Deliverables

1. Exercise – Citation Analysis
2. Genre Analysis of Literature Reviews
3. Literature Review + Metacognitive Report
4. Post – Reflection on Peers’ Literature Reviews

Student Learning Outcomes

By completing this project, students will be able to:

1. Demonstrate genre awareness by understanding the rhetorical purpose, structure, and conventions of the literature review as both a standalone genre and a section within academic writing.
2. Analyze citation as a rhetorical practice, explaining how authors use quotation, paraphrase, and summary to establish authority, build credibility, and engage readers’ critical literacy expectations.
3. Synthesize scholarly and industry sources to explore how AGI and ASI are expected to reshape white-collar work across domains and career stages.
4. Evaluate the reliability and purpose of sources using tools like the CRAAP test and demonstrate this evaluation through thoughtful citation choices and source integration.
5. Use GenAI tools to support iterative composing practices, including summarizing, paraphrasing, revising, editing, and verifying information in a way that maintains human voice, judgment, and ownership.
6. Reflect metacognitively on the ethical, rhetorical, and intellectual challenges of working with GenAI tools in academic and professional writing contexts.
7. Develop and revise a literature review collaboratively with GenAI while ensuring APA citation accuracy, transparent documentation of GenAI interactions, and awareness of potential risks such as hallucination or voice displacement.
8. Respond constructively to peers’ work, identifying effective writing strategies and contributing to shared professional knowledge through collegial feedback.

Introduction to the Assignment

Throughout this course, you’ve been invited to see writing itself as a technology: one that has always transformed human consciousness, reorganized societies, and reconfigured power and authority. From cuneiform to the printing press to generative AI, each new writing technology has unsettled established ways of thinking, learning, and working.

Your first major project explored that history and provided an intellectual framework for understanding writing as a technology that both empowers and threatens. We examined how writing technologies transform consciousness, how society initially resists new technologies, and how they reconfigure power by shifting who gets to speak and be heard.

Your second project forced you to grapple with how generative AI challenges academic norms of integrity and authorship. Universities, publishers, and accreditation bodies are deeply conflicted about this wave of change. On the one hand, they worry about plagiarism, loss of student learning, and the erosion of academic trust. On the other hand, they recognize they cannot fully stop these tools from reshaping education and professional writing.

Your third project asked you to confront a more personal and existential concern: that GenAI encourages cognitive offloading—the human tendency to choose the path of less effort. This isn’t just about laziness; it reflects a fundamental psychological principle. As Hull (1943) and more recent studies (David et al., 2024) have shown, humans systematically avoid mental effort. Emerging research confirms that when students use GenAI, they often sacrifice critical thinking, accuracy, ownership, and argument development.

Now, with this literature review, we shift the lens outward—from learning, education, and exploration of new writing processes—to the future of work itself. The coming wave, as so eloquently described by Suleyman (2023) is about to crash ashore—not at full strength yet, but with its first real punch in the next three years. This assignment throws you into the deep end, using the genre of the literature review to unpack the seismic disruption of AGI and ASI: technologies poised to slash jobs, rewrite skills, and upend organizational structures. With generative AI tools, you’ll refine your work through revision, editing, and prompting practice, learning to collaborate with AI while maintaining critical ownership of your thinking and writing.

The payoff is the ability to engage with real forecasts and evidence, weigh competing claims, and think strategically about how such technologies will reshape the economy, professional roles, and the competencies required to thrive. This is your opportunity to move beyond hype or fear and develop a research-informed, critical perspective that recognizes the wave cannot be stopped—but can, perhaps, be steered.

Rhetorical Situation

Dr. Stacy Adams—appointed by the university as AI Czar—has asked you to contribute a literature review to support the university’s effort to develop, Navigating AI Disruption: A Guide for the University Community.

Dr. Adams is particularly concerned that university programs are not adequately preparing students for the rapid changes coming to the workforce as a result of AGI (artificial general intelligence) and ASI (artificial superintelligence). She wants your literature review to summarize current expert thinking on how these technologies are defined, when they might emerge, and how they are expected to transform the future of work.

