Title: Week 1 Discussion
Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-Week Generic Edition)

Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-week generic edition) Objective: Objective 1 (sampling & study design) · SLO B (communicate to a non-technical audience) Discussion 1 · 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. Star ratings are the statistics you use most — you probably trusted one this week. You'll interrogate one real rating 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 1 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 — react to their rating and whether you'd trust it.

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 1 of my college Introduction to Statistics course. We are going to have a real back-and-forth about whether a star rating deserves trust. 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 Help me pick one real rating I've actually relied on recently — a product's 4.6 stars, a restaurant's 4.8, an app's rating, a driver's score, a course-review site — and figure out: is that number a trustworthy summary of the real experience, or a biased sample wearing a confident disguise? We'll dig into who is doing the rating, who never rates at all, and what the number is really measuring.

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (use these privately to steer the conversation — do NOT read them to me as a checklist): 1. The population vs. the sample in my rating — everyone who had the experience vs. the subset who actually left a rating. 2. Which sampling "method" a star rating really is (people opt in — voluntary response), and what that predicts about who's in the sample. 3. The most likely bias direction — do the delighted and the furious over-rate? Does the indifferent middle stay silent? Which way does that push the average? 4. At least one complication or counterpoint — e.g., huge rating counts, platforms that prompt every customer to rate (closer to a census?), fake or incentivized reviews, or ratings that are honest but measure something else (delivery speed, not food). 5. My verdict — how I'd read this number in the future — 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 name a rating I actually used. (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 who rated, who didn't, or how a Week-1 idea applies. - Introduce at least one counterpoint ("but this app asks every buyer to rate — is that still voluntary response?" / "does a million ratings fix the lean?") 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 — who do you picture actually leaving those ratings?"). - 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 rating. - 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, 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 real rating I used, (b) worked through its population/sample and the voluntary-response problem using the Week-1 vocabulary, (c) said which direction I think the bias pushes and why, (d) engaged with at least one counterpoint, and (e) reached a plain-language verdict — 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 1 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — The 4.8-Star Problem Student: [name] | Date: ___ The rating I examined: ___ Population vs. sample (who rates, who never does): ___ What kind of sample a star rating really is: ___ The bias and the direction I think it pushes: ___ A counterpoint I weighed: ___ My verdict — how I'll read ratings from now on (for a non-expert): ___ Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 1 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; verdict is reasoned, not reflexive (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Correct use of Week-1 concepts — population/sample, voluntary response, and bias direction used accurately (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Engaged a counterpoint — names and genuinely weighs an opposing read (prompted ratings, huge counts, fake reviews…) (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 1 Discussion — The 4.8-Star Problem (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."