COSC3088 Essentials of IT and Ethics
Assessment Task 2: Multimedia LinkedIn Resource
Course Code: COSC3088
Weighting: This assessment is worth 40% of your final mark for this Course
Length: 1000-word visual resource or a 3-minute video (+/- 10%)
Task approach: Individual
Due date and time: Monday 16th September (Week 8), 11.59 pm AEDT
Feedback: Feedback will be provided via Canvas within 3 weeks of submission.
Task Overview
In this task you will choose an ethical issue currently affecting IT or Cyber Security professionals. You will then write a multimedia commentary resource on this issue that could be shared via LinkedIn.
Course Learning Outcomes Assessed
This assessment supports the following learning outcomes:
· CLO1: Identify practice considerations, contextual factors, and ethical lenses relevant to contemporary issues in IT and Cyber Security.
· CLO3: Appraise ethical conflicts and decisions with reference to theories, principles, regulations and emerging issues from IT and Cyber Security.
· CLO4: Analyse the diverse perspectives of IT and Cyber Security stakeholders in relation to contemporary ethical issues.
· CLO5: Communicate ethical positions effectively to a range of stakeholder audiences.
· CLO6: Demonstrate ethical collaboration as a member of a professional team.
You should complete this assignment over several weeks. Please see your weekly module documents for a breakdown of recommended assignment tasks per week.
Assessment Instructions
Please see the assignment requirements below.
Content Requirements
Your resource for this assignment should:
· Describe an ethical issue relevant to the disciplines of IT or Cyber Security, that has occurred within the past 12 months.
· Include a clear statement of your own professional position on this issue.
· Examine at least one solution for addressing this issue. You should discuss potential solutions critically, with reference to discipline theories or practice principles, document examples, and academic evidence, as relevant.
· Account for key contextual factors, including stakeholders, legal and professional responsibilities, and interdisciplinary collaboration.
· Align your own position and potential solutions with at least one established ethical lens (e.g., deontology, rights-based, utilitarian, ethics of care, etc.).
Formatting your multimedia resource
You can submit your post as one of the following formats:
1000-word visual resource. This is a written resource containing visual material such as pictures, diagrams or graphs. For example, it could be presented as an infographic, a slide series, or an illustrated newsletter article.
OR
3-minute video resource. For example, your resource could be an animation, a webcam recording, a narrated powerpoint, or a podcast segment, to share via a LinkedIn post.
We will provide further tips on creating resources for LinkedIn in your upcoming tutorials.
Please include a coversheetLinks to an external site. with your submission, uploaded as a separate file.
Referencing
You must acknowledge all the courses of information you have used in your assessments.
Use Harvard referencing style. to create a reference list for this assessment. Refer to the RMIT Harvard EasyCite pageLinks to an external site. to see examples and tips for Harvard referencing. You can also find a range of referencing tutorials and printable guides on the library referencing page fLinks to an external site.
You must include in-text citations (spoken or written) as part of your resource. If you're not sure how to include in-text citations for your specific resource type, please ask us for advice. We will also talk about this in class.
There is no limit placed on the age of references, but please ensure your references are still relevant to current practice (e.g., a reference about social media, online communication or identity politics published in 1995 would not be relevant today).
Submitting Your Assignment
Submit your multimedia post via the Assessment 2 submission folder on this course site. You don’t need to have a LinkedIn account, and you are not expected to post your content on LinkedIn.
It is your responsibility to ensure that all of your files can be opened and viewed. Accepted file formats for documents can be found here: Canvas - RMIT University (Links to an external site). Instructions for submitting a video file to Canvas can be found here: Recording and uploading video assessments into Canvas (youtube.com) (Links to an external site).
Please include a coversheet (Links to an external site). with your submission, uploaded as a separate file.
Feedback will be provided via Canvas within three weeks of submission.
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like Val (RMIT’s own version of Chat GPT) or editing tools like Grammarly can be helpful in your writing and creative processes. In this course, it’s ok for you to use AI tools to:
· Brainstorm initial ideas for your assignment (e.g., possible stakeholder viewpoints or arguments for/against an ethical decision)
· Learn how to refine and edit content (e.g., proof-read for grammatical errors; identify a more concise way to phrase a concept).
· Generate individual images or short video clips to include in your multimedia assignment.
In this course, you are not allowed to use AI tools to:
· Find or create references (you should undertake your own research to do this).
· Create your entire multimedia resource (e.g., creating a complete infographic).
· Write your content.
If you use AI for any part of your assignment, please include a detailed statement of how you have used it, on your resource or cover sheet. This will not be included in your word limit.
For more information, please see: Artificial intelligence tools | Learning Lab (rmit.edu.au) (Links to an external site).
How will I be assessed?
Your submission will be assessed according to the following criteria:
· Appraise a recent ethical conflict in IT or Cyber Security (up to 10 marks).
· Argue a potential solution to the issue, with reference to discipline theories and supporting evidence (up to 10 marks).
· Clearly communicate your own professional position on this issue, with reference to established ethical lenses (up to 5 marks).
· Account for professional contextual factors, including stakeholder needs, the legal context, industry regulation, and inter-disciplinary practice (up to 5 marks).
· Communicate ideas effectively to a target stakeholder audience (up to 5 marks).
