Assignment- Module Code: BHO0270 Module Title: The Future of Work (HKMA) Assessment Type (Initial/ Resit) 2000-word Individual Critical Blog

Module Code:

BHO0270

Module Title:

The Future of Work (HKMA)

Assessment Type

(Initial/ Resit)

2000-word Individual Critical Blog

Academic Year

2024/25 Term 1

Assessment Task

2000-word critical blog. Weighting 60%

“The future of work is changing. Technology is powering a growth in flexible work across the economy, whilst emerging technologies such as robotics and AI are set to become common place. Organisations must consider the implications of digital transformation in the world of work now, equipping people and businesses across the country with the skills and conditions needed to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the 4IR.” (techUK, 2024)

Write a 2000-word individual blog which considers the above quote and discusses the evolving landscape of the future workplace. The blog should analyse core trends and challenges considering Artificial Intelligence adoption and propose strategies for organisations to foster a sense of connection between employees and the company in an era where AI is projected to replace millions of jobs globally.

In your blog, you should critically examine:

·        how to provide meaningful work for employees when they are increasingly required to work alongside machinery and technology

·        the need to treat employees as human beings, not parts of a machine, and explore ways to create an environment where human workers and machines collaborate effectively

For the academic blog, please find the academic blogs guideline to write.

At least 25 references and 5 pictures, less than 25 references and not include 5 pictures will deduce the grade.

Level of AI-Use permitted for this Assessment

 Level 2 – Some use Permitted. Some use of AI tools is permitted in the research/early stages of this assignment but you must ensure that the work you submit is your own. If you use AI tools, you should acknowledge or reference this in your

work. Use the Text reference builder to learn how to reference AI generated ideas. The sorts of questions to consider when using AI are:

·        Is it accurate?

·        Are the references genuine?

·        Has it reproduced bias?

Duration: N/A

Word Count: 2000 words

Task specific guidance:

·        Draw on key evidence (blogs, statistics, academic writings).

·        Knowledge and understanding should be demonstrated within the critical blog through an evaluation and application of key theory.

·        Students are expected to engage with relevant module resources on Brightspace and through the Library website.

·        In-text citations can be presented as hyper-links

·        Students are expected to reference journal articles within their blog. Emphasis should be placed on ‘up to date' information where possible.

·        High-quality websites may be used.

·        Your work must be presented in a blog format e.g., headings, images. A blog is an online journal and therefore has a more informal tone than an academic essay.

·        Formative feedback on your work can be sought through the module team's office hours.

·        Your final reference list does not count towards your word-count.

General study guidance:

·        Cite all information used in your work which is clearly from a source. Try to ensure that all sources in your reference list are seen as citations in your work, and all names cited in the work appear in your reference list.

·        Reference and cite your work in accordance with the APA 7th system – the University’s chosen referencing style. For specific advice, you can talk to your Business librarians or go to the library help desk, or you can access library guidance via the following link:

o   APA 7th referencing: https://library.hud.ac.uk/pages/apareferencing/

·        The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including plagiarism. The Academic Skills Team can advise and help you with how to avoid ‘poor scholarship’ and potential academic misconduct.

·        If you have any concerns about your writing, referencing, research or presentation skills, you are welcome to consult the Academic Skills Team, you can book tutorial appointments with them via the website How to book a tutorial appointment

·        Further study resources including the Academic Skills Team overview can be found here: Study resources

·        Your word count is +/- 10%

Learning Outcomes

This section is for information only.

The assessment task outlined above has been designed to address specific validated learning outcomes for this module. It is useful to keep in mind that these are the things you need to show in this piece of work.

On completion of this module, students will need to demonstrate:

ML02: Demonstrate systematic understandings of the changing dynamics and complexity within contemporary business.

ML04: Produce critical discussions of their impact upon the future of work.

ML05: Apply methods and techniques to review, consolidate, extend, and apply your knowledge to a topic.

Please note these learning outcomes are not additional questions.

