Title: Week 17 Discussion
Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-Week Generic Edition)

Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-week generic edition) Objective: Objective 8 + synthesis of Objectives 6–9 (choosing and using the inference toolkit) · SLO B (communicate to a non-technical audience) Discussion 17 · 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. This is the course's last discussion — so it asks the only question left worth asking: out of the entire toolkit you now own, which tool will you actually use once this course is over? You'll defend your pick in a back-and-forth with an AI chatbot, then stress-test it on this week's material: something in your own life you'd love to predict with a regression line — and where that prediction would betray you. 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 17 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 — argue with their pick, or poke a hole in their prediction.

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 17 of my college Introduction to Statistics course — the final week of new material. We are going to have a real back-and-forth about which statistical tool from this course I will actually keep using, and where a regression-style prediction in my own life would fail. 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 answer this honestly: now that the toolkit is complete — confidence intervals, hypothesis tests for means and proportions, chi-square, and this week's regression — which ONE tool (or habit of mind) will I actually use after this course ends, and can I defend that choice? Then stress-test my statistical judgment on this week's material: help me name something in MY life or major I'd love to predict from one other number (a regression), and make me find the ways that prediction would mislead me.

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (use these privately to steer the conversation — do NOT read them to me as a checklist): 1. My pick — one tool or idea from Weeks 11–17 (an interval, a test, chi-square, regression, or even a guardrail like "fail to reject ≠ accept") — tied to a REAL claim, decision, or situation in my life or field where I'd genuinely use it. 2. My defense — why THAT tool fits that situation: what shape the answer is (a mean, a proportion, counts, a line) and what the tool delivers that a bare average or gut feeling wouldn't. 3. My prediction — one x → y pair from my own world I'd love a regression line for; what the slope would mean in units; and at least one specific way the prediction could betray me (extrapolation beyond the data I'd fit it on, a lurking variable behind the pattern, or a small r² meaning x explains little). 4. At least one counterpoint I must genuinely engage — for example: "wouldn't a bigger sample fix that?" (it fixes noise, not bias or extrapolation), "a significant result means it matters, right?" (statistical vs. practical significance), or "if the slope is significant, x causes y" (still a handshake, not a push). 5. My takeaway — how this course changed how I'll read numbers in the wild, 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 — acknowledge this is the course's last discussion), asking my FIRST NAME, and asking ONE question that gets me to name a claim or decision from my actual life or major where numbers get 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 shape the answer is, what the tool would deliver, or what the slope would mean in units. - Introduce at least one counterpoint (from item 4 above, or better, one that targets MY specific example) 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 would that tool actually tell you there?"). - 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 my tool choice doesn't match my situation (say I pick a chi-square test for estimating an average), don't correct me outright — ask me what shape my answer is and let me catch it. - 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 discussion. - 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 situation and picked one tool for it, (b) defended the pick using the "shape of the answer" logic and course vocabulary, (c) proposed an x → y prediction from my world and named at least one specific way it could mislead (extrapolation, lurking variable, or small r²), (d) genuinely engaged a counterpoint, and (e) stated a plain-language takeaway — 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 17 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — The Tool You'll Keep Student: [name] | Date: ___ The tool I'm keeping, and the real situation it's for: ___ Why that tool fits (the shape of the answer): ___ The prediction I'd love to make (my x → y): ___ How that prediction could betray me: ___ A counterpoint I weighed: ___ My takeaway — how I'll read numbers 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 17 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 situation, a defended tool choice, and a genuine x → y stress-test; not a generic ode to statistics (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Correct use of course concepts — the "shape of the answer" logic, the tool's actual deliverable, and a correctly named failure mode (extrapolation / lurking variable / small r²) (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Engaged a counterpoint — names and genuinely weighs an opposing read (bigger n, significance = importance, slope = causation…) (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. Expect (and welcome) picks that aren't regression; the regression stress-test in the middle is what anchors the post to this week.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object = DiscussionTopic title = "Week 17 Discussion — The Tool You'll Keep (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."