A.2: Individual Reflection
The Account of Contribution
Note: This reflection is an individual submission accompanying the Course Project. It documents your specific contributions, decisions, and learning, and how these shaped the final outcome.
The Brief
Provide a clear, evidence-based account of your role in the Course Project.
This is not a log of tasks.
This is a structured reflection on contribution, decision-making, and learning.
Your reflection should demonstrate:
- What you did
- Why it mattered
- How your work relates to:
- Responsibility & Ethics
- Mechanisms & Model Behaviour
- Datasets & Risks
Integrity & Position
You are expected to represent your contributions accurately and in good faith.
While the reflection is assessed individually and will not be shared with your teammates, you should write your assessment with the principle that if your teammates were to read this.
Therefore, what you write should broadly recognise your account as fair and reasonable
Reflections that significantly misrepresent contributions may be reviewed alongside peer assessment.
Guiding Questions
You may structure your reflection around the following questions.
1. What was one key moment where you helped guide the project?
• Contribution & Impact
– What did you do?
– What decision or intervention did you make?
– Why did it meaningfully affect the direction or outcome of the project?
2. What would you have done differently?
• Reflection & Improvement
– What assumptions did you make?
– What limitations or mistakes became visible?
– How would you improve your approach if repeating the project?
3. What is one key insight you developed about AI through your work?
• Insight (Grounded in Practice)
– What did you learn about AI systems through your own implementation or analysis?
– How did your results, failures, or experiments lead to this insight?
– This should relate to:
• Responsibility & ethics
• Mechanisms & behaviour
• Data & risks
Avoid generic statements.
Your insight should be specific to your project.
What a Strong Submission Demonstrates
A strong submission will:
- Clearly identify specific contributions
- Show how these contributions shaped the project outcome
- Connect decisions to mechanisms, data, and responsibility
- Demonstrate critical reflection and self-awareness
- Support claims with concrete evidence
Your writing should demonstrate ownership, judgement, and clarity.
Deliverables
Your submission should be concise and structured.
i. Reflection (≤1000 words)
A written reflection addressing:
• Your role and contributions
• Key decisions and interventions
• Reflection on AI concepts (responsibility, mechanisms, data)
• Your learning and critical judgement
ii. Evidence
Feel free to include supporting figures where appropriate:
• Screenshots
• Code snippets
• Outputs or intermediate results
• Drafts or iterations
• Prompt designs or experiments
Provide a concise caption for your artefact (not included in the word count).
This may be embedded within your main reflection where relevant.
Evidence should support your claims, not replace explanation.
Format & Submission
Your reflection will be submitted as a *.docx or *.pdf via Moodle.
Grading Criteria
In a nutshell
We are not grading:
- Quantity of work alone
- Technical complexity in isolation
- Generic statements about AI
We are grading:
| Criterion | What It Means |
|---|---|
| Contribution | Do you clearly demonstrate what you did and why it mattered? |
| Course Integration | Do you connect your work to responsibility, mechanisms, and data? |
| Critical Reflection | Do you evaluate your decisions, assumptions, and limitations? |
| Evidence | Do you support your claims with concrete outputs or artefacts? |
| Clarity | Is your reflection precise, structured, and understandable? |
Rubric
| Criterion | Excellent | Adequate | Insufficient |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contribution & Ownership | Clear, specific, and substantial contributions with demonstrated impact on project direction or outcome | Contributions described with some clarity, but impact is moderate or task-focused | Vague, minimal, or unclear contribution |
| Integration (Responsibility / Mechanisms / Data) | Strong, explicit connection to all three dimensions, showing how they interact in the system | Addresses all dimensions but mostly descriptive or uneven | Limited or missing engagement with key dimensions |
| Critical Reflection | Thoughtful evaluation of assumptions, limitations, and decisions, with clear insights and proposed improvements | Some reflection present, but limited depth or critique | Mostly descriptive with little or no critical evaluation |
| Evidence & Support | Strong, relevant evidence clearly supports claims and is well integrated | Evidence present but not fully explained or connected | Little or no meaningful evidence |
| Clarity of Communication | Clear, concise, and well-structured writing throughout | Generally understandable but uneven or slightly unclear | Difficult to follow or poorly structured |
Submission Deadline
📅2026.05.06 ⏰23:59
The Standard
The goal is not to list what you did.
The goal is to demonstrate what you understood.
Do not remain at the level of tasks.
Show how your work connects to systems, decisions, and consequences.
Don’t just participate in the project.
Explain your role within it.