Questions

STANDARDS

FL

PS

CR

DI

HD

1. Consider the following scenario:

AEC Corporation, a company that employs 8,000 workers in Pleasantville, has decided to purchase and implement a new kind of computer/information technology, Technology X. The implementation of Technology X will likely have a significant impact for AEC’s employees in particular, as well as for Pleasantville in general. It is estimated that 3,000 jobs at AEC will be eliminated when the new technology is implemented during the next six months.

Source: Tavani textbook, pp.21

Analyse the above case using the philosophical ethics perspective.

1. Major omissions in the application of the ethical perspective and the analysis.
(Value: 45%)
 

2. Either no evidence of literature being consulted or cited references irrelevant to the assignment set.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Unsubstantiated/ invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation only, or no conclusions at all.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Writing style not fluent or well-organised, and many grammatical and spelling mistakes.
(Value: 10%)

1. Mostly correct application of the ethical perspective; includes reasonable level of analysis. Some omissions.
(Value: 45%)
 

2. Some evidence of research.

Some mistake in referencing style.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by theory/literature.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Writing style not always fluent or well organised and grammar and spelling contain errors.
(Value: 10%)

1. Correct application of the ethical perspective and mostly comprehensive analysis with suitable examples; 
(Value: 45%)
 

2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; uses indicative texts identified.
 

Referencing style correctly used. Minor omissions only.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Evidence of findings and conclusions grounded in theory/literature.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Mostly fluent writing style appropriate for the assignment with mostly accurate grammar and spelling. Minor omissions only.
(Value: 10%)

1. Demonstrated clear understanding of the relevant ethical perspective.

Correct application of the ethical perspective and  mostly comprehensive analysis with suitable examples. (Value: 45%)
 

2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; able to critically appraise the literature and theory gained from a variety of sources.

Referencing style correctly used.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Good development shown in summary of arguments in the conclusion based in theory/literature.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Mostly Fluent writing style appropriate for the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.
(Value: 10%)

1. Demonstrated clear understanding of the relevant ethical perspective.

Correct application of the ethical perspective and  comprehensive analysis with suitable examples. 
(Value: 45%)
 

2. Referenced a wide range of high quality sources which have been thoroughly analysed, applied and discussed, developing own ideas in the process. 

Referencing style correctly used.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Analytical and clear conclusions drawn, well grounded in theory and literature showing development of new concepts.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Fluent writing style appropriate for the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.
(Value: 10%)

2. Moor’s “just-consequentialist” theory incorporates aspects of utilitarian and deontological theories into one comprehensive framework. Explain with at least two suitable examples how this theory can be applied to ethical issues involving cybertechnology.               

1. Major omissions in the answer.
(Value: 45%)
 

2. Either no evidence of literature being consulted or cited references irrelevant to the assignment question.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Unsubstantiated/ invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation only, or no conclusions at all.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Writing style not fluent or well-organised, and many grammatical and spelling mistakes.
(Value: 10%)

1. Correct and mostly complete answer. Some omissions.
(Value: 45%)
 

2. Some evidence of research. Some mistake in referencing style.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by theory/literature.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Writing style not always fluent or well organised and grammar and spelling contain errors.
(Value: 10%)

1. Correct and mostly comprehensive explanation grounded in theory/literature.

At least two suitable examples used to explain concepts.
(Value: 45%)
 

2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; uses indicative texts identified.

Referencing style correctly used. Minor omissions only.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Evidence of findings and conclusions grounded in theory/literature.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Mostly fluent writing style appropriate for the assignment with mostly accurate grammar and spelling. Minor omissions only.
(Value: 10%)

1. Demonstrated clear understanding of the relevant ethical theory in the given context.
 

Mostly comprehensive explanation grounded in theory/literature.

At least two suitable examples used to explain concepts.
(Value: 45%)
 

2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; able to critically appraise the literature and theory gained from a variety of sources.

Referencing style correctly used.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Good development shown in summary of arguments in the conclusion based in theory/literature.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Mostly Fluent writing style appropriate for the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.
(Value: 10%)

1. Demonstrated clear understanding of the relevant ethical theory in the given context.
 

Comprehensive explanation grounded in theory/literature.

More than two suitable examples used to explain concepts.
(Value: 45%)
 

2. Referenced a wide range of sources which have been thoroughly analysed, applied and discussed, developing own ideas in the process.

Referencing style correctly used.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Analytical and clear conclusions drawn, well grounded in theory and literature showing development of new concepts.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Fluent writing style appropriate for the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.
(Value: 10%)

3. Critique the Australian Computer Society Code of Ethics. 

1. Major omissions in the answer.
(Value: 60%)
 

2. Either no evidence of literature being consulted or cited references irrelevant to the assignment set.

(Value: 30%)
 

3. Writing style not fluent or well-organised, and many grammatical and spelling mistakes.
(Value: 10%)

1. A correct analysis provided. Some omissions.
(Value: 60%)
 

2. Some evidence of research. Some mistake in referencing style.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Writing style not always fluent or well organised and grammar and spelling contain errors.
(Value: 10%)

1. A reasonably compete analysis including the strengths and weakness clearly identified grounding in theory/literature. Examples used in explanation. Some omissions.
(Value: 60%)
 

2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; uses indicative texts identified.

Referencing style correctly used. Minor omissions only.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Mostly fluent writing style appropriate to the assignment with mostly accurate grammar and spelling. Minor omissions only.
(Value: 10%)

1. A comprehensive analysis including the strengths and weakness clearly identified grounding in theory / literature. Suitable examples used in explanation.
Minor omissions only.
(Value: 60%)
 

2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; able to critically appraise the literature and theory gained from a variety of sources.

