Reflective Blog, PHIL2020, 2022
Unit Convenor: A/Prof Paul Formosa ([email protected]).
Weighting: This assessment is worth 20% of your grade for this unit.
Due Dates: 30/4/2022 at 23:59. The due date is for both posts.
Submission: Upload your entries as two separate blog posts via the ‘Reflective Blog’
link under the assessment tab on iLearn. Your blog is only viewable by the unit’s
teaching staff and yourself.
Task: The aim of the reflective blog is to develop your skills at critically reflecting
on relevant issues and topics in a philosophical manner. Your entries should include, but
are not limited to, creative and critical reflections on the unit content, as well as
broader reflections on the philosophical issues raised by the unit’s content
(including linking to relevant and related real-world issues in e.g. the media), and further
reading. This is a reflective blog, not a research essay, and as such further research is
neither necessary nor expected, but it can be useful.
SUBMIT 2 BLOG POSTS IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

1. Is technological progress inevitable? Is technological progress a good thing
   and how does it change us?
2. Critically discuss an important ethical, social, or political impact of a recent
   technology.
   Format and length: Each blog post/vodcast/podcast should take the form of a short
   video/audio discussion. You can also include a poster, slide, image, or links as part of
   your post. The iLearn blog tool allows you to record audio and video directly (but note
   that there is a time limit of 3 minutes for videos). You can also upload video (e.g.,
   screen and audio capture of a presentation) or audio if that is easier (there is a 200MB
   upload limit). Each entry should be 3 minutes in length (with a leeway of plus or
   minus 30 seconds). Note: if you cannot record video or audio, you can upload a
   written blog post of equivalent length. But video and then audio are strongly preferred.
   Marking Rubric – we are looking for:
   • Understanding: Entries that demonstrate evidence of understanding the issues and
   topics we cover.
   • Critical Analysis: Entries that demonstrate a high degree of critical self-reflection on
   the issues and topics we cover.
   • Argument: Entries that demonstrate clear argumentation. While the blog need not be
   argumentative in form (it is not a thesis defence essay), where claims or arguments
   are made, they should be appropriately stated and defended.
   • Focus: Entries that are relevant.
   • Originality: Entries that demonstrate evidence of creativity and originality.
   • Communication: Entries that demonstrate evidence of good communication.
   Communication should be clear and accessible and not too informal. This is assessable
   academic content, not something you produce for your friends.
   • Length: Entries that are roughly of the right length. Entries longer or shorter than 3
   minutes will lose marks (outside a leeway of plus/minus 30 seconds).
   • Referencing: If you reference something, you should add a reference (e.g. a web
   address is fine). Any commonly-used referencing style is acceptable. The reference can
   be a separate text post to your blog, or shown during an on-screen recording, etc.
   Qualitative Marking Rubric for Essays
   HD D C P F
   Understanding
   and Knowledge
   Demonstrates a
   deep and critical
   understanding of
   the issues.
   Demonstrates a
   deep
   understanding
   of the issues.
   Demonstrates a
   sound
   understanding
   of the issues.
   Demonstrates a
   satisfactory
   understanding
   of the issues.
   Insufficient
   evidence of a
   satisfactory
   understanding of
   the relevant
   issues.
   Argument and
   Critical
   Analysis
   An excellent
   argument and
   deep critical
   analysis of the
   relevant issues.
   A very good
   argument and
   critical analysis
   of the relevant
   issues.
   A clear
   argument and
   critical analysis
   of the relevant
   issues.
   A satisfactory
   argument and
   critical analysis
   of the relevant
   issues.
   A poorly stated
   and defended
   argument and
   little or no
   plausible critical
   analysis.
   Judgment and
   Focus
   Focuses on the
   most important
   issues to the
   right degree.
   Focuses on
   relevant issues
   to the right
   degree.
   Mostly focuses
   on relevant
   issues to a
   reasonable
   degree.
   Reasonable
   focus on the
   relevant issues.
   Inadequate focus
   on the relevant
   issues.
   Referencing Correct
   referencing.
   Correct
   referencing with
   very minor
   errors or
   shortcomings.
   Correct
   referencing with
   some minor
   errors or
   shortcomings.
   Mostly correct
   referencing with
   some minor
   errors or
   shortcomings.
   Problematic or
   incorrect
   referencing.
   Originality and
   Creativity
   Demonstrates
   excellent
   originality and
   creativity.
   Demonstrates
   good originality
   and creativity.
   Demonstrates
   satisfactory
   originality and
   creativity.
   Demonstrates
   minimal
   originality and
   creativity.
   Demonstrates
   negligible
   originality and
   creativity.
   Communication Excellently and
   clearly
   communicated;
   contains little to
   no errors of
   language.
   Very clearly
   communicated;
   may contain a
   few minor errors
   of language.
   Clearly
   communicated;
   may contain
   some errors of
   language.
   Adequately
   communicated;
   may have a
   number of
   errors of
   language.
   Poorly
   communicated;
   may contain
   frequent and
   serious errors of
   language.
   Length The correct
   length.
   About the
   correct length.
   Somewhat too
   long or too
   short.
   Too long or too
   short.
   Significantly too
   long or too short.