UCS1001 Critical Thinking And Communicating CA1 – Critical Reader Response 2026 | SIT

UCS1001 Continuous Assessment 1 

CA1: Critical Reader Response

Type: Individual written work

Word limit: 700-750 words

Weighting: 30%

Instructions

1.Read the article entitled, “The Rise Of Augmented Reality In The Modern Workplace”: the-rise-of-augmented-reality-in-the-modern-workplace

2. Understand the key argument and supporting details.

3. Then use other sources to respond to any key point in the article,
i. take a clear position on a key point in the writer’s article and
ii. write a cogent and critical response.

4. Remember, ‘critical’ in ‘critical reader response’ does not mean to criticise, oppose or demolish the writer’s argument. Instead, it means showing a clear and in-depth understanding of the author’s
i. purpose,
ii. question at hand,
iii. information,
iv. interpretation & inference,
v. concepts (if any),
vi. assumptions,
vii. implications & suggested consequences and
viii. point of view or position and then commenting with evidence from other reliable sources.

5. This means that you should equally comment on the author’s / article’s strengths as well as weaknesses.

6. Therefore, there is no “right” or “wrong” answer. Instead, your reader response will be assessed on your ability to demonstrate an understanding of the source article by stating your position on an aspect of the article and supporting your position with substantial evidence from other reliable sources which you must cite clearly and accurately both within and at the end of the text using APA 7th edition referencing convention.

CA1 – Critical Reader Response

Article – The Rise Of Augmented Reality In The Modern Workplace, Brue (2019)

In the article “The Rise Of Augmented Reality In The Modern Workplace”, Brue argues that augmented reality (AR) has the potential to transform modern work practices by improving productivity, enhancing onboarding, and strengthening collaboration. This article presents an optimistic view of AR’s growth yet several of its claims rely on selective evidence and broad generalisations. The author presents an idealized view of AR, suggesting its widespread adoption and benefits across industries without sufficiently providing details and addressing the challenges of implementation. This essay will evaluate the author’s arguments on productivity, training, and remote collaboration by examining the clarity of the evidence provided, using external sources to assess the extent to which these claims are justified.

Firstly, Brue argues that AR can improve workplace productivity by reducing task completion time. However, the evidence supporting this claim lacks clarity to assess its reliability. She cites the IBM Institute for Business Value (2020), which reports that companies using AR have experienced a 32% improvement in productivity and a 46% reduction in task completion time, but did not explain how productivity was defined, the baseline measurements used, or whether these results can be applied across all industries or only applicable in certain sectors. Consequently, the statistics feels more like persuasive figures than verifiable evidence, making it difficult to judge if the claim is well-supported or overstated. A study by Rymarov et al. (2024) provides uses a within-subjects design to compare conditions with no AR/AI, AR, and AR+AI. It measured productivity through task completion time, mistake rates, and performance ratings. The results showed a 16% reduction in task completion time with AR and a 22% productivity increase with AR+AI. However, the study has a small sample size of 30 and its broadly defined “general work setting” limits how widely these results can be applied. Although this study supports the author’s claim in efficiency improvement, both the article and the study would be stronger with more industry-specific data, greater methodological transparency, and a more robust sample size to ensure that the findings are broadly applicable.

Besides productivity, Brue also claims that AR technologies can enhance onboarding, particularly through enterprise platforms such as Morpheus XR. While this claim is reasonable, there is not enough detail about the platform’s effectiveness in real-world applications. Morpheus XR replicates physical training spaces by creating virtual environments for onboarding and workshops, which could help employees learn more quickly and retain knowledge more effectively through immersive hands-on experience. A study on virtual construction safety training by Zhao and Lucas (2014) found that such technology has effectively visualized invisible hazards and improved employees’ safety awareness. However, more industry involvement and performance assessments would be more beneficial to strengthen the claim that virtual training programs can be practically applied across various fields. Therefore, further research is required to validate the adaptability and effectiveness of virtual onboarding across different sectors.

Additionally, Brue argues that AR can improve remote collaboration through platforms such a Campfire 3D, which creates shared 3D environments that allow virtual annotations and easier discussions. However, the article overlooked some important limitations. A study by Irene et al. (2025) compared four work environments – physical presence, videoconferencing, non-immersive Metaverse, and immersive Metaverse. The findings show that immersive environments may lead to increased cognitive load and reduced focus. Furthermore, ergonomic factors such as device comfort play a significant role in user engagement. These results shows that while AR technologies have potential for improving remote collaboration, they also come with cognitive and physical challenges. Therefore, AR platforms need to be carefully designed to match the level of immersion with the task at hand, while also ensuring accessibility and user comfort. For example, immersive AR may be beneficial for active collaboration or creative tasks but could lead to cognitive overload during routine discussions. By addressing these factors, AR can support remote collaboration more effectively, but a more user-centred design approach is necessary for its widespread adoption.

Overall, Brue’s article provides a solid introduction to the growth of AR in the modern workplace, highlighting how AR could support productivity, onboarding, and  collaboration. However, the claims are often based on industry reports and examples that lack transparency. Hence, clearer definitions, industry-specific data and more peer-reviewed sources should be incorporated so that these claims would be more robust and convincing. Nonetheless, the studies reviewed still suggests that AR can offer beneficial impacts, especially for workplace efficiency, but its long-term effectiveness must be grounded in evidence-based strategies, with careful consideration of the practical challenges and limitations inherent in immersive technologies.

Appendix A

UCS1001 Critical Thinking and Communicating

GenAI DECLARATION FORM
☒  I acknowledge the use of [name and link of the GAI used] to [how you

used the GAI]. The prompts entered on [day month year] included [list the prompts]. The output from these prompts was used to [how you used the GAI response]. I confirm that no content generated by AI has been presented as my own work.

Example: (replace with your own text)

I acknowledge the use of ChatGPT to suggest an outline for this literature review assignment. The prompts entered on 5 September 2023 included:

I am conducting research on healthy aging and nutrition in Singapore. Please suggest an outline for a literature review that is divided into a number of different themes.
Please be more succinct.
The output from these prompts included seven outline suggestions. Four of these suggestions were modified and adapted by me for use in my assignment. I confirm that no content generated by AI has been presented as my own work.

OR

☐ I did not use any form of GenAI to assist me with this assignment. I confirm that no content generated by AI has been presented as my own work.