Using the same Case Study Worksheet from week 4 (Case Study #1), perform the same analysis on a case involving some social media or online privacy situation. Keep in mind the topic must involve some moral or ethical conundrum.
Some examples would be using AI to generate posts or content and taking credit, any number of AI systems listening to you and using the information to generate search criteria, trolling, stalking, spreading misinformation, etc. One example would be the arrest of Douglass Mackey (aka Ricky Vaughn) for interfering in the 2016 election (look it up if you are interested). If you are uncertain what you have will work, ask the instructor. Just do not wait until Saturday or later to do so.
STEM270 Case Study Analysis Worksheet
Week 4 Assignment
Use the following format to write a paper to discuss your case study. Each section should be at least one fully developed paragraph.
Name:
Case Study Title: Include a full APA or MLA citation in your reference section with a URL link.
1. Briefly, what happened? Summarize the case.
2. Key Stakeholders and how they were impacted: Discuss at least 4 major stakeholders (not stockholders, though the stockholders may be stakeholders). For each stakeholder, briefly explain the relationship with the company, organization, or person – why are they stakeholders, and how were they impacted (positively or negatively)? You should use bullet points to summarize each stakeholder.
3. What was the final outcome? Include specific details such as prison, fines, termination, and for how many individuals. Make sure to cite your facts.
4. Describe why you feel someone’s actions were morally wrong. Using named moral theories, discuss why you believe these behaviors were morally right or wrong. Be sure to use keywords describing your moral base (consequentialist, care, duty, act utilitarian, prima facie duties, etc.) and why your compass would justify classifying the action as morally right or wrong. Be sure to document the resource(s) you use for the definition of the moral theory or theories.
5. Put yourself in a position of leadership: Describe what you would put in place that would have prevented this in the first place or kept it from happening again. Or, alternatively, what rules would you implement to justify the action? Discuss rules in the context of your leadership philosophy or ethical standard.
References: At least one reference is required in APA/MLA format. In-text citations should be used to show where you used your research . Note that if your major requires a different style (Chicago, Turabian, etc.), use it. Just be consistent.
,
STEM270 Case Study Rubric Course: STEM270 D005 Fall 2025
Criteria Exemplary Accomplished Developing Beginning Did Not Attempt
Criterion Score
Case
Summar
y
/ 10
Stakeho
lders
/ 20
10 points
Case is sum-
marized
with specific
details and a
full citation
with article
title and
URL is
provided.
8.5 points
Case is summa-
rized with details;
article title and
URL provided.
7.5 points
Case is sum-
marized
with limited
information;
article title
and URL
provided.
6.5 points
Two re-
quirements
but not all 3
are pro-
vided: brief
summary, ti-
tle, URL.
0 points
Content is
incomplete
and major
most
topics/points
are missing.
20 points
More than 4
stakeholders
are identi-
fied and
their rela-
tionship
with the
company
listed and
fully
explained.
17 points
At least 4 major
stakeholders are
identified and
their relationship
with the company
summarized.
15 points
2-3 major
stakeholders
listed and
their rela-
tionship
with the
company
explained.
13 points
Less than 2
stakeholders
listed
and/or
stakeholder
relationship
to the com-
pany not
provided.
0 points
Stakeholders
are absent.
12/18/25, 11:30 AM Preview Rubric: STEM270 Case Study Rubric – STEM270 D005 Fall 2025 – APEI
https://myclassroom.apus.edu/d2l/lp/rubrics/preview.d2l?ou=900774&rubricId=12088&originTool=quicklinks 1/4
Criteria Exemplary Accomplished Developing Beginning Did Not Attempt
Criterion Score
Case
Final
Outcom
e
/ 20
Moral
Discussi
on
/ 20
20 points
Final out-
come is ex-
plained in
detail, in-
cluding de-
tails pro-
vided by re-
cent or sub-
sequent
articles.
17 points
Final outcome is
explained in
detail.
15 points
Final out-
come is
summarized
in less than
a paragraph.
13 points
Final out-
come is pro-
vided at a
high level
and without
supporting
details.
0 points
Final out-
come is not
provided.
20 points
A moral jus-
tification for
this case is
provided
that refer-
ences spe-
cific ethical
theories and
principles;
this justifi-
cation is
provided in
context of
student's
own moral
compass.
17 points
A moral justifica-
tion is provided
that mentions
ethical principles
and student's
moral compass.
15 points
A moral jus-
tification is
provided in
relation to
student's
moral
compass.
13 points
A moral jus-
tification is
provided
but inde-
pendent of a
moral com-
pass or ethi-
cal
principles.
0 points
Moral dis-
cussion is
not
provided.
12/18/25, 11:30 AM Preview Rubric: STEM270 Case Study Rubric – STEM270 D005 Fall 2025 – APEI
https://myclassroom.apus.edu/d2l/lp/rubrics/preview.d2l?ou=900774&rubricId=12088&originTool=quicklinks 2/4
Criteria Exemplary Accomplished Developing Beginning Did Not Attempt
Criterion Score
Leaders
hip
Solution
or
Justifica
tion
/ 2020 points
A leadership
position and
policy are
provided
that would
prevent
such a case
from occur-
ring or pre-
vent a re-
peat; OR an
alternative
approach in-
cluding the
same is pro-
vided that
justified this
scenario.
17 points
A leadership
philosophy/ethical
standard is pro-
vided that would
prevent a repeat
of this case; OR a
philosophy is pro-
vided that would
justify the same
events in the
future.
15 points
A policy is
provided
that would
prevent this
case from
repeating;
OR that jus-
tifies the ac-
tions of this
case.
13 points
A list of
rules is pro-
vided for fu-
ture com-
pany actions
focused on
this case.
0 points
Solution as
"leader" is
not
provided.
12/18/25, 11:30 AM Preview Rubric: STEM270 Case Study Rubric – STEM270 D005 Fall 2025 – APEI
https://myclassroom.apus.edu/d2l/lp/rubrics/preview.d2l?ou=900774&rubricId=12088&originTool=quicklinks 3/4
Total / 100
Overall Score
Criteria Exemplary Accomplished Developing Beginning Did Not Attempt
Criterion Score
Formatt
ing,
Gramm
ar,
Punctua
tion &
Spelling
/ 1010 points
Paper con-
tains no er-
rors in
grammar,
punctuation
or spelling.
Formatting
is consistent
and includes
references.
Language is
clear and
precise.
8.5 points
Paper contains
few grammatical,
and a few punctu-
ation and spelling
errors (1-2 unique
errors).
Formatting is con-
sistent and in-
cludes references.
7.5 points
Paper con-
tains few
grammati-
cal, and a
few punctu-
ation and
spelling er-
rors (2-3
unique er-
rors).
Formatting
is consistent
and includes
links to
source
material.
6.5 points
Paper con-
tains few
grammati-
cal, and a
few punctu-
ation and
spelling er-
rors (4-5
unique er-
rors).
Formatting
is inconsis-
tent but in-
cludes links
to sources.
0 points
Paper con-
tains numer-
ous gram-
matical,
punctuation,
and spelling
errors (more
than 5
unique er-
rors). Paper
lacks many
elements of
formatting
such as con-
sistent style
or links to
source
material.
Exemplary 90 points minimum
Accomplished 80 points minimum
Developing 70 points minimum
Beginning 60 points minimum
Did Not
Attempt 0 points minimum
12/18/25, 11:30 AM Preview Rubric: STEM270 Case Study Rubric – STEM270 D005 Fall 2025 – APEI
https://myclassroom.apus.edu/d2l/lp/rubrics/preview.d2l?ou=900774&rubricId=12088&originTool=quicklinks 4/4
