Topic: Digital Taylorism Assessment Type: Individual Digital Poster (1000 words) Weighting = 40% Question: In recent years, there has been an increase in the quantity and type of digital equipment used to oversee workers and the tasks they complete.
ASSESSMENT: Individual Digital Poster
|
Module Code: |
BHO0270 |
|
Module Title: |
The Future of Work (HKMA) |
|
Assessment Type (Initial/ Resit) |
Assessment 1: Individual Digital Poster
[1000 words] |
|
Academic Year |
2024/25 Term 1 |
|
Assessment Task |
|
|
Topic: Digital Taylorism Assessment Type: Individual Digital Poster (1000 words) Weighting =
40% Question: In recent years, there has been an increase in the quantity and type
of digital equipment used to oversee workers and the tasks they complete.
This has been referred to as Digital Taylorism. The introduction of digital
management is not a simple return to the Taylorism of the past, though with
increasingly novel and intrusive ways of monitoring and managing staff
changing the nature of work. Create an individual research poster introducing the concept of
Digital Taylorism and its practices and critiquing its impact on workers and
its role now and in the future workplace. You should work closely with the
module content drawing on academic research, theory, real-world examples and
up-to-date data sources to evidence your work. |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
Duration:
N/A |
Word
Count: 1000 words |
|
Task specific guidance: ·
You can use any software you would like to use
to create the digital poster. You may find using Microsoft PowerPoint
suitable. ·
Your poster should not exceed 1000 words. ·
Your poster should be visually appealing.
Font, Text Size, Use of Visuals are all important. ·
Your poster should have in-text citations. A
copy of the reference list can be provided on a separate document and does
not count towards the final word count of your work. ·
Support will be provided during scheduled
seminars with your module tutors. ·
Please do make use of the office hours of the
teaching team to gain formative feedback on your work. ·
You should engage with the content provided
during the lectures and workshops. It is also important to make sure you are
engaging with the content provided on Brightspace. ·
Criticality is important here; think about how
you can use the information on your poster to present a balanced argument. ·
There is an understanding from the module team
that you will read widely and understand the topic of Digital Taylorism in
depth. This will allow you to only present the most important information on
the poster itself. |
|
|
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/
|
|
|
Assessment criteria |
|
|
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: LO1.Show coherent and detailed knowledge of the key
concepts from the outline syllabus LO3.Critically assess key factors influencing the
changing nature of work. LO5. Apply methods and techniques to review,
consolidate, extend, and apply your knowledge to a topic LO6: Effectively and appropriately communicate
information, ideas and arguments related to the subject. Please note these learning outcomes are not additional
questions. |
|
|
Submission
information |
|
|
Word/Time Limit: |
1000 words |
|
Submission Date: |
16/12/2024 |
|
Feedback Date: |
13/01/2025 |
|
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 |
Appendix 1 Assessment criteria
These criteria are intended to help you understand how your work will be assessed. They describe different levels of performance of a given criteria.
Criteria are not weighted equally, and the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
The grades between Pass and Very Good should be considered as different levels of performance within the normal bounds of the module. The Exceptional and Outstanding categories allow for students who, in addition to fulfilling the Excellent requirements, perform at a superior level beyond the normal boundaries of the module and demonstrate intellectual creativity, originality and innovation.
|
|
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 understanding of contemporary 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
considered individual
voice |
Excellent
conceptual knowledge and critical appreciation of the key tensions,
controversies disagreements and disputes drawing on ideas from beyond the
module bounds. Offers original, compelling, insightful or interesting
additional perspectives. |
Draws
on an extended conceptual knowledge Shows
very strong ability to apply/ critique ideas and a well-developed consideration 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. |
Demonstrates
competent conceptual knowledge drawing on a broader
knowledge base. A good attempt at integrating and critiquing. Some solid
insights into the limitations of knowledge. No
major errors or misunderstanding. |
Demonstrates secure conceptual knowledge, conventional critical
understanding of relevant knowledge.
Some awareness of the limitations of knowledge. Lacks
depth of integrating ideas. Few
inaccuracies. |
Demonstrates adequate basic conceptual knowledge, some formulaic
critical understanding and awareness of limitations of knowledge. No integration of ideas. Some errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance |
Mentions
some terminology relating to theories, concepts Demonstrates insufficient grasp of a basic knowledge. Very limited critical understanding and
awareness of the limitations of knowledge.
Many errors in understanding and omissions. |
Demonstrates little core knowledge. No critical insight or awareness of the
limitations of knowledge. Major misunderstandings and significant omissions. |
Demonstrates virtually no core knowledge or critical insight or
awareness of the limitations of knowledge. Many errors in understanding and extensive omissions. |
Wholly irrelevant. |
|
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 comprehensive 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 conceptualised and solution / proposal / conclusion. Alternative approaches might be considered. Thoughtful and developed insights/ creativity. |
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/skill in a logical manner to provide a more
developed solution / proposal / conclusion. Some but limited insights/creativity. Few logical errors |
Applies knowledge/skills in a basic manner to develop a simple
but limited solution/ proposal/conclusion.
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/proposal/ conclusion. |
|
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 7th or OSCOLA (10%) |
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 |
Comprehensive 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 unsubstantiated points. Referencing fully competent and accurate |
Task is well supported by more developed
use of sources/evidence Most points are substantiated and no major
unsubstantiated points Referencing largely competent and accurate. Some minor errors in citations or
references. |
Task is supported by several sources /evidence.
Some points are unsubstantiated. 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 understandable. |
Unacceptable |
Insufficient evidence |
|
Formatting of work (font, pagination, labelling) (10%) |
Impeccable formatting entirely consonant with assessment brief expectations |
Excellent formatting.
Polished and consonant with the assessment brief expectations. |
Formatting consonant with assessment brief expectations. No formatting issues. |
Formatting very largely free from major presentational problems
and consonant with assessment brief. |
Formatting broadly consonant with assessment brief but some
breaches of guidance. |
Acceptable formatting, but some breaches of guidance. Some unprofessional aspects |
Formatting not sufficiently consonant with assessment brief.
Multiple formatting issues. |
Formatting not consonant with assessment brief. Very poor with
multiple formatting issues |
No discernible attempt format work. |
No formatting |