Social Reflection Assignments

Assignment Overview

Computing is an inherently social discipline, and almost all of the ideas/technologies generated by computer scientists interact with humans (some more directly than others). As computer scientists, reflecting on how the technologies we develop impact society is one of the most important aspects of our discipline.

The goal of these assignments is to provide space for you to reflect on how computing interacts with society. During this reflection, we encourage you to push yourself outside of your comfort zone. You may find things that challenge your current opinions or make you uncomfortable. This is a natural part of the reflection process, and is a sign that you are taking the reflection seriously!

We also understand the assignment is fairly broad and may be intimidating especially if this is a new process for you. As you’ll note in the requirements/rubric sections below, you are not graded on the opinions you express or the topics you choose. The rubric is intended to evaluate the effort you put into the reflection, so as long as you are giving it an honest effort you will receive an excellent grade. If you are ever unsure about what is required or how you will be graded, please reach out to the course staff!

Requirements

Each assignment will have a list of prompts that are intended to guide your reflections (these prompts loosely follow course themes, but they are intentionally broad in nature). Your task is to find one article/blog/paper related to the prompt themes to read and reflect upon. These sources can be from anywhere, but you’ll note below that part of the assignment is to evaluate both the credibility and bias of your sources.

For the article you choose, you must provide all of the following:

• Evaluation of the source This should evaluate both the credibility and any potential bias of the source you are using by mentioning specific reasons why you think the source is or isn’t credible and how it may be biased. You won’t be graded on which source you choose, but you will be graded on your evaluation of it. See the Helpful Resources section below for some guides to evaluating sources.
• Summary of the article This should be about a paragraph summary of your article, written in a way that allows a reader w/no prior knowledge of the article to understand the main points.
• How this article influenced your thoughts Reflect on the article and potentially the broader prompt. What have you learned? Have your opinions/feelings about the issue remained the same or changed? Why?
• At least 2 questions you now want to explore after reading and reflecting on this article. These questions should be somewhat related to the article and/or your reflection.

Helpful Resources

For evaluating sources:

• UW Library guide to evaluating sources
• UW Center for an Informed Public resources page
• Purdue OWL general guidelines for evaluating sources
• University of Kansas article/video on evaluating sources
• New Jersey Institute of Technology guide on examining bias in sources
• Tacoma Community College Library info on bias

Some CS ethical Frameworks potentially useful for your reflection:

• Menlo report, which connects computer security ethics to research ethics
• Capabilities framework, which foregrounds global well-being, justice, and development
• Manifest-no, which emphasizes refusal of historically harmful data regimes
• Harvard Embedded Ethics Course Modules, which include questions and relevant materials for a variety of computer ethics topics

Rubric

5 points total. You’ll note the rubric is subjective - it is there to give you a rough guide of what we are grading on and is mostly based on effort. We will be reasonably lenient when grading your reflections.

Evaluation of the source (1 point)	1 point Detailed evaluation of the source, considering both the credibility and the biases of the article, and potentially using one of the recommended techniques to evaluate the source.	0.5 points Evaluates the source, but does not give any reasoning behind their evaluations (relies on their "gut feeling") or doesn't mention the credibility or bias of the source.	0 points No substantial evaluation of the source.
Summary (1 point)	1 point Detailed, concise summary of the main points of the article. Allows someone who has not read the article to get a general sense of the main ideas and some of the nuances/complex issues the article discusses, without overloading them with too many details.	0.5 points Decent summary, but it does not give the reader a good idea of what the article is discussing (may lack detail or overload the reader w/details). Readers may feel they have to read the full article to determine the main ideas.	0 points No substantial summary of the article.
Reflection (2 points)	2 points Thoughtful and detailed reflection on the article. Includes specific information about new things learned. Also includes specific reflections on the student's opinions and feelings about the issue.	1 point Decent reflection, but did not include specific information about new things learned or specific reflections on their thoughts and feelings on the issue.	0 points No substantial reflection on the source.
Follow Up Questions (1 point)	1 point 2 distinct, excellent follow up questions related to the student's article and/or reflection.	0.5 points 1 excellent follow up question related to the student's article and/or reflection, but the other follow up question is either missing or lacks any connection to the student's article and reflection.	0 points Both questions are either missing or lack any connection to the student's article and reflection.