Submission information

Word/Time Limit:

2000 words

Submission Date:

06/01/25

Feedback Date:

27/01/25

Submission Time:

15:00 UK Time (23:00 HK time)

Submission Method:

Electronically via module site in Brightspace. Paper/hard copy

submissions are not required. For technical support, please contact lta@hud.ac.uk

90-100

80-89

70-79

60-69

50-59

40-49

30-39

20-29

10 - 19

0 – 9

Level

Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding

(Excellent +)

Excellent

Very good

Good

Pass

Unsatisfactory

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

Fulfilment of relevant learning

outcomes

Met

Met

Met

Met

Met

Met

Not met or partially met

Not met or partially met

Not met or minimal

Not met or minimal

Response to the question

/task

Full command of assessment task; imaginative approach demonstrating flair and creativity

Clear command of assessment task; sophisticated approach

Very good response to task; elements of sophistication in response

Well-developed response to assessment task with evident development of ideas

Secure response to assessment task but not developed sufficiently developed to

achieved higher grade

Adequate response that meets minimum threshold, but with limitations of development

Nearly a sufficient response but lacks key aspects.

Insufficient response

Little response

No response

Knowledge and understanding (F, I and H)

Knowledge requirements are different at F, I and H level. Please use the relevant level knowledge assessment criteria

Conceptual and critical understandi ng of contemporar y knowledge in the subject and its limitations

(H) (30%)

Skilfully integrates conceptual knowledge from other modules or disciplinary areas to provide original/ creative critical insights into the subject and its

ambiguities in a

Excellent conceptual knowledge and critical appreciation of the key tensions, controversies disagreement s and disputes

drawing on

Draws on an extended conceptual knowledge

Shows very strong ability to apply/ critique ideas and a well-

developed consideration

Demonstrates competent conceptual knowledge drawing on a broader knowledge base. A good attempt at integrating and critiquing.

Some solid

Demonstrates secure conceptual knowledge, conventional critical understanding of relevant knowledge.

Some awareness of

Demonstrates adequate basic conceptual knowledge, some formulaic critical understanding and awareness of limitations of knowledge.

Mentions some terminology relating to theories, concepts

Demonstrates insufficient grasp of a basic knowledge.

Very limited critical

Demonstrates little core knowledge. No critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

Major misunderstandi ngs and

Demonstrates virtually no core knowledge or critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

Wholly irrelevant.

90-100

80-89

70-79

60-69

50-59

40-49

30-39

20-29

10 - 19

0 – 9

Level

Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding

(Excellent +)

Excellent

Very good

Good

Pass

Unsatisfactory

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

considered individual voice

ideas from beyond the module bounds.

Offers original, compelling, insightful or interesting additional perspectives.

of the limitations of knowledge.

Performance at this level and above shows intellectual comfort with doubt, ambiguity, controversy, uncertainly and complexity - rather than seeking certainty and a single right

answer.

insights into the limitations of knowledge.

No major errors or misunderstandi ng.

the limitations of knowledge.

Lacks depth of integrating ideas.

Few inaccuracies.

No integration of ideas.

Some errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance

understanding and awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

Many errors in understanding and omissions.

significant omissions.

Many errors in understanding and extensive omissions.

Cognitive / Intellectual skills

A range of means of framing cognitive and intellectual skills are provided to reflect the variety of assessment tasks across the School. Module leaders should consider the following criteria and select the one(s) that best reflect the assessment tasks. Assessment task briefs should be designed with sufficient information to provide students with a clear understanding of the core intellectual skills expected within the bounds of the module– corresponding with the appropriate level of study

Module leaders should be clear about the nature of information / data to be analysed, as well as the ‘tools’ of analysis expected. Analytical tools can be based on logic (comparison, connection, categorisation, evaluation, justification) and/or numerical (e.g. statistics, financial) or other.

Application of knowledge / skills to practice / a solution(s) / proposal / conclusion (20%)

Creative & original application of knowledge

/skills to produce new insights and offers a novel and comprehensive solution / proposal / conclusion which extends beyond the boundary of the

brief.

