Assessment item 2
Assignment 2
Value:20%
Due date:07-Apr-2015
Return date:28-Apr-2015
Submission method options
EASTS (online)
Task
Length:
The maximum number of words set for this assignment
is 600 words per answer.
Instructions
Answer the following questions:
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.
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.
3. Critique the Australian Computer Society Code of Ethics.
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.
Rationale
This assignment is designed to test your knowledge and understanding of
some of the key concepts
and issues related to ICT ethics as covered in this subject.
This assignment relates to the following subject learning outcomes:
– be able to discuss various philosophical theories of ethics and how
these relate to the ethical and
legal issues raised by current practices involving ICT;
– be able to apply ethical theories and concepts to analyse ICT related ethical
dilemmas;
– be able to discuss professionalism and professional responsibility in the
context of the ICT
profession;
– be able to critically analyse and apply the various concepts of professional
ethics;
– be able to critique ethical issues related to privacy.
Marking criteria
|
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%)
|
Note: Each question carries 25 marks.
Assessment item 3
Assignment 3
Value:20%
Due date:13-May-2015
Return date:03-Jun-2015
Submission method options
EASTS (online)
Task
Length:
Minimum 1500 words
Maximum 2000 words
Instructions
Choose one ethical issue arising from the use of ICT that has
been reported in the press in the last one year, and
discuss it in depth. Show why or how the technology creates or contributes to
the problem. Produce an article, discussing both sides of the issue (pros and
cons) drawing on both technical and philosophical literature. In addition,
argue for your own view of the matter, giving your reasons for your point of
view and showing why you believe that they are better than opposing views.
You will be assessed on your ability to reason, analyse and present
cogent argument for the particular case. You should outline the main
statement you wish to make about your chosen ethical issue along with your
reasons and others’ objections to it. You may use any appropriate technique to
set out the basic structure of your article.
Examples
1. In the recent years there have been considerable discussions on Internet
content regulation. In an examination of this issue, you may like to
present a discussion of the pros and cons of censorship in general, and
how these general principles apply to the Internet, and also some of the
technical issues associated with Internet content regulation. Your
main focus statements could be, for example: Internet content ought to be
regulated (alternatively, Internet content ought not to be
regulated); information wants to be free and Content regulation is just
censorship under another name.
2. Privacy is a perennial issue. Hardly a week passes without
some report in the press about something that is causing concern, whether it be
new data manipulation tools, online social media, search engines, new
legislation, or whatever. Your main focus statements could be, for example:
privacy on the internet ought to be protected; both government
and relevant industry sector should come together to ensure
personal privacy on the internet. There are of course many other arguments
that could be presented about the issue of privacy.
You are required to submit the following:
• A comprehensive and coherent article containing your critical analysis
of the ICT related ethical issue.
Your article should present:
– the main point(s) of the issue.
– the pros and cons for the main point(s) (your reasons and objections as well
as those of others) including a critique of the effectiveness of the
arguments presented.
– conclusions logically drawn from the analysis presented.
• the ethics technique worksheet you used to form the basis of
your analysis.
Rationale
This assignment relates to the following subject learning outcomes:
– be able to discuss various philosophical theories of ethics and how these
relate to the ethical and
legal issues raised by current practices involving ICT;
– be able to apply ethical theories and concepts to analyse ICT related ethical
dilemmas;
Depending on the ethical scenario chosen, the assignment also relates to one or
more of the following
subject learning outcomes:
– be able to discuss professionalism and professional responsibility in the
context of the ICT
profession;
– be able to critically analyse and apply the various concepts of professional
ethics;
– be able to critique ethical issues related to privacy, intellectual property
and regulating the
cyberspace;
– be able to analyse and evaluate social and work related ethical issues and
principles.
Marking criteria
|
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.
|
