PHIL 1301 Philosophical Interview: Assignment Brief and Marking Rubric

Course Context and Assessment Position

Texas A&M International University lists PHIL 1301 Introduction to Philosophy, Section 102 (CRN 18030), as a face-to-face course meeting Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 to 9:50 a.m. in Bullock Hall 104, taught by Assistant Professor Jude Galbraith in the Humanities Department of the College of Arts & Sciences. Within that course the Philosophical Interview Proposal and Submission carries 15 percent of the final grade, and students complete it in two linked stages: a written plan due by the end of the day on October 16, 2026, and the recorded interview itself due by the end of the day on November 6, 2026. The assessment type is deliberately oral and outward facing, since the course learning outcomes require students to analyse arguments into premises and conclusions and to communicate clearly in written and oral assignments. Reference points for this brief include the 2025 and 2026 catalogue entries for the same PHIL 1301 section and the published philosophical interview signature assignment at Holy Cross, which pairs a recorded conversation with a written reflection.

One assumption needs stating. The syllabus describes the interview as a recorded audio submission in which a student explains an argument studied in class to someone outside the course community and then discusses its merits, but it does not publish word counts or recording lengths. This brief sets those lengths: a 300 to 400 word plan, a 12 to 18 minute audio recording, and a 600 to 750 word reflective analysis. Instructors who adopt the brief should confirm those figures in the course shell before the semester opens, and should keep the 15 percent weighting and the two deadlines exactly as the syllabus publishes them.

Assessment Task Description

Choose one argument from the assigned readings, prepare a plan for teaching it to a person who has never taken a philosophy course, record the conversation, and then analyse what happened. The argument must come from course material, which for this section means texts in Melchert’s The Great Conversation (9th edition), such as Anselm’s ontological argument, Aquinas’s five ways, the Socratic position in the Apology, or the utilitarian calculus in Bentham and Mill. The person interviewed must be an adult outside the course community: a family member, a coworker, a roommate, a friend from another program. Classmates, philosophy majors, and anyone who has already studied the argument are excluded, because the task tests whether the student can carry an explanation to someone starting from nothing.

Stage One: The Interview Plan

Submit a 300 to 400 word plan through Blackboard for approval before recording begins. The plan answers five questions in order: which argument you selected and where it appears in the reading; who you will interview and what prior exposure that person has to philosophy; how you will state the argument in plain language in under two minutes; which premise you expect the listener to resist, and why; and which two objections you expect to hear. Close the plan with the practical arrangements, meaning the recording device, the setting, and the one sentence of spoken consent you will use at the start of the recording. A plan submitted without the expected objections will be returned for revision, because the objections are what turn an explanation into a conversation.

Stage Two: The Recorded Interview and Reflective Analysis

Record a 12 to 18 minute audio conversation and upload it with a transcript and a 600 to 750 word reflective analysis. The recording must open with the spoken consent sentence, identify the argument being discussed, and include an explanation section of roughly five to seven minutes followed by genuine discussion of objections. The reflective analysis addresses what the listener found difficult, which of your own explanations failed and why, what the conversation changed in your own grasp of the argument, and how you would teach the same material to a different listener.

Submission Requirements and Course Policies

• Format: audio uploaded to Blackboard as .mp3 or .m4a with a matching transcript in .doc or .docx. Name the files PHIL1301_Interview_LastName.
• Plan deadline: October 16, 2026, by 11:59 p.m. Central Time.
• Recording deadline: November 6, 2026, by 11:59 p.m. Central Time.
• Privacy: record the consent sentence, keep the interviewee anonymous in the analysis by using a first name only or a role label, and delete the original file once the course ends.
• Academic integrity: the course AI policy treats unapproved AI-generated language in submitted work as plagiarism reportable to the TAMIU Honor Council. Scripted opening remarks read from a generated paragraph fall under that rule. The interview must be conducted in your own words.
• Late submissions: the course late scale applies, with one percentage point deducted under 12 hours, five points from 12 to 24 hours, ten points from one to two days, twenty points from two to three days, thirty-five points from three to four days, and no acceptance after four days without prior excuse. Extensions require a request at least 48 hours before the deadline.
• Accessibility: students who need an accommodation for recording equipment, hearing, or transcription should contact the instructor during the first three weeks, not after the deadline.