Your review will help guide faculty and administrators across disciplines as they reassess their curriculum and career preparation strategies. It should demonstrate your ability to synthesize scholarly and industry research, weigh competing predictions, and communicate what this transformation means for students’ academic and professional futures.

Definition of Terms

In order to do well on this assignment, you must have a working understanding of the following terms:

Research Questions, Literature Reviews, and Citation Practices

Research Questions, Literature Reviews, and Citation Practices are discourse conventions (also known as genres)–socially defined ways of communicating academic, scientific, and professional knowledge.

• Research Questions: Creatives, Designers, Interpreters, Scientists, Synthesizers (Mixed Methods Researchers), and Scholars (Textual Researchers) engage in basic and applied research by asking questions. For instance, in response to the question “why does sunrise happen?” the creative might speculate the sun reflects an ethereal life force that gave birth to humanity; the designer might develop a prototype for a planetarium to expose the sky’s hidden gears; the interpreter might speak with local Shaman, endeavoring to make sense of different creation stories.
• Literature Reviews: Investigators want to ensure that the research questions they are asking are significant and informed by the hard work of previous researchers. Beyond being driven by human inquiry, humankind’s insatiable to understand the universe, research is informed by the archive — a process anthropologists have called “the ongoing conversation of human kind.”
• Citation Practices: Citation is more than a matter of giving credit—it’s a rhetorical strategy that helps writers establish credibility, situate their work within ongoing conversations, and signal their epistemological allegiances. Creatives may cite artistic influences, cultural myths, or speculative texts to inspire new ways of thinking. Designers often reference prototypes, focus group results, or UX studies to justify design choices. Scientists typically rely on peer-reviewed research and prioritize reproducibility. Textual Scholars cite seminal theorists, historical texts, or critical editions. Interpreters foreground voices from the field or draw on ethnographic sources. Mixed Methods Researchers blend citations across these traditions to reflect a pluralistic view of knowledge-making. How, when, and why researchers cite reveals their methodological community’s values and the kind of contribution they aim to make to human understanding.

Literature

In the context of the research community, the term “literature” refers to the body of published, peer-reviewed work that is relevant to a particular field of study or research topic. This includes:

• Journal articles
• Conference proceedings
• Books and monographs
• Dissertations and theses
• Reports and white papers
• Other formal academic publications

Literature Review

A literature review is a systematic survey and synthesis of existing peer-reviewed works related to a specific research topic or question. It serves multiple purposes and can be understood in two primary contexts:

1. As a Genre of Discourse: A literature review is a distinct genre of discourse that focuses on synthesizing and critically analyzing the existing body of scholarly work on a particular topic. As a genre, it has its own conventions, rhetorical appeals, and expectations that distinguish it from other forms of research genres, such as empirical research articles or theoretical papers.
2. As a Section within a Research Study: Within the structure of a research study or paper, the literature review typically represents a dedicated section or chapter. It provides an overview and analysis of the relevant literature, contextualizing the current study, identifying gaps or areas that require further investigation, and establishing the rationale and significance of the research being undertaken.

John Swales’ (1990) CARS (Create a Research Space) model provides a useful framework for analyzing literature reviews and citation practices. In research studies across methodological communities, Swales argues investigators make these common rhetorical moves:

1. establishing a territory,
2. identifying a niche, and
3. occupying that niche.

Why Does This Assignment Matter?

This assignment introduces you to the genre of the literature review, a form of writing used by scholars and professionals to map what is known, debated, and uncertain about a topic. Whether you’re conducting basic, applied, or workplace research, literature reviews help you clarify the problem, identify knowledge gaps, and assess the credibility of existing findings.

Writing a literature review is not just about collecting summaries. It’s a hermeneutic process—an act of interpretation that requires you to revisit sources, reframe insights, and weigh conflicting perspectives. Along the way, you’ll engage foundational questions: What do we know? How do we know it? What remains to be discovered?

This assignment helps you:

• Understand how citation practices establish credibility, show awareness of disciplinary conversations, and support argument.
• Practice summarizing, paraphrasing, and quoting in ways that enhance your voice, not replace it.
• Use GenAI tools to support—but not supplant—your critical thinking, source evaluation, and rhetorical awareness.

Ultimately, learning to write a literature review prepares you to participate in academic, professional, and public conversations with confidence and authority.

