Ten percent of the grade for this class will come from a report that displays your understanding of the individual in the organization
The purpose of this assignment is to demonstrate your perception of how the individual fits into an organization in terms of identity, ethics, and loyalty.
For this assignment, read the the discussion on the ACM's effort to update its Software Engineering Code of Ethics and think about the draft version, by creating the rough equivalent of a 2-5 page paper and placing it in a the Sakai assignment space, [or the equivalent of a paper, if you wish. See below.] You may consult additional sources as you wish, but if you do, remember to include the citations in a bibliography at the end of your paper. Your paper will be evaluated according to your analysis of the decisions an individual would have had to have made in the situation described below.
This draft code is pretty all inclusive. Respond to it in terms of the following questions.
This task should be done by your group and your group should turn in a single product that reflects the agreed position of your group.
To accomplish this task, you may submit a direct response in the Sakai assignments space with the rough equivalent of a 2-5 page paper.
Alternatively, you may attach (or place a link to) a document, a PowerPoint presentation, a Prezi presentation, or anything else that you choose to use to answer the questionsm in the Sakai assignments space.
|Grade||What it means||A description of what it means|
|A||Mastery in understanding the individual perspective in terms of identity, ethics, and loyalty at the highest level of attainment that can reasonably be expected||Well written with no grammatical errors, well-articulated discussion of the topic; it shows evidence of your having absorbed all of the key points of the individual module,|
|A-||A totally acceptable performance demonstrating an adequate level of understanding the individual in terms of identity, ethics, and loyalty||An insightful discussion of the topic, with no grammatical errors. It is extremely good, but leaves the reader feeling that your understanding of the issues is perhaps a bit less than professionally sophisticated, in terms of depth of analysis.|
|B+||Really good, but perhaps a bit shallower in terms of your understanding one or more of the contexts; you may have a few grammatical issues in your writing; you may not have used relevant examples to explain your points; you may not have fully addressed all the elements requested|
|B||Good, but perhaps a bit shallower in terms of your understanding several variants of the contexts; you may have several grammatical issues in your writing; you may not have used relevant examples to explain your points; you may not have fully addressed all the elements requested; you did not use terminology that we discussed in the module sessions|
|B-||Good, but not as good as it could have been; you may not have fully addressed all the elements requested|
|C+||A marginal performance.||OK, in terms of grasping the essentials, but not good in terms of articulating your understanding in a manner that is easy to read and appreciate|
|C||You seem to understand the essential points of the module, but you did not articulate your understanding well enough to do more than the minimum|
|C-||It's time to start wondering if you missed something important, if you misunderstood the task, if you did not understand the key elements|
|D+||This is a warning that you are not currently on the right path; you might need to have a discussion with the instructor about this performance|
|D||There are indications that you were present and that you sort of grasped what we had discussed, but missed the key points to such a degree that you really need to re-group and catch up|
|F||For whatever reasons, an unacceptable performance||If it's unacceptable, it is unacceptable; it should be as obvious to you as it is to the instructor|
Copyright © R.E. Bergquist 2014- | Last Updated on | Powered by w3.css