Marking Rubric

Each criterion is scored out of the weight shown. The four performance levels describe the standard examiners apply when moderating this assignment across sections.

Criterion and Weight	Exemplary (90–100)	Proficient (80–89)	Developing (70–79)	Insufficient (below 70)
Accuracy of the argument (30%)	States premises and conclusion correctly, names the inferential step, and distinguishes the argument from nearby claims in the text.	States the argument correctly with minor imprecision in one premise or in the conclusion.	Conveys the general idea but compresses or blurs a premise, leaving the inference unclear.	Misstates the argument, confuses it with a related position, or offers no discernible structure.
Facilitation of dialogue (30%)	Asks open questions, follows the listener’s actual objection, allows silence, and revises the explanation when it fails.	Maintains two-way exchange and responds to objections, with occasional returns to monologue.	Explains at length and treats the listener’s questions as interruptions rather than material.	Delivers a speech or reads aloud; no meaningful participation from the listener.
Reflective analysis (20%)	Analyses specific moments in the recording, including a failed explanation, and draws a defensible lesson about teaching philosophy.	Refers to specific moments and reaches a reasonable conclusion about the conversation.	Summarises the conversation without analysing particular exchanges.	Offers general impressions unrelated to what the recording contains.
Plan and ethical conduct (10%)	Plan is complete, anticipates two credible objections, and the recording opens with clear spoken consent.	Plan covers all required parts; consent is present but brief.	Plan omits the expected objections or the consent statement is missing.	No usable plan, or the interview was recorded without consent.
Delivery and mechanics (10%)	Audible recording, clear speech, transcript matches the audio, analysis is proofread and cites the course text correctly.	Audible and clear, with minor transcription gaps or a few sentence errors.	Poor audio, partial transcript, or frequent mechanical errors.	Inaudible or missing recording, or no transcript.

Sample Plan and Reflection Writing Help

Planning an Argument for a First-Time Listener

A workable plan names the argument, the person, and the specific obstacle that person is likely to raise. Take a student who selects Anselm’s argument in Proslogion 2 and intends to interview an aunt who works as a pharmacy technician and has never read theology. The plan states the argument in two sentences without the Latin, identifies the premise she will probably resist, namely that existence adds something to a concept, and predicts two objections: one about whether a perfect island would have to exist, and one about whether a thought can be greater than a thing. Naming those objections in advance changes the recording, because the student arrives with questions rather than a script. Experimental work on peer tutoring shows that the interaction phase, where the tutor answers unanticipated questions, contributes more to learning than preparation alone, which supports spending plan time on predicted objections rather than on polished wording, as the study of learning by teaching face-to-face reports (Kobayashi, 2022). The plan closes with logistics: a quiet room, a phone recorder tested the night before, a printed plain-language version of the passage, and a consent sentence read aloud before anything else is said. Consent is not paperwork here, since a recording of a relative discussing belief needs a clear yes on the file.

What a Strong Reflection Analyzes

A strong reflection quotes a moment where the explanation broke and then explains the break. Suppose the aunt interrupts at the fourth minute to ask why anyone would think a concept could be perfect, and the student answers by repeating the definition more slowly. That repetition is the analysable failure, because it treats confusion as inattention rather than as evidence that the definition was never clear. Reflections that earn full marks name the exact exchange, transcribe three or four lines, and then propose a different route, such as comparing two imagined beings that differ only in existence. The case for plain prose in explaining philosophy to outsiders, made in teaching public philosophy as course texts (McAuliffe, 2023), applies to the recording itself, since technical vocabulary does not signal rigour to a listener who has no glossary. Specificity is what separates analysis from narration. A reflection that says the conversation went well has nothing to grade, while a reflection that says the island objection landed because the student had treated existence as a property of concepts rather than of things has everything.