Required Readings

Hermeneutics | Literature Reviews | Textual Research Methods | Scholarship – The Scholars

Why Review Literature on GenAI and the Workplace?

AI is transforming work now, with 78% of organizations adopting AI in at least one function (McKinsey & Company, 2025). Microsoft’s 2025 Work Trend Index identifies the rise of “Frontier Firms,” organizations rebuilding around AI-driven “intelligence on tap” and human-AI agent teams, where employees become “agent bosses” managing digital colleagues (Microsoft, 2025).

These firms report 71% of workers thriving as AI automates tasks and frees capacity for meaningful work.

Microsoft forecasts that generative AI could automate 30% of current jobs by 2030, with up to 30% of entry-level knowledge work at risk within five years (Amodei, 2025).

A recent study analyzing 200,000 real-world Bing Copilot interactions found that GenAI is already assisting or performing tasks in writing, advising, information gathering, and teaching—especially in occupations that rely heavily on communication, knowledge work, and administrative support (Tomlinson et al., 2025). The researchers calculated AI applicability scores by mapping successful AI task completions to U.S. Department of Labor occupation data. Their results show that the roles most susceptible to AI displacement include sales representatives, customer service agents, legal assistants, office clerks, and payroll professionals.

Below, Table 3 from Tomlinson et al. (2025) ranks the occupations most likely to be affected by GenAI based on observed usage and task replacement potential.

These findings suggest that entry-level white-collar jobs may be the first to disappear, with college graduates facing shrinking opportunities unless they acquire skills in human-AI collaboration, prompt engineering, and critical oversight. As cognitive tasks become increasingly automated, employers are prioritizing uniquely human capabilities—like interpersonal communication, adaptability, and AI literacy (Microsoft, 2025; NACE, 2024).

At the same time, some researchers offer more measured forecasts. Forrester Research, for instance, estimates that generative AI will replace 2.4 million U.S. jobs by 2030—significantly fewer than the tens of millions projected for other forms of automation (Quach, 2023). This discrepancy underscores the importance of critically evaluating competing predictions about AI’s labor market impact.

The Problem Space

Part 1: Superintelligence

The pursuit of AGI—AI matching human cognitive abilities like reasoning and problem-solving—and ASI—AI surpassing human intelligence across domains—is accelerating. Bostrom (2014) defines ASI as intellect vastly exceeding human cognition in speed, collaboration, and quality. Forecasts suggest AGI could emerge by 2030, with ASI following, capable of autonomous decision-making and innovation (Aschenbrenner, 2024; Kokotajlo et al., 2025). For example, OpenAI’s GPT-o1 scored 83% on the International Mathematical Olympiad in 2024, signaling proto-AGI capabilities (Forbes, 2025). These advancements promise breakthroughs but risk misalignment with human values, necessitating ethical oversight.

Part 2: Future of Work

AI is disrupting knowledge work, with up to 30% of global jobs potentially automated by 2030, particularly in fields like finance, marketing, and law (McKinsey & Company, 2025). The World Economic Forum (2025) projects a net gain of 78 million jobs by 2030, with 170 million new roles created (e.g., in AI, big data, and green sectors) and 92 million displaced, driven by technology and economic trends. Traditionally, competencies like critical thinking, teamwork, and communication have defined career readiness (NACE, 2024). However, AGI/ASI’s ability to automate cognitive tasks may reduce demand for routine analytical skills, while amplifying interpersonal skills (e.g., collaboration, empathy) and adaptability to AI-driven tools (National Research Council, 2022). Collaborative problem-solving, integrating cognitive and social skills, remains a human strength AI struggles to replicate (Oliveri et al., 2012). Graduates must cultivate these human-centric skills alongside technical proficiency to thrive in an AI-transformed economy.

Your literature review will synthesize these forecasts, employment trends, and competency frameworks to analyze AGI/ASI’s evolution and its implications for your career, enabling strategic adaptation in a dynamic labor market.

