-Apr-2015
800 words
- Use the same ethical dilemma or ethically questionable situation that you identified in your first assignment.
- Undertake further research about your chosen case to assist you in analysing and discussing it in your essay.
- Analyse the ethical dilemma using the Australian Computer Society Code of Professional Conduct, The word limit is 800 words ± 10%. Note: Headings, citations, references and any appendices do not count towards your word limit, but quotations do. At the start of the assignment indicate in brackets the word count of your assignment excluding those items mentioned above.
- Make a recommendation on the basis of your analysis providing reasons for this recommendation
- Include a Reference list at the end of your work, in the correct APA referencing style, corresponding to in-text citations. You must include at least THREE (3) quality academic references from different sources. Please note that these three references are in addition to those provided to you through this subject (for example, you still must reference, the ACS code, Tavani, the Interact subject lecture notes etc BUT these references cannot be used as one of your three quality references from different sources). Only use references that have been cited in the body of your assignment and ones that support what you have presented in your assignment.
NOTE: Format your assignment according to the instructions given in the Assessment Information, Presentation section.
The assessment item is designed to help you to build skills towards achieving the learning objectives, by requiring you to:
- apply the ACS Code of Conduct to the analysis of an ethically questionable situation to determine the rightness or wrongness of actions/decisions made therein;
- make a recommendation on the basis of your analysis using the ACS Code of Conduct
- apply the APA referencing style.
The following marking sheet will be used to assess students’ submissions.
Please check that you have met all the criteria before you submit your assignment
|
Criteria
|
Standards
|
||||
|
High Distinction (HD)
|
Distinction (DI)
|
Credit (CR)
|
Pass (PS)
|
Fail (FL)
|
|
|
Analysis of the ethical dilemma using the Doing Ethics Technique (DET)
|
Answers all DET questions, lists all the facts, identifies all the non-ethical issues, lists all the stakeholders, describes in sufficient detail all the ethical issues and options that seek to resolve them, and selects the best option from these and convincingly explains why this option is the best.
|
Answers all DET questions, lists all the facts, identifies all the non-ethical issues, lists all the stakeholders, lists all the ethical issues and options that seek to resolve them, and selects the best option from these and clearly explains why this option is the best.
|
Answers all DET questions, lists most of the facts, identifies most of the non-ethical issues, lists most of the stakeholders, lists most of the ethical issues and options that seek to resolve them, and selects the best option from these and makes an attempt to explain why this option is the best.
|
Answers majority of the DET questions, lists a few facts, identifies a few non-ethical issues, lists a few stakeholders, lists a few ethical issues and options that seek to resolve them and selects the best option from these but poorly explains why this option is the best.
|
Answers a few DET questions but fails to list important facts, fails to identify relevant non-ethical issues, fails to list important stakeholders, fails to identify the ethical issues and options that seek to resolve them and does not select the best option or does not explain why the option selected is the best.
|
|
Writing & structure
|
Highly developed skills in expression and presentation of ideas.
Fluent writing style appropriate to assessment task/document type. No errors in grammar and spelling. |
Very well developed skills in expression and presentation of ideas.
Fluent writing style appropriate to assessment task/document type. Grammar and spelling accurate. |
Well developed skills in expression & clear presentation of ideas.
Mostly fluent writing style appropriate to assessment task/document type. Grammar & spelling contains a few minor errors |
Good skills in expression & presentation of ideas.
Meaning is clear and apparent, but writing style not always fluent or well organised. Grammar & spelling contains several careless errors. |
Rudimentary or poor skills in expression & presentation of ideas.
Not all material is relevant &/or is presented in a dis-organised manner. Meaning apparent, but writing style not fluent or well organised. |
|
Referencing
|
Faultless APA referencing, including reference list and citations.
Use of very high quality relevant academic references. |
Evidence of very good APA referencing, including reference list and citations.
Use of high quality relevant academic references. |
Evidence of good APA referencing, including reference list and citations.
Good quality relevant academic references. |
Evidence of basic APA referencing skills but with errors.
Mix of good and poor quality academic references. |
Not referenced according to APA referencing standard or no references included.
Poor quality or inappropriate (or no) references. |
Jermaine Byrant
Nicole Johnson
OVER
RATING
YEARS