Further Guidance on Recording and Grading the Interview

Practice Lowers the Cost of Speaking

Oral tasks in the humanities can unsettle students who chose the discipline to avoid presentations, and the research base offers a practical response. A systematic review of 24 studies on oral assessment found that structured practice opportunities, instructor and peer feedback, and self-reflective strategies were the factors most consistently associated with stronger student performance, with instructor feedback producing the largest gains among feedback sources (Stephenson, Johnson-Glauch and Cruchley, 2025). The review also notes that video or audio recording used for self-review supports metacognitive awareness, which suits an assignment that already asks for reflection. Translating that into a semester plan takes little effort: record a two-minute rehearsal of the explanation alone, listen back, and fix one thing before the real conversation. Booking a short office-hours run-through before November also counts as structured practice, and the course already offers office hours on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons plus a public booking link. Students who rehearse tend to speak in shorter sentences and to pause where the listener needs a pause. Those habits show up in the rubric under facilitation rather than delivery, since a listener who cannot get a word in cannot raise an objection.

What Separates Dialogue from a Lecture

Students regularly ask how a conversation should sound when the student is supposed to be the one who knows the argument. The distinction rests on who holds the floor and what happens when the listener objects. Authentic assessment design literature identifies realism, cognitive challenge, and evaluative judgement as the dimensions that make a task worth grading (Villarroel et al., 2018), and a recorded conversation with a real person meets all three in a way a written summary does not. Markers look for four signals in the audio:

1. The student asks at least three genuine questions and waits for the answers.
2. An objection is restated in the student’s own words before it is answered.
3. The student concedes a point somewhere in the recording instead of defending every premise.
4. The explanation changes shape after the listener says something, rather than staying on the prepared script.

Those four signals distinguish a dialogue from a monologue with occasional interjections. Listening to two sample recordings in class, one of each kind, settles the expectation faster than any written description.

Grading Recordings Consistently

Audio submissions raise a moderation question, since markers hear pace, accent, and confidence alongside argument quality. Three habits protect against that drift. Mark against the rubric text rather than against the impressiveness of the interviewee, because a sharp listener can lift a weak explanation. Score the transcript first and the audio second, which keeps the judgement on content while still crediting delivery where the rubric asks for it. Keep a one-line note for every criterion so a colleague moderating the sample can follow the reasoning. Students whose first language is not English should be marked on clarity of explanation rather than on accent, and the transcript exists partly to make that possible. Reading all recordings from one section within a single sitting also evens out scoring, since standards slip when a marker hears one strong file after a week of weak ones.

Why This Assignment Earns Its Place

Explaining an argument to someone who has no reason to be polite about it exposes gaps that an essay can hide behind quotation. The plan forces prediction, the recording forces improvisation, and the reflection forces honesty about what failed. None of those three steps can be completed well by a student who has only memorised a definition. The assignment also gives the course a record of oral communication, which is the fourth stated learning outcome and the hardest to evidence in a midterm and a final. Instructors who inherit the brief should resist the temptation to lengthen the written analysis, since the recording carries the assessment weight and a longer essay would quietly turn an oral task back into a written one. Keeping the two deadlines a full three weeks apart is what makes approval useful, because a returned plan needs time to be revised. Students who follow the sequence, plan and rehearse and then record, tend to describe the conversation as the part of the course they remember.

References and Learning Materials

• Kobayashi, K. (2022) ‘Learning by teaching face-to-face: the contributions of preparing-to-teach, initial-explanation, and interaction phases’, European Journal of Psychology of Education, 37(2), pp. 551–566. doi: 10.1007/s10212-021-00547-z.
• McAuliffe, J. (2023) ‘Teaching public philosophy as course texts: strategies for improving student communication’, Teaching Philosophy, 46(4), pp. 491–506. doi: 10.5840/teachphil2023815186.
• Stephenson, Z., Johnson-Glauch, N. and Cruchley, S. (2025) ‘Interventions and facilitators of oral assessment performance in higher education: a systematic review’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(7), pp. 1140–1153. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2025.2504621.
• Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C. and Herrera-Seda, C. (2018) ‘Authentic assessment: creating a blueprint for course design’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), pp. 840–854. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396.

