Each reflection prepares you for Tuesday's in-class discussion. You pick one article from a short list and write a three-part reflection on what it argues and what you think about it. The individual reflection is due Friday via Gradescope. The following Tuesday, you discuss your reading with a small group in class and post a group summary to Ed. The most interesting discussions happen when you bring your own experience as a working engineer.
There are four reflections across the quarter, one every other week. Together they trace an arc: from skepticism about formal methods, through evidence and honest limits, to open questions about the future.
After reading your chosen option, write a short reflection with three components:
What does this reading argue? (~5 sentences) Explain the author's central claim and how they support it in your own words. Reconstruct the argument, not just the conclusion. Be specific enough that someone who read a different piece can follow. This helps frame your other responses and prepares for in-class discussion.
What is your honest reaction? (~5 sentences) What struck you? Where did you find yourself agreeing, pushing back, or feeling uncertain? Connect to your own experience as an engineer if you can. Come to class with a position, even if it is tentative.
What do you want to discuss? (~5 sentences) What question, tension, or connection do you want to bring to Tuesday's discussion? This could be something the reading left unresolved, something you would challenge the author on, or something you want to hear other perspectives on.
You will also indicate which reading you chose on the submission form. Submit via Gradescope by Friday at 5:00 PM.
Reflections are your own thinking in your own words. AI-generated submissions receive zero credit. You may use AI for light editing (grammar, spelling, conciseness). If you do, indicate this on the submission form.
The Tuesday after each reflection is due, you will discuss the readings in small groups during lecture. Groups of 3-4 students, ideally mixed across different reading choices.
After the discussion, your group posts a short summary (~150-200 words) to Ed covering: which readings your group read, where you agreed, where you disagreed, and one question or insight from the conversation.
If you miss class, you receive 0 on the group portion. Your individual reflection is still graded.
Each reflection is worth 50 points.
Individual reflection (30 points): Each of the three components is worth 10 points on this scale:
Group discussion summary (20 points): Based on the summary your group posts to Ed after Tuesday's discussion.
Due: Friday, April 3 at 5:00 PM | 50 points
We start with doubt. Three people you might expect to champion formal methods raise questions instead. A company that sells them, a design philosopher who cares about correctness, and the inventor of Hoare Logic each question whether the promises hold up.
Due: Friday, April 17 at 5:00 PM | 50 points
The previous reflection raised doubts. This week we look at the evidence. Three practitioners who used formal methods report what they found, and the picture is more complicated than either side wants to admit.
Due: Friday, May 1 at 5:00 PM | 50 points
Content will be posted before the assignment opens.
Due: Friday, May 15 at 5:00 PM | 50 points
Content will be posted before the assignment opens.