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

FORMCHECKBOX
FFFFFFFF650000001400060043006800650063006B003200000001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
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: 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/

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%

Assessment criteria

The Assessment Criteria are shown the
end of this document. Your tutor will
discuss how your work will be assessed/marked and will explain how the
assessment criteria apply to this piece of work. These criteria have been designed for
your level of study.

These criteria will be used to mark
your work and will be used to support the
electronic feedback you receive on your marked
assignment. Before submission, check that you have tried to meet
the requirements of the higher-grade bands to the best of your
ability. Please note that the marking process
involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking
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
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 7^th 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

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

Fulfilment of relevant learning
outcomes

Met

Not met or partially met

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 7^th 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

Related Posts