Course texts: Melchert, N. (2019) The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 9th edn. New York: Oxford University Press. Written work in this course follows MLA conventions, and the reflective analysis should cite the Melchert chapter and page for the argument discussed.

PHIL 1301 Philosophical Interview: Explaining Anselm’s Ontological Argument

Sample academic submission | Texas A&M International University | PHIL 1301 Introduction to Philosophy

Selected philosophical argument: Anselm’s Ontological Argument in Proslogion, Chapter 2.

Central argument: Anselm maintains that God, understood as the greatest conceivable being, must exist in reality as well as in the human mind. His reasoning raises an important philosophical question: Can the existence of something be established through its definition alone?

The ontological argument provides a suitable subject for the interview because it does not rely on scientific observations or physical evidence. Instead, it uses reasoning about existence, greatness, and the limits of human understanding. The argument also invites disagreement, particularly through Gaunilo’s perfect-island objection and Kant’s criticism of the claim that existence can function as a perfection.

Academic note: The interview plan and reflective analysis below provide a model submission. The dialogue prompts are preparation material, not a completed interview transcript. The reflection uses an illustrative interview scenario and must be adjusted to the actual conversation. A transcript must reproduce the recorded conversation accurately. The course brief also contains a bibliographic discrepancy: the ninth edition of Melchert and Morrow’s textbook was published in 2022, whereas the 2019 edition was the eighth edition. The reference list therefore uses the verified ninth-edition publication details.

Stage One: Philosophical Interview Plan

Selected Argument and Interview Preparation

The selected argument is Anselm’s ontological argument, presented in Chapter 2 of Proslogion and included in Chapter 15, “Anselm and Aquinas: Existence and Essence in God and the World,” of Melchert and Morrow’s The Great Conversation. Anselm attempts to establish God’s existence through reason rather than evidence from the physical world. He defines God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” The argument begins with the claim that anyone who understands this description can hold the idea in their mind, even when that person denies God’s existence (Melchert and Morrow 322).

The proposed interviewee is an adult coworker, identified as Jordan for confidentiality. Jordan has no formal background in philosophy and has not studied Anselm’s argument. The conversation will therefore avoid unexplained philosophical terminology and use familiar examples to introduce the central reasoning.

The argument will be explained in plain language. Anselm maintains that the greatest conceivable being must exist in reality, not merely as an idea. Something that exists in reality is greater than something that exists only in someone’s imagination. If God existed only as an idea, a greater being could be imagined: the same being existing in reality. That possibility would contradict the original definition of God as the greatest conceivable being. Anselm therefore concludes that God exists both in the mind and in reality.

The premise most likely to attract disagreement is the claim that existence in reality makes something greater than existence in the mind alone. Jordan may argue that imagining a perfect person or object does not make that entity real. Two expected objections will guide the discussion. The first is Gaunilo’s perfect-island objection, which questions whether the same reasoning could establish the existence of an imaginary island. The second concerns whether existence can count as a perfection that makes something greater, a concern associated with Kant’s criticism of ontological arguments.

The interview will take place in a quiet private room. A smartphone will record the 12–18-minute conversation in M4A format, with a backup recording available if necessary. The recording will begin with the following spoken consent statement: “Do you agree to participate in this recorded interview for my PHIL 1301 assignment, understanding that your identity will remain confidential in my written analysis and that I will delete the recording after the course ends?” The interview will proceed only after the participant gives clear verbal agreement.

Stage One model: approximately 350 words. Adjust the interviewee’s circumstances and prior philosophical exposure before submission.

Stage Two: Recorded Interview and Discussion

Opening and Explanation of the Argument

The recorded interview should begin with the consent statement and a brief introduction identifying Anselm and the argument. The explanation should take approximately five to seven minutes, leaving enough time for the interviewee to question the premises and evaluate the conclusion.

Anselm’s argument can be presented through the following reasoning:

• God is understood as the greatest conceivable being.

