Assignment #4 – Professional Ethics & the LawIndividual Assignment
CSE 4314 Professional Practices
Ethics Scenario Analysis Report
You will study and analyze the assigned ethics scenario from Baase, Chapter 9, and write a report covering the following topics.
What is (are) the ethical issue(s) that need(s) to be addressed – risks, issues, problems, consequences?
Are there legal ramifications & consequences, if so how are they different from the ethical ramifications & consequences?
Who are the stakeholders – benefits, impact?
What are the possible actions that can be taken?
What are the responsibilities of the decision maker?
What is the most appropriate action to take?
Report length – 2 to 3 pages not Including Title Page, Table of Content, References, and Academic Integrity Form
Due date – See Class Schedule (Submit through Canvas Assignment Portal)
See Syllabus for Due Date, late submissions will not be accepted without a valid and documented reason.
|Excellent (5 pts)||Good (4 pts)||Satisfac-tory (3 pts)||Poor (2 pts)||Unacceptable (1 pt)|
|Description of the ethical issue being studied – possible consequences||Informative, insightful and accuratedescription of ethical issue stated. Related Consequences delineated fully.||Identified most points related to main ethical issue, good description with sufficient consequences identified||Most key points related to the description of the ethical issue identified but not all, a few key consequences noted.||Partial description of ethical issue given. Consequences identified were incomplete or nebulous||Severely lacking information content and accuracy. Misidentified ethical dilemma and gave no or incorrect consequences|
|Identification of the stakeholders – impact on them||Identified all key stakeholders with convincing justification. Complete identification of impacts for primary and secondary stakeholders – well stated with convincing reasons.||Identified a few key stakeholders with other peripheral stakeholders also identified, good justification given with key impacts identified and why they were key.||Primary stakeholder with most to lose identified given with good justification, key impact identified.||Identified peripherally involved stakeholder as primary, justification given was poor, missed critical impacts on stakeholders||Failure to support choice of Stakeholders and impacts given were nebulous and not well founded|
|Identification of stakeholders and their responsibilities||Comprehensive and accurate history with identification of critical responsibilities, given word limit constraints.||Good and fairly accurate/complete history with identification of responsibilities of key stakeholders||Most key stake holders and their responsibilities identified, more background information could have been given||Missed a few historical points related to key stakeholders and their responsibilities causing some uncertainty related to ethical concern||Missing most important milestones, severely inaccurate with mis-identification of who was affected and why|
|Description of the action taken and its appropriateness.||Comprehensive and accurate listing and good justification. Concise & precise language used to convey critical actions.||Good and accurate listing of justification. Used good language to describe actions taken that was easily followed||Missed a few key justifications related to actions taken. Language used was somewhat ambiguous||Hit upon 1 or 2 required actions that should be taken, however language used to describe them was ambiguous and confusing||Missing almost all important impacts, severely inaccurate.|
|Description of alternative actions.||Comprehensive and accurate listing and good justification.||Identified the reasonable critical actions with good reasoning shown as to why||Missed 1 or 2 critical actions that should have been taken, but those identified were accurate.||Missed all but 1 critical action that should have been taken, description lacking||Missing almost all important impacts, severely inaccurate.|
|References||Correct use of references, supporting every claim in the text, correct formatting of references.||Correct use of references. Most important claims supported by references. Not more than 2 minor mistakes with references in appendix||Acceptable use of refences with some problems of in-text citation. Most claims supported. Not more than 3 to 5 minor mistakes with refences in appendix||Some inconsistency in the use of references supporting textual claims. Less attention paid to formatting in the use of Reference list in appendix. Five or 6 mistakes max in the use of references||Almost no references, almost all claims not supported, severely problematic format with greater than 6 mistakes.|
|Grammar||No mistakes, correct usage of English throughout the essay.||Correct use of English with less than 5 minor punctuation mistakes.||Mostly proper use of English but more attention should be paid to punctuation and rules of grammar such as noun-verb matching, fewer 1/5 of all sentences contained error.||Generally acceptable use of Grammar, some slang/colloquiaterms used, More focus should be used in correcting noun-verb mistakes, minor mistakes in less 1/5 to less than 1/3 sentences.||Frequent mistakes, more than 1/3 sentences contain grammar mistakes.|
|Spelling||No spelling or capitalization mistakes.||2 or less spelling errors in paper.||3 to 4 spelling errors in paper.||5 to 7 spelling errors in paper.||Numerous spelling mistakes, more than 5% of the words are misspelled.|
|Organization||Superb organization, following specified format. Superb transitioning with appropriate verbiage. Each paragraph/section logical tied to predecessor with transitioning language||Good organization, with one section leading into next section with good use of transition words. Each paragraph/section logical tied together||Satisfactory organization of paper. Reasoning easily followed from one section to the next.||Poor organization, not well thought out, however, with some effort storyline was traceable from one section to the next.||Unacceptible organization, poor adherence to the format, disjointed parts with poor connections/transitions between them.|
|Clarity||The point(s) of each sentence, paragraph, and section is (are) clear and unambiguous, precisely and concisely stated.||The point(s) of each sentence, paragraph, and section were clear and unambiguous. Could have used few words.||The point(s) of each sentence, paragraph, and section were understandable but in 1 or 2 instances confusing word choice interfered with intended meaning.||The point(s) of most sentences, paragraph, and section were not easily discernable. Some choice of words overly complicated intended meaning.||Confusing and unclear writing, at least half the content lacks in clarity.|
Assignment #4 – Ethical Scenario Rubric