1. Evaluation Of Olympic Games

This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to acreg.fbl@coventry.ac.uk Faculty of Business and Law Assignment Brief Mode E and R Regulations Module Title: Managing Sports Events Assignment Number Cw1 Module Code: 7010SMM Assignment Title Individual Report Module Leader: Helen Grimley Assignment Credits 5 credits Release Date: Semester 2 Submission Date/Time: 24/02/2023 Submission Time and Place: Submission through Turnitin ONLY - or as specified by the module leader. Assessment Information This assignment is an individual assignment. Selecting a Summer or Winter Olympic Games from 2008 onwards, critically evaluate the event impact to determine the extent to which planned legacies were achieved. Your report must include: · Cover page and contents page · A short introduction · A critical evaluation of the impact of hosting the chosen Olympic Games · Evaluate one or two impacts · A critical evaluation of the extent to which the legacies identified in the bid document were achieved · You must refer to legacy statements included in the bid document · Evaluate one or two legacy themes · Managerial recommendations to improve the legacy of the chosen Olympic Games · A conclusion · References It is expected that all sections of your report are underpinned by relevant academic literature/theories and or models This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to acreg.fbl@coventry.ac.uk 7010SMM Assignment Brief Page 2 Criteria for Assessment 80%+ 70%+ 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 0-29% Introduction/ Conclusion (10%) Outstanding level. Excellently and clearly provides introduction/ rationale and recaps essential background information. Viable conclusions and comprehensive legacy recommendations flow from the discussion and are summarised. Excellent level. Excellently and clearly provides introduction/ rationale and recaps essential background information. Viable conclusions and comprehensive legacy recommendations flow from the discussion and are summarised. Very good Level. A very good attempt at an introduction and conclusion. A viable conclusion is presented with some legacy recommendations summarised. Good Level. A very good attempt at an introduction. Sometimes launches straight into new material without a comprehensive introduction. A good attempt at a conclusion but no limited or unrealistic legacy recommendations. Launches straight into new material without a sound introduction. Too long and too much repetition of basic material covered in lecture. Some attempt at a conclusion but no recommendations presented. Clear weaknesses in introduction and/or conclusion Does not recap, conclude or provide any recommendations. Lack of an introduction and/or conclusion. Academic Underpinning (40%) All material is relevant to the theme of the presentation and excellently presented. Uses key literature and theory to support discussion. Outstandingly addresses the assignment’s questions/tasks. All material is relevant to the theme of the presentation and excellently presented. Uses key literature and theory to support discussion. Excellently addresses the assignment’s questions/tasks. Very good levels of relevance evident. Uses key literature to support discussion. Addresses the assignment’s questions/tasks. Good levels of relevance evident. However, some material taken from textbook/lecture regardless of relevance to presentation. Mostly addresses the assignment’s questions/tasks. Has not adequately addresses the assignment’s questions/tasks. Too much material presented, with no clear identification of the main issues required for assessment. Areas of error evident. Much of the material is irrelevant. Does not address the assignment’s questions/tasks. Lack of academic underpinning throughout the report Critical evaluation of the event impact and the extent to which the legacy was achieved (40%) Outstanding critical evaluation of impact. Outstanding critical evaluation of legacy with specific linkages to the bid document. Outstanding use of appropriate examples. Excellent critical evaluation of impact. Excellent critical evaluation of legacy with specific linkages to the bid document. Excellent use of appropriate examples. Very good critical evaluation of impact. Very critical evaluation of legacy with specific linkages to the bid document. Excellent use of appropriate examples. Good evaluation of impact. Good critical evaluation of legacy with some linkages to the bid document. Good use of appropriate examples. Room for improvement. Adequate evaluation of impact. Adequate critical evaluation of legacy with limited linkages to the bid document. Adequate use of appropriate examples..Much room for improvement. Poor levels of evaluation and poor understanding. Examples not relevant. No attempt at evaluation of impacts and legacies Presentation of work / academic writing skills/ accuracy of referencing (in text and list) (10%) The report is outstanding in terms of presentation. APA referencing used with no errors. The report is excellent in terms of presentation. APA referencing used with minor errors. The work is very good in terms of presentation. APA referencing use with some errors. Good presentation. There are some mistakes/errors in terms of referencing and presentation Adequate presentation. There are several presentation and referencing issues Presentation is poor. APA referencing is not followed. Presentation is poor. No attempt at referencing This assignment is designed to assess learning outcomes: 2. Critically evaluate the impacts and legacies of bidding for