• Anyone who understands this description possesses the idea in their mind.

• A being that exists in reality as well as in the mind is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.

• Therefore, a greatest conceivable being cannot exist only in the mind.

• God must consequently exist in reality as well as in the mind.

The argument uses reductio ad absurdum, a method of reasoning that assumes the opposite of a proposed conclusion and demonstrates that the assumption produces a contradiction. Anselm assumes that the greatest conceivable being exists only in the mind. He then argues that a greater being could be conceived, namely one that exists in reality. Since this contradicts the original definition, Anselm rejects the assumption and concludes that God exists in reality.

Questions That Encourage Genuine Discussion

The conversation should not become a continuous explanation delivered by the student. Open questions give the interviewee room to identify weaknesses in the argument.

The following questions provide a practical discussion sequence:

Interviewer: Does imagining something make that thing real?

Interviewee: No. Someone can imagine a perfect house without owning or constructing it.

Interviewer: Does Anselm’s argument depend on the difference between imagining something and its actual existence?

Interviewee: Yes, but I do not understand how the difference proves anything about God.

Interviewer: Suppose someone describes an island as the greatest island imaginable. Would the same reasoning prove that the island exists?

Interviewee: No. Someone could describe an island without proving that it exists.

Interviewer: What does that objection suggest about Anselm’s reasoning?

Interviewee: It suggests that a definition alone cannot establish the existence of something.

The student should acknowledge the objection before responding. Anselm’s defender might distinguish a greatest island, which has no obvious absolute limit of size or richness, from a necessarily greatest conceivable being. However, that distinction requires additional justification. It does not automatically dismiss Gaunilo’s criticism.

A useful follow-up question is whether the interviewee finds the conclusion unacceptable because of the argument’s structure or because of the premise that existence contributes to greatness. That distinction helps identify precisely where disagreement occurs.

Reflective Analysis

Illustrative model: approximately 650 words. The specific exchanges and listener reactions below must be replaced where they differ from the actual recording.

Explaining an Abstract Argument to a First-Time Listener

The interview demonstrated that explaining a philosophical argument requires more than repeating its premises in simpler language. Anselm’s ontological argument initially appeared straightforward because its reasoning follows a recognizable sequence. However, the discussion revealed that the central premise creates a difficulty for someone who has not encountered philosophical reasoning before. The interviewee understood that a person could imagine something without that thing existing in reality. The difficulty emerged when the explanation treated actual existence as something that automatically makes a being greater. That distinction became the main issue throughout the conversation.

The first explanation did not adequately address that concern. I initially described existence in reality as superior to existence in the mind without explaining why Anselm considered that difference important. The listener responded that imagining a perfect person did not make that person real. Repeating the definition of God did not resolve the objection because the listener already understood the description. The problem concerned the reasoning connecting the definition to actual existence. That exchange demonstrated that an explanation can communicate the words of an argument without establishing why its premises deserve acceptance.

A comparison between an imagined object and a completed painting helped clarify the distinction. Anselm uses a painter’s anticipated picture to explain how something can exist in the mind before it exists outside the mind. A painter can imagine a picture before producing it, but the completed painting also exists in reality. The comparison made Anselm’s distinction between mental existence and actual existence easier to follow. Nevertheless, it did not prove that the greatest conceivable being must exist. The listener’s continued disagreement was reasonable because understanding the distinction does not necessarily require accepting Anselm’s conclusion. The experience showed that examples should clarify philosophical reasoning rather than replace the argument itself (Melchert and Morrow 322).

Responding to Objections and Revising the Explanation

Gaunilo’s perfect-island objection provided the most productive part of the discussion. The listener questioned whether the same reasoning could establish the existence of an island described as the best possible island. The objection challenged the general principle that a concept becomes greater when someone adds actual existence to it. Instead of dismissing the question, the explanation examined whether Anselm’s reasoning could apply equally to other imagined objects. Gaunilo raises a related problem in his response to Anselm, arguing that understanding a description does not establish that the described object exists in reality (McDonough 40–48).

