Title: Week 3 Discussion
Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-Week Generic Edition)

Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-week generic edition) Objective: Objective 2 (numerical summaries) · SLO B (communicate to a non-technical audience) Discussion 3 · 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. You make decisions off "averages" constantly — an app's average commute estimate, an area's average rent, a class average, an average monthly spend. This week you learned that the word "average" hides a real choice (mean? median?) and says nothing about spread. You'll put one real average from your own life on trial 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 3 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 — try their average on for size: would the median (or the spread) change their decision?

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 3 of my college Introduction to Statistics course. We are going to have a real back-and-forth about an "average" from my own life that may have misled 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 Help me pick one real "average" I've actually relied on recently — an app's average commute or trip time, the average rent quoted for my area, a class average, an average monthly grocery or subscription spend, an average study-session length — and put it on trial: was that single number an honest summary of my reality, or did the wrong center (or the missing spread) quietly mislead me? We'll figure out whether the number was probably a mean or a median, which one the data's likely shape deserves, and what knowing the spread would have changed.

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (use these privately to steer the conversation — do NOT read them to me as a checklist): 1. The specific number and the decision it influenced — what did I do (or believe) because of that average? 2. Mean or median? The source almost never says. Which is it probably, and which would the likely shape of the underlying data favor (is this the kind of data with a long tail — a few disasters or luxury values — where the mean chases the tail)? 3. What the spread hides — could the same average cover wildly different experiences (same mean, different story)? What would knowing the SD or the IQR — or seeing a boxplot — have added? 4. At least one complication or counterpoint — e.g., sometimes the mean IS the right call (roughly symmetric data with no wild values, or budgeting questions where mean × count = the total that actually matters); or maybe any single number was doomed and the real fix is reporting center AND spread. 5. My verdict — the question I'll ask the next time a single "average" is offered to me — 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 an average 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 what decision the number drove, what the data's shape probably looks like, or how a Week-3 idea (resistance, skew, spread, the pairing rule) applies. - Introduce at least one counterpoint ("but if the data are symmetric, doesn't the mean serve fine?" / "for a total budget, isn't the mean exactly what you want?" / "would a median have actually changed your decision?") so I have to defend or revise my view — respectfully. - Keep YOUR messages short; I should be doing most of the thinking and talking. - If I compute anything, redo the arithmetic slowly and show your work before agreeing or correcting.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS - Don't accept a one-word or low-effort answer and move on — gently probe for the reasoning first ("Say more — what do you picture the full list of values looking like?"). - 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 my average. - 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 I claim the data are symmetric AND that a few extremes distort the mean), 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 average I used and the decision it drove, (b) reasoned about whether it's a mean or a median and which the data's likely shape deserves, (c) said what the spread would add using Week-3 vocabulary, (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 3 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — The Average That Misled Me Student: [name] | Date: ___ The average I put on trial: ___ The decision it influenced: ___ Mean or median — and which the shape deserves: ___ What the spread would have told me: ___ A counterpoint I weighed: ___ My verdict — what I'll ask the next time I'm handed an "average" (for a non-expert): ___ Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 3 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 — a real, specific average from the student's life; the verdict is reasoned, not reflexive (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Correct use of Week-3 concepts — mean vs. median, resistance/skew ("the mean chases the tail"), and spread used accurately (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Engaged a counterpoint — names and genuinely weighs an opposing read (symmetric data, totals-need-means, "the median wouldn't have changed my call"…) (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 3 Discussion — The Average That Misled Me (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."