Applies knowledge / skills to develop a comprehensi ve solution / proposal / conclusion which extends beyond the original boundary of the brief.

Extended insights.

Applies knowledge / skill in a sophisticated manner to develop a well conceptualise d and solution

/ proposal / conclusion.

Alternative approaches might be considered.

Applies knowledge/skill in a logical and developed manner to provide a considered solution / proposal / conclusion.

Some good insights

/creativity

No logical errors.

Applies knowledge/ski ll in a logical manner to provide a more developed solution / proposal / conclusion.

Some but limited insights/creati vity.

Applies knowledge/skills in a basic manner to develop a simple but limited solution/ proposal/conclus ion.

No insights / creativity Logical errors evident.

Use of some knowledge to provide a solution / proposal / conclusion, but limited solution/ proposal / conclusion

Some use of knowledge, but mostly insufficient.

Weak use of knowledge / skills evident. Very limited solution / proposal / conclusion.

No evidence of attempt to analyse or interpret information or provide a solution/propo sal/ conclusion.

90-100

80-89

70-79

60-69

50-59

40-49

30-39

20-29

10 - 19

0 – 9

Level

Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding

(Excellent +)

Excellent

Very good

Good

Pass

Unsatisfactory

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

Thoughtful and developed insights/

creativity.

Few logical errors

Argument, reasoning (20%)

Intellectually coherent and comprehensive argument that articulates authentic, considered stance in own voice

Compelling argument that shows intellectual agility and captures ambiguity. Wholly relevant.

Sharply focused and complex argument.

All points wholly relevant

Convincing and coherent reasoning.

Clearly articulated argument with consideration of different perspectives.

Mostly relevant points.

Logically coherent reasoning.

Satisfactory argument but limited in complexity.

Broadly relevant points.

Some limitations in terms of reasoning

Adequate basic level of argument provided.

Some relevant points but also a number of irrelevant points Errors in reasoning.

Weak argument with substantial errors in reasoning.

Descriptive or largely incoherent

Largely incoherent

No argument is offered

Use of referenced* evidence and sources to support task

*Normally APA 7^th or OSCOLA (20%)

Systematic and rigorous use of evidence/ sources beyond the normal bounds of the module to robustly support purpose of the work. Evidence of independent reading and research.

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Comprehensi ve use of high-quality evidence and sources beyond the normal bounds of the module and shows evidence of independent reading and research.

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Task is very well supported by very extensive use of evidence / sources.

All points fully substantiated.

No unsubstantiat ed points.

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Task is well supported by more developed use of sources/eviden ce

Most points are substantiated and no major unsubstantiate d points

Referencing largely competent and accurate.

Some minor errors in citations or

references.

Task is supported by several sources

/evidence.

Some points are unsubstantiat ed.

Referenced appropriately

Referencing largely competent and accurate but may include errors

Task supported by basic evidence and sources but is over-reliant on very few sources.

Significant number of points are unsubstantiated. Some effort to reference, but frequent errors and omissions

One or two apparent references to concepts introduced in the assessment task

Very few points are substantiated using evidence

/ sources.

Significant errors and omissions in referencing

Little or no evidence

Significant errors and omissions in citation and application of referencing

Unsupported

Very little attempt to cite or reference

No evidence No citations

Language and style (10%)

Lucid, fluent, elegant, and compelling, using a distinctive and individual voice

Clear and fluent with a breadth of vocabulary. Discernible author voice.

Clear functional writing with a discernible author voice.

Clear and straightforward use language.

Largely error free

Basic use of vocabulary, grammar and syntax.

Limited flaws.

Basic use of vocabulary, grammar and syntax that conveys the meaning of the

text.

Many vocabulary, grammar and syntax errors that obscure meaning

Extensive flaws in vocabulary, grammar and syntax that prevent the text from being

Unacceptable

Insufficient evidence

90-100

80-89

70-79

60-69

50-59

40-49

30-39

20-29

10 - 19

0 – 9

Level

Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding

(Excellent +)

Excellent

Very good

Good

Pass

Unsatisfactory

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

understandable

.