The objection exposed a weakness in my initial response. I had treated the island example as an obvious misunderstanding rather than a serious challenge to the argument. A better response required distinguishing the idea of a maximum possible island from Anselm’s conception of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Islands have changeable characteristics, such as size, natural resources, and geographical conditions. A listener could question whether those characteristics permit a single greatest island. However, that distinction does not completely establish Anselm’s conclusion. The discussion therefore helped separate an objection from its possible philosophical response.

What the Interview Changed About the Argument

The conversation also changed my understanding of the difference between a valid argument and a convincing argument. An argument may follow a consistent logical structure while depending on premises that another person reasonably rejects. Anselm’s reasoning depends on the relationship between conceptual existence and actual existence. Someone who rejects that relationship can question the conclusion without misunderstanding the argument. Kant’s criticism of existence as a perfection raises a further problem for the reasoning behind ontological arguments. Recent scholarship also shows that philosophers continue to examine the precise logical structure of Anselm’s original argument and the strength of objections to it (Oppenheimer and Zalta; Jahnke).

The interview also reinforced the value of allowing an explanation to change in response to the listener. Kobayashi’s (2022) research on face-to-face learning found that the interaction phase contributes to learning when tutors respond to questions and explain ideas more effectively. That finding reflects the most important lesson from the discussion. The listener’s objections forced closer attention to the argument’s assumptions than a prepared explanation alone would have required. The conversation became more useful when questions guided the discussion instead of interrupting it.

Teaching the Argument to a Different Audience

A different listener might require a different teaching approach. Someone familiar with religious studies could benefit from a comparison between Anselm’s argument, Aquinas’s objections, and later philosophical responses. A listener without that background would probably need more everyday examples before considering the formal reasoning. A short explanation of the difference between a premise, an inference, and a conclusion would also help. The next interview would begin with the question of whether defining something establishes its existence. That question introduces the central problem before presenting Anselm’s complete argument.

The experience also supports the educational value of recorded oral assessment. Stephenson, Johnson-Glauch, and Cruchley (2025) identify practice, feedback, and self-reflection as important factors associated with stronger oral assessment performance. Similarly, authentic assessment places academic knowledge within a task that requires students to apply their understanding in a realistic setting (Villarroel et al.). Explaining Anselm to someone unfamiliar with philosophy provides evidence of whether the student can communicate the argument beyond the language of the textbook. The most important lesson is that a philosophical explanation should make the reasoning accessible while preserving the listener’s freedom to disagree.

Works Cited

The assignment specifies MLA conventions for PHIL 1301. The following list therefore uses MLA 9 rather than APA or Harvard referencing. Six recent scholarly sources support the analysis, alongside the prescribed course textbook.

Jahnke, Isabel. “A New Gaunilian Objection to Anselm’s ‘Ontological Argument.'” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol. 99, 2026, article 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-026-10011-x.

Kobayashi, Keiichi. “Learning by Teaching Face-to-Face: The Contributions of Preparing-to-Teach, Initial-Explanation, and Interaction Phases.” European Journal of Psychology of Education, vol. 37, no. 2, 2022, pp. 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00547-z.

McDonough, Jeffrey K. “Anselm’s Proslogion: Does Reason Prove That God Exists?” Saints, Heretics, and Atheists: A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Oxford University Press, 2022, pp. 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197563847.003.0005.

Melchert, Norman, and David Morrow. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 9th ed., Oxford University Press, 2022.

Oppenheimer, Paul E., and Edward N. Zalta. “On Anselm’s Ontological Argument in Proslogion II.” History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis, vol. 25, no. 2, 2022, pp. 327–351. https://doi.org/10.30965/26664275-bja10054.

Stephenson, Zoe, Nicole Johnson-Glauch, and Sam Cruchley. “Interventions and Facilitators of Oral Assessment Performance in Higher Education: A Systematic Review.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 50, no. 7, 2025, pp. 1140–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2504621.

Villarroel, Verónica, et al. “Authentic Assessment: Creating a Blueprint for Course Design.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 43, no. 5, 2018, pp. 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396.