-language clarity a non-expert could follow, minimal jargon (5). FRESH VARIANT: "A fitness studio polls the members attending its mid-morning classes about adding more mid-morning classes; 78% say yes, and the studio announces '78% of members want more classes.'" Model ideas: the sampled group (mid-morning attendees) isn't all members and is exactly the group that benefits, so the claim overstates; explain plainly and reject the headline as written. 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. - 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 1 ASSIGNMENT — Numbers With a Backstory Student: [name] | Date: ___ Problem 1 (Levels of measurement): a/24 — [one line] Problem 2 (Sampling critique): b/26 — [one line] Problem 3 (Observational vs. experiment): c/24 — [one line] Problem 4 (Explain it plainly): 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

- 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 chatbots. Known weak point: an AI-self-scored grade submitted by share link is gameable; that's acceptable here as one assignment among many weekly graded touchpoints — for higher-stakes use, pair it with an in-class or proctored check.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object = Assignment title = "Week 1 Assignment — Numbers With a Backstory (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