Guidelines and Evaluation

Guidelines for the Citation Analysis

Assignment Goals

• Explore how academic authors use quotation, paraphrase, and summary rhetorically
• Analyze why authors cite—how citation demonstrates authority, supports argument, and responds to readers’ demand for credible, well-vetted sources
• Practice using GenAI as a tool to support your own summarizing and paraphrasing practices
• Reflect on how citation strategies can strengthen your own writing voice and authority

Instructions

Before you can write an effective literature review, you need to understand citation not just as a formal requirement, but as a rhetorical practice. Scholars use citation to position their work in the larger conversation of humankind, demonstrating authority, rigor, and intellectual honesty. Citation isn’t just about avoiding plagiarism—it’s how you show you know what’s been said before, how you evaluate ideas, and how you earn your place in a scholarly or professional dialogue.

This exercise will help you see how citation practices—especially quotation, paraphrase, and summary—advance a writer’s authority without undermining their voice. It will also teach you to evaluate sources critically using tools like the CRAAP Test, supporting writing that is credible, ethical, and persuasive.

Step 1 – Familiarize Yourself With Citation Conventions

Take a moment to familiarize yourself with citation conventions. Review the readings below to familiarize yourself with citation conventions. You may listen to this Notebook LLM podcast of these readings.

1. Attribution — What is the Role of Attribution in Academic and Professional Writing
2. Citation
3. Citation Guide – Learn How to Cite Sources in Academic and Professional Writing
   1. [See Also: When and How to Cite Generative AI in Your Writing]
   2. Citation – How to Connect Evidence to Your Claims
   3. Citation & Voice – How to Distinguish Your Ideas from Your Sources
   4. Citation Conventions – What is the Role of Citation in Academic & Professional Writing?
   5. Citation Conventions – When Are Citations Required in Academic & Professional Writing?
   6. Paraphrasing – How to Paraphrase with Clarity & Concision
   7. Quotation – When & How to Use Quotes in Your Writing
      • Block Quotations
   8. Summary – Learn How To Summarize Sources in Academic & Professional Writing
4. The CRAAP Test –  Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose

These resources will help you see citation not just as formatting but as strategic choices writers make to:

• Enter an existing conversation
• Show what is known, debated, or uncertain
• Evaluate the authority, accuracy, and relevance of sources
• Demonstrate their own credibility and awareness of readers’ critical literacy concerns

Step 2 – Upload the following articles into a GenAI tool (see full citations in References below)

1. Ellis, L., & Bindley, K. (2025, July 28).
2. Gimbel, M., Kinder, M., Kendall, J., & Lee, M. (2025, October 1).
3. Goldman Sachs Research. (2023, April 5).
4. Mayer, H., Yee, L., Chui, M., & Roberts, R. (2025).
5. Microsoft, & LinkedIn. (2024, May 8)
6. Microsoft. (2025, April 23)
7. Tomlinson, K., Jaffe, S., Wang, W., Counts, S., & Suri, S. (2025, July 22).
8. World Economic Forum. (2025).

Step 3 – Engage in a conversation with a GenAI tool, asking it to discuss the following questions with you:

1. What is the purpose of citation in scholarly writing? How do citations connect current research to a discipline’s canon while also linking it to the broader conversation of humankind? How do they help readers understand what is already known, what remains uncertain, and why new work is significant?
2. How do researchers use citations to establish credibility and authority? Which voices or kinds of evidence do they draw upon to demonstrate expertise, and are those sources current, accurate, and relevant to their inquiry?
3. How do citation choices reveal an investigator’s awareness of methods—the assumptions, strengths, or limits of the evidence they cite?
4. How do citations function rhetorically—to distinguish a writer’s ideas from others’, to signal alignment or disagreement, or to situate a study within an evolving body of research?
5. How do citations shape a writer’s ethos and serve social purposes? In what ways does citing well foster trust, professionalism, and participation in the collective pursuit of knowledge?
6. How do writers introduce sources in ways that anticipate and respect the critical literacy of readers?

Step 4: Reflect and Document

Your submission should include two parts:

Part 1 – Analysis of Citation Practices (~500 words)
Respond analytically to the citation strategies you observed in the assigned articles. Be specific and concrete in your insights:

• Reference specific sources (e.g., “In the Microsoft & LinkedIn report (2024)…”).
• Cite the exact citation practice you’re analyzing (e.g., quotation, paraphrase, attribution style, integration of statistics or expert testimony).
• Identify rhetorical purpose: Is the citation being used to demonstrate credibility, show alignment/disagreement, anticipate critical literacy, or build disciplinary authority?