· Demonstrate academic integrity in the use of source material (up to 5 marks).
Further details are provided in the marking rubric below.
|
|
High Distinction
(80-100%)
|
Distinction
(70-79%)
|
Credit
(60-69%)
|
Pass
(50-59%)
|
Unsatisfactory/Fail
(0-49%)
|
|
Appraise a recent ethical conflict in IT or Cyber Security.
(10 marks)
|
(8-10 marks)
As for distinction, plus:
Discussion of the issue demonstrates thoughtful selection and critical appraisal of supporting evidence, regulation, and theories (including considerations around their recency, quality, and discipline relevance).
|
(7 marks)
A recent ethical dilemma is clearly described, and its impacts on a range of stakeholders are discussed.
The post consistently presents well-reasoned arguments based in discipline theories and supporting evidence.
|
(6 marks)
A recent ethical issue is clearly described.
The post uses evidence, discipline theories, or documented examples to demonstrate the significance of the issue.
|
(5 marks)
The post briefly describes a recent ethical issue.
The post explains the significance of the issue.
Relevant discipline evidence or theories are identified.
|
(0-4 marks)
The ethical issue and/or potential solutions were described in minimal detail or contained factual inaccuracies.
OR
The ethical issue occurred more than 12 months ago or was not relevant to the disciplines of IT or Cyber Security.
|
|
Argue a potential solution to the issue, with reference to discipline theories and supporting evidence.
(10 marks)
|
(8-10 marks)
As for distinction, plus:
Discussion of solution demonstrates thoughtful selection and critical appraisal of supporting evidence, regulation, and theories (including considerations around their recency, quality, and discipline relevance).
|
(7 marks)
At least two solutions are critically compared.
The post consistently presents well-reasoned arguments based in evidence, documented examples, theories, and practice principles from IT or Cyber Security.
|
(6 marks)
The post uses evidence, documented examples, theories, or practice principles to describe and discuss the merits of at least one solution.
|
(5 marks)
At least one solution is briefly described.
Some reference is made to relevant evidence, documented examples, theories, or practice principles from IT or Cyber Security.
|
(0-4 marks)
Potential solutions are described in minimal detail, are irrelevant to the issue, or contain factual inaccuracies.
Solutions are unsupported by evidence, documented examples, theories, or practice principles.
|
|
Clearly communicate your own professional position on this issue, with reference to established ethical lenses.
(5 marks)
|
(4-5 marks)
The student’s own professional position on the issue is clear.
The student demonstrates a strong understanding of the complex relationship between professional and personal values.
Ethical theories or lenses relevant to the author’s position are discussed comprehensively.
|
(3.5 marks)
The student’s own professional position on the issue is clear.
The student demonstrates an emerging understanding of the complex relationship between professional and personal values.
Ethical theories or lenses relevant to the author’s position are discussed.
|
(3 marks)
The student’s own professional position on the issue is clear, and somewhat differentiated from personal values.
Ethical theories or lenses relevant to this position are correctly described.
|
(2.5 marks)
The student’s own professional position on the issue is somewhat clear, but not differentiated from personal values.
Ethical theories or lenses relevant to this position are identified.
|
(0-2 marks)
The student’s own professional position on the issue is unclear.
References to ethical theories or lenses are missing, unclear or incorrect.
|
|
Account for professional contextual factors, including stakeholder needs, the legal context, industry regulation, and inter-disciplinary practice.
(5 marks)
|
(4-5 marks)
Relevant contextual factors are critically integrated throughout the post.
|
(3.5 marks)
Relevant contextual factors are described throughout the work.
|
(3 marks)
Relevant contextual considerations are identified throughout the post but are not described in detail.
|
(2.5 marks)
Relevant contextual considerations are sometimes identified.
|
(0-2 marks)
Relevant contextual factors are missing, unclear or incorrect in the discussion of the ethical issue and potential solutions.
|
|
Communicate ideas effectively to a target stakeholder audience.
(5 marks)
|
(4-5 marks)
The post was exceptionally well written and was highly appropriate to the student’s target audience on LinkedIn.
The multimedia resource is creative and exceptionally well-presented.
|
(3.5 marks)
The post was well structured, consistently clear, and was appropriate for the student’s target audience on LinkedIn.
The multimedia resource is creative and well-presented.
|
(3 marks)
The post was well structured, consistently clear, and generally appropriate for LinkedIn.
|
(2.5 marks)
The post was adequately structured and generally clear, with some writing errors.
The multimedia resource is somewhat appropriate for LinkedIn.
|
(0-2 marks)
The post was difficult to read due to poor structure or frequent writing errors.
AND/OR
AND/OR
The post contains no multimedia content or is inappropriate for LinkedIn.
|
|
Demonstrate academic integrity in the use of source material.
(5 marks)
|
(5 marks)
All sources used are referenced within the resource.
Reference list is formatted in Harvard style. with minimal or no errors.
|
(3.5 marks)
All sources used are referenced within the resource.
Reference list is formatted in Harvard style. with a few errors.
|
(3 marks)
All sources used are referenced within the resource.
Reference list is formatted in Harvard style. with some errors.
|
(2.5 marks)
All sources used are referenced within the resource.
Reference list is incomplete or does not use Harvard format.
|
(0-2 marks)
The assignment contained major errors in the referencing of sources.
|