Osbert is Ethically Right
Student’s Name
Lecturer
Date
Osbert is a brilliant student who works on his assignment, like any other scholar (Barab, 2009). Osbert is hardworking and responsible for his career’s interest and passion, enabling him to tackle his assignments better than his colleagues (Adams et al., 2008). He is ethically on the right side when he comes up with the worm program.
The assumption considers that the assignment was assigned in a class by the lecturer, and it is a requirement that every student do the assignment to pass the course (Barab, 2009). Passing the test is crucial to proceed to the next level of education, and no student would allow themselves to fail. The student wanted to emerge the best and pocket the best grades, and thrive in the computing career. The student tries to prove his understanding by going the extra mile and writing an extensive worm program (Baker & Delacruz, 2008). While writing the program, Osbert is aware that he is still needed to develop a contingency plan that holds the worm program.
The professor is also a good tutor who understands the students’ efforts and gives them the platform to showcase skills and knowledge learnt in class. The chance is given through the assignments given in class (Barab, 2009). The students are expected to write a worm program and then develop a solution that kills the worm program. Therefore, the main reason behind the assignment is to assess the understanding of the scholars and grade them fairly according to the respective understanding on how to stop a worm program after being able to make it (Baker & Delacruz, 2008). It is an excellent teaching method as it is effective and gives the learners a chance to practice what was given in class (Baker & Delacruz, 2008). The end product of such an education system is great workers and better computer business advancements (Adams et al., 2008). Most lecturers would want to produce rather than allowing half-baked students to make poor judgment and decisions at their respective workplaces.
Despite being ethically correct to produce the program, a mistake is seen when the cord is left unplug and enters the web. It cannot be blamed on the student or the lecture, not even the institution itself (Barab, 2009). The catastrophe arises as a result of the calamity of errors. The school lacks the proper tools that can ensure such mistakes cannot happen. Osbert is also exited and comes up with a more extensive worm program than expected, and forgets to unplug the cord. The lecturer also forgets to confirm with the students about unplugging the cord. These are mistakes that can happen at work since humans are not perfect; however, the primary reason Osbert comes up with the program is to know more about the programs and improve his grades (Baker & Delacruz, 2008).
Thre is nothing that proves that the student intended to leave the cord to unplug, which therefore justifies that he has a good motive and ethically correct while writing the product (Adams et al., 2008). Such a form of studies where the lecturer allows students to practice and innovate what is taught in class should be recommended; however, more protocols that reduce the chances of mistakes occurring should be developed and employed by institutions (Barab, 2009).
References
Adams, W.K., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., McKagan, S.B., Perkins, K.K., Dubson, M., and Wieman. C.E. (2008a). A study of educational simulations part I—Engagement and learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3), 397-419.
Baker, E.L., and Delacruz, G.C. (2008). A framework for the assessment of learning games. In H.F. O’Neil and R.S. Perez (Eds.), Computer games and team and individual learning (pp. 21-37). Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.
Barab, S.A. (2009). The Quest Atlantis project: A 21st-century curriculum. Paper commissioned for the National Research Council Workshop on Gaming and Simulations, October 6-7, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Gaming_Sims_Commissioned_Papers.html [accessed March 16, 2010].