Avoid vague generalizations (e.g., “they use citations to support claims”). Instead, for instance, explain how a particular citation supports an argument or builds ethos in that specific context. Treat citation as a rhetorical act.

Part 2 – Reflection on GenAI and Citation Practice (~500 words)
Reflect on how using GenAI tools shaped your understanding of citation and source integration:

• How did your dialogs with GenAI shape your understanding of citation conventions? Did you use GenAI to facilitate summarizing paraphrasing, and quoting?
• In what ways did the GenAI output reinforce or challenge your thinking about citation, voice, and authority?
• Describe moments where the tool helped you interpret, question, or reframe an author’s citation strategy. What did you learn from this exercise regarding the larger course theme, “how is human’s use of generative AI reshaping creativity, authorship, composing, learning, copyright, and work?

Note: Your metacognitive report, which addresses your use of GenAI, is not due until the close of this project (see major project below).

Evaluative Criteria (Rubric)

1. Analytical Depth (50%)
   Offers detailed and source-specific insights into how authors use citation rhetorically. Goes beyond summary to analyze why specific strategies were chosen and how they function to support authority and argument.
2. Concrete Integration of Evidence (25%)
   References exact passages from the articles and clearly identifies types of citation (quotation, paraphrase, summary). Cites GenAI prompts and outputs where relevant to show how learning occurred.
3. Document Design and Professionalism (10%)
   Follows submission instructions, includes name and word count, organizes sections clearly, and presents chat logs as an appendix or linked transcript.

---

Guidelines for Genre Analysis – What is a Review of Literature? – Hermeneutics

Purpose

This assignment introduces you to the genre and purpose of the literature review, a foundational element of scholarly and professional research. By studying how different authors explain, organize, and justify literature reviews, you’ll learn how researchers establish credibility, identify gaps in knowledge, and situate their work within ongoing conversations.

The goal is to help you recognize how authority functions rhetorically—how writers use synthesis, citation, and methodological framing to signal expertise and evaluate the reliability of sources. These insights will prepare you to write and assess literature reviews across academic and workplace contexts.

Instructions

Write a 250-word post that accurately summarizes and quotes from the following sources. Explain the concept of genre and literature review. Address how reviews of literature are interpretive, iterative, and foundational to understanding what is known and unknown about a topic.

Tip: Load these sources in Notebook LLM and ask it to create a podcast.

• Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(12), 257–286. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03412
• Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
• Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9(7), e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149 journals.plos.org+2pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov+2

---

Guidelines for the Literature Review

This is the Creative Challenge (CC) for our current module, and like all five CCs, it contributes to the 70% Creative Challenge portion of your final course grade (as listed in the Gradebook on Canvas).

This project brings together everything you’ve practiced in the past two assignments:

• Exercise – Citation Analysis, where you explored how writers use summary, paraphrase, and quotation to build authority and respond to readers’ expectations for credible sourcing
• Genre Analysis of Literature Reviews, where you examined how literature reviews help scholars define a problem space, identify knowledge gaps, and establish a rationale for research

Instructions

Write a 750–1000 word literature review that addresses the following research question:

How will AGI and ASI transform the future of white-collar work—and how can students prepare to thrive in an AI-transformed economy?

Use your review to analyze:

• Which tasks and competencies are most vulnerable to automation?
• What new forms of collaboration, creativity, or strategic thinking will be required?
• How can students prepare—academically and professionally—to remain relevant and resilient?

Provide real data and credible sources to analyze competing predictions—and to think strategically about your own career.

Requirements

1. Place your name and total word count in the top left corner.
2. Use at least four direct quotes from four different required sources (see source list below).
3. Paraphrase or summarize all required sources to demonstrate deep understanding.
4. Use APA 7 style for all in-text citations and your References list.
5. You may use limited first-person, but your focus should be on synthesizing and analyzing research—not personal opinion. The focus of the discourse should be on explicating the readings.
6. Clearly define AGI and ASI using sources from the Superintelligence category.
7. Analyze the future of work using the Future of Work sources and, if needed, recommended sources on workplace competencies.
8. Include one original data visualization (AI-generated is fine) that reinforces your analysis and helps readers understand key trends.

