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.