Referencing style correctly used.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Mostly Fluent writing style appropriate to assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.
(Value: 10%)

1. A comprehensive analysis  including the strengths and weakness clearly identified grounding in theory/literature. Suitable examples used in explanation.
(Value: 60%)
 

2. Referenced a wide range of sources which have been thoroughly analysed, applied and discussed, developing own ideas in the process.

Referencing style correctly used.
(Value: 30%)
 

3. Fluent writing style appropriate to the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.
(Value: 10%)

4. Through the use of currently available online tools and search facilities, ordinary users can easily acquire personal information about others. In fact, anyone who has Internet access can, via a search engine such as Google, find information about us that we ourselves might have had no idea is publicly available there. Does this use of online tools threaten the privacy of ordinary people? Explain with at least three examples.

1. Major omissions in the answer.
(Value: 55%)
 

2. Either no evidence of literature being consulted or cited references irrelevant to the assignment set.
(Value: 20%)
 

3. Unsubstantiated/ invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation only, or no conclusions at all.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Writing style not fluent or well-organised, and many grammatical and spelling mistakes.
(Value: 10%)

1. Mostly correct analysis. Some omissions.
(Value: 55%)
 

2. Some evidence of research. Some mistake in referencing style.
(Value: 20%)
 

3. Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by theory/literature.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Writing style not always fluent or well organised and grammar and spelling contain errors.
(Value: 10%)

1. Mostly comprehensive analysis grounded in theory/literature. At least three suitable examples used to explain concepts.
(Value: 55%)
 

2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; uses indicative texts identified.

Referencing style correctly used. Minor omissions only.
(Value: 20%)
 

3. Evidence of findings and conclusions grounded in theory/literature.
(Value: 15%)

4. Mostly fluent writing style appropriate to the assignment with mostly accurate grammar and spelling. Minor omissions only.
(Value: 10%)

1. Correct and comprehensive analysis grounded in theory/literature. At least three suitable examples used to explain concepts.
(Value: 55%)
 

2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; able to critically appraise the literature and theory gained from a variety of sources.

Referencing style correctly used.
(Value: 20%)
 

3. Good development shown in summary of arguments in the conclusion based in theory/literature.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Mostly Fluent writing style appropriate to assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.
(Value: 10%)

1. Correct and comprehensive analysis grounded in theory/literature. More than three suitable examples used to explain concepts.
(Value: 55%)
 

2. Referenced a wide range of sources which have been thoroughly analysed, applied and discussed, developing own ideas in the process.

Referencing style correctly used.
(Value: 20%)
 

3. Analytical and clear conclusions drawn, well grounded in theory and literature showing development of new concepts.
(Value: 15%)
 

4. Fluent writing style appropriate to the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.
(Value: 10%)

CRITERIA

STANDARDS

FL

PS

CR

DI

HD

1. Description of scenario to be analysed

Marks: 10

Major omissions.

Description of the scenario to be analysed has been presented. Some omissions.

Mostly clear and comprehensive description of the scenario to be analysed. Some omissions.

Mostly clear and comprehensive description of the scenario to be analysed.

Clear and comprehensive description of the scenario to be analysed.

2. Identification of relevant ethical issue(s)

Marks: 10               

Major omissions.

Ethical issues involved in the chosen scenario identified and introduced. Some omissions.

Ethical issues involved in the chosen scenario clearly identified and introduced. Some omissions.

All ethical issues involved in the chosen scenario clearly identified and introduced. Minor omissions only.

All ethical issues involved in the chosen scenario clearly identified and introduced.

3. Evidence of research

Marks: 25

Either no evidence of literature being consulted or irrelevant to the assignment set.

Literature is presented uncritically, in a purely descriptive way and indicates limitations of understanding. Referencing style mostly correctly used. Some errors.

Clear evidence and application of readings relevant to the subject; uses indicative texts identified. Referencing style mostly correctly used. Minor errors only.

Able to critically appraise the literature and theory gained from variety of sources, developing own ideas in the process. Referencing style correctly used.

Developed and justified own ideas based on a wide range of sources which have been thoroughly analysed, applied and discussed. Referencing style correctly used.

4. Reasoning/Analysis (subdivided as follows)

Marks: 45
 

– Knowledge and application of ethical principles

Marks: 20

Major omissions.

Relevant ethical theories are applied to substantiate arguments. Some omissions.

Relevant ethical theories are appropriately applied to substantiate arguments. Some omissions.

All relevant ethical theories are mostly appropriately applied to substantiate arguments. Minor omissions only.

All relevant ethical theories are appropriately applied to substantiate arguments.

– Balance of pros and cons in arguments

Marks: 15

Major omissions.

Pros and cons in arguments are presented. Some omissions.

Pros and cons in arguments are mostly appropriately balanced. Some omissions.

Pros and cons in arguments are mostly correctly presented and are appropriately balanced. Minor omissions only.

Pros and cons in arguments are correctly presented and are appropriately balanced.

– Coherence and logical presentation of ethics technique worksheet

Marks: 10

Major omissions

The Ethics Technique Worksheet is presented in the Appendix. Some omissions.

The Ethics Technique Worksheet is mostly complete and correctly presented in the Appendix. Some omissions.

The Ethics Technique Worksheet is mostly complete and correctly presented in the Appendix. Very minor omissions only.

The Ethics Technique Worksheet is complete and correctly presented in the Appendix.

5. Presentation (including title, subheadings, 1 1/2 spacing, paragraphs) and grammar and spelling.

Marks: 10

Writing style not fluent or well-organised, and many grammatical and spelling mistakes.

Writing style not always fluent or well organised and grammar and spelling contain errors.
(Value: 10%)

Mostly fluent writing style appropriate to the assignment with mostly accurate grammar and spelling. Minor omissions only.

Mostly Fluent writing style appropriate to assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.

Fluent writing style appropriate to the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.