Required Sources

Note: The number of the studies I’m asking you to review is quite long. The Aschenbrenner citation alone is book length. Hence, I realize you do not have time to read all of these studies carefully. Thus, I’m asking you to use at least one GenAI tool to summarize and analyze these sources in relation to the goal of the literature review–i.e., to address “How are AGI and ASI expected . . .”

That said, it is very important that you verify all GenAI feedback/chats. As you know, as of this moment (10/25), GenAI hallucinates like crazy! It may make up quotes! It probably won’t but it may summarize or parphrase incorrectly so you need to at least skim these studies to get their gist/tone, etc. Thus, you simply must check for that–and that really should take much time. Just use the Find function on the .pdf for the quote you are checking. If your submission draft includes hallucinated content, inaccurate paraphrases, misrepresented evidence, or incorrect APA citations, you may receive an F on this assignment. You are responsible for ensuring the accuracy, credibility, and ethical use of every quote, paraphrase, or summary.

Superintelligence

• Aschenbrenner (2024)
• Kokotajlo et al. (2025)

Future of Work

1. Ellis, L., & Bindley, K. (2025, July 28).
2. Gimbel, M., Kinder, M., Kendall, J., & Lee, M. (2025, October 1).
3. Goldman Sachs Research. (2023, April 5).
4. Mayer, H., Yee, L., Chui, M., & Roberts, R. (2025).
5. Microsoft, & LinkedIn. (2024, May 8)
6. Microsoft. (2025, April 23)
7. Tomlinson, K., Jaffe, S., Wang, W., Counts, S., & Suri, S. (2025, July 22).
8. World Economic Forum. (2025).

Suggested Structure for Literature Review

• Introduction: Introduce purpose/research question.
• Section 1: Define AGI/ASI: Explore definitions and speculated for ASI
• Section 2: Future of Work: Analyze job risks, field-specific impacts, and competency shifts
• Visualization: Add to either of the above two sections
• Conclusion: Synthesize findings and outline career strategy.
• References: APA list.

Rubric for Literature Review

Criterion	A (Excellent)	B (Good)	C (Needs Improvement)	F (Unsatisfactory)
Clarity and Focus	Maintains a clear, consistent focus on AGI/ASI’s impact on work and competencies, with a well-defined thesis that comprehensively addresses both research questions.	Generally focuses on AGI/ASI’s impact but may have minor lapses in clarity or thesis coherence.	Lacks consistent focus on the common theme, with an unclear or partially developed thesis.	Fails to focus on AGI/ASI’s impact or lacks a thesis addressing the research questions.
Source Accuracy and Quoting	Includes at least one accurate, relevant direct quote from each of the seven required sources, seamlessly integrated with proper APA 7 in-text citations.	Includes quotes from all seven required sources but may have minor inaccuracies in citation or integration.	Misses quotes from one required source or has significant citation errors.	Misses quotes from multiple required sources or has pervasive citation errors.
Analytical Synthesis	Synthesizes sources to form a cohesive, evidence-based argument, effectively integrating quotes, paraphrases, and summaries to address the common theme.	Synthesizes sources but may rely too heavily on summaries or lack full integration into a cohesive argument.	Summarizes sources with limited synthesis or weak connection to the common theme.	Lists source summaries without synthesis or connection to the theme.
APA Adherence	Uses APA 7 format correctly for in-text citations, reference list, and overall structure, with no errors.	Uses APA 7 format with minor errors in citations or reference list that do not impede clarity.	Has significant APA 7 errors that affect readability or credibility.	Fails to use APA 7 format or has pervasive errors.
Visualization Quality	Includes two original, relevant, and clearly presented data visualizations (e.g., charts on automation risks or competency shifts) that enhance the argument.	Includes two visualizations, but they may lack clarity, relevance, or full integration with the text.	Includes fewer than two visualizations or visualizations are unclear or marginally relevant.	Lacks visualizations or includes irrelevant ones.
Argument and Career Strategy	Develops a compelling argument with a clear, actionable career plan addressing AGI/ASI’s impact, supported by specific strategies grounded in sources.	Presents a career plan with some actionable strategies, but it may lack specificity or full source integration.	Lacks a clear or actionable career plan or weakly connects strategies to AGI/ASI’s impact.	Fails to present a career plan or connect it to sources.

