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