---

Guidelines for the Metacognitive Report

Do not use GenAI to compose this metacognitive report. Let your instructor and peers hear your authentic voice.

Purpose

The purpose of your metacognitive report is to describe how you used GenAI to compose your project. Your audience for this report is your instructor and potentially other students in the class.

Instructions

1. Read the article, “Metacognitive Report: Metacognitive Report – AI Writing Ethics: Balancing Agency, Voice & Disclosure.” 
2. Critically reflect on the possible ways you used GenAI to compose the deliverables associated with this major project:
   1. Thought Partner – brainstorming, counterarguments, refining claims
   2. Research Assistant – finding, summarizing, and cross-checking sources
   3. Composing Assistant – supporting invention, drafting, revising, rereading
   4. Citation Assistant – formatting and checking references
   5. Editorial Assistant – improving clarity, coherence, and flow
   6. Designer – shaping tables, figures, or layouts
   7. Publishing Assistant – adapting work for new audiences or media
   8. Teaching Assistant – clarifying complex concepts or modeling skills
3. Prepare a metacognitive report that is at least 250 words long, following these guidelines:
   1. Title the report, Metacognitive Report
      1. Beneath the title, left justified,
         • Word Count: [Insert total word count here]
         • Name: [Insert your full name here]
         • GenAI Tools Used: [List tools here]
         • Chat Logs: [Include links to chat logs or indicate that PDF transcript is attached]
   2. At the top of your document, provide a table that summarizes your GenAI usage. Define:
      • How you used GenAI to facilitate your writing processes
        • Prewriting, inventing, drafting, collaborating, researching, planning, organizing, designing, rereading, revising, editing, proofreading, sharing or publishing
      • How you used to improve your writing style
        • The Elements of Style – The DNA of Powerful Writing
          • Clarity, brevity, coherence, flow, inclusivity, simplicity, and unity
      • The total number of chats you conducted
        • Note: Your instructor will be looking to see that you engaged in sustained dialog with an LLM as opposed to simply copying and pasting its first response and presenting that as your own work. agency often shows in how many iterations you chose to pursue)
   3. Beneath the table(s), write a narrative that interprets the table and explains your writing process with GenAI. For instance,
      • explain how you endeavored to use GenAI systems in ways that preserved your agency. What work did you to do to ensure your inner voice or felt sense guided your composing processes.
      • summarize the prompts you used to give the GenAI system(s) an understanding of this assignment, especially the topic and genre.
      • elaborate on how you used GenAI systems to facilitate your composing. How did multiple rounds of questioning, revision, or redirection keep you in charge?
      • describe obstacles you conducted. What risks did you notice (fabricated references, misleading summaries, style drift), and how did iteration help you detect/correct them? 
      • describe lessons learned. What did you learn about iteration as a habit of mind in research-based writing? What practices will you carry forward into future projects?
4. Upload your metacognitive note to Canvas by due date. (Upload this assignment in the same Canvas drop box you use for this Creative Challenge.)

Note: The metacognitive report constitutes 25% of the total grade for the Creative Challenge.

---

Guidelines for GenAI Self-Editing Optional Exercise

Note: I took this exercise off of Canvas. It is not required. It is optional.

Purpose

The goal of this exercise is to help you learn how to use GenAI as an editor. In particular, you want to ask the AI tool to critically evaluate your citation practices and the accuracy, clarity, and completeness of your review.

Instructions

Upload a solid draft of your lit review as a PDF to the AI tool you’re using. Upload the draft to the same chat you used for the citaton exercise so it has already read the articles you are reviewing. If you are using a new tool, upload the studies. Ask GenAI to examine the accuracy and integration of summarized, quoted, and paraphrased citations.

Your submission will include a Reflection (~300 words) and a Revision Plan (~200 words). This exercise reinforces your responsibility to cite ethically and accurately, ensuring your sources are introduced in rhetorically effective ways and formatted correctly in APA 7 style.

What You’ll Submit

1. Upload a PDF of your Literature Review draft
2. Upload a ~200-word Reflection that summarizes and analyzes the feedback the AI tool provided
3. Upload a ~200-word Revision Plan that outlines what you need to do to polish and perfect your literature review.

Reflection (~300 words)
Use GenAI to evaluate how you introduced, quoted, paraphrased, and cited sources in your draft. Craft multiple prompts to:

• Detect citation problems (e.g., missing in-text citations, dropped-in quotes, unacknowledged sources, or fabricated summaries)
• Assess your integration of sources: Did you frame them clearly? Did the source advance your authority—or replace your voice?
• Identify any content that may have been hallucinated or inaccurately paraphrased by GenAI tools you used earlier
• Check APA 7 formatting for both in-text and reference entries

Use GenAI to apply the CRAAP Test to your sources:

• Currency: Are all sources recent and relevant to current conversations about AGI/ASI and the future of work?
• Relevance: Do your citations directly support your thesis—or are they tangential or filler?
• Authority: Did you choose sources written by credible experts? Is the author’s expertise clear in how you introduced the source?
• Accuracy: Are claims in your draft accurately supported by your sources? Are there any false attributions or misleading summaries?
• Purpose: Did you account for potential bias or agenda in your sources?

Conclude your reflection by explaining how you will use GenAI more deliberately in the future to ensure your writing meets ethical and rhetorical standards for citation. Focus on how GenAI can help you double-check for credibility, apply APA formatting correctly, and identify weak or misused sources—not just how it can generate text.

Revision Plan (~200 words)
Describe how you plan to revise your literature review based on GenAI feedback and your CRAAP analysis. Organize your plan into the four levels of critique (see Self Review – How to Structure Revision of Your Own Work):

• Rhetorical Level (Global Concerns)
  • How will you revise your use of sources to strengthen your authority and align with your thesis?
  • Will you reframe or replace any sources to improve ethos or relevance?
• Paragraph Level
  • How will you revise paragraphs to better integrate citations, explain their significance, or build analytical connections?
• Sentence Level
  • How will you improve attribution (e.g., signal phrases, verbs of attribution, or transitions) to guide your reader?
• Citation Accuracy and APA 7
  • What APA issues need correction (in-text or reference list)?
  • How will you ensure every source is properly cited, both in content and form?

Be specific: name the source, section, or issue you plan to change and explain how GenAI helped you identify the need for revision.’

---

Post – Reflection on Peers’ Literature Reviews

Post a 250-word note to the Canvas discussion board that:

1. Identifies the top three literature reviews you read and explains, in a sentence or two for each, what made them stand out (e.g., clarity, depth of synthesis, originality, effective use of sources, compelling visualizations).
2. Shares the two or three most valuable insights you gained from engaging with your peers’ work—ideas, sources, or approaches you might adapt in your own research or future writing. When sharing, mention your peers’ names. Be respectful: cite, paraphrase, and summarize their ideas, thereby creating a professional ethos.
3. Reflects briefly on how reading others’ reviews expanded your understanding of the future of work in the age of AI and how literature reviews can shape professional or policy conversations.

Be concrete in your feedback—refer to specific examples from your peers’ reviews. Aim for a tone that is both collegial and constructive, highlighting strengths rather than simply ranking.

Also, be personal. Use the first person.

Rubric:

• Specificity (40%) – Cites concrete examples from peers’ work, not just general praise
• Insight (30%) – Explains clearly what you learned from reading these reviews and why it matters
• Constructive Tone (20%) – Uses professional, respectful language that supports a positive learning environment
• Clarity & Concision (10%) – Stays within ~250 words and communicates ideas clearly

Additional Resources

Eastwood, Brian.  These human capabilities complement AI’s shortcomings.  MIT Management https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/these-human-capabilities-complement-ais-shortcomings “The work tasks that AI is least likely to replace are those that depend on uniquely human capacities, such as empathy, judgement, ethics, and hope.”  Report on a study that applied their model of work tasks to all the U. S. tasks and occupations identified by O*Net. 

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/17N5GvHhUg/?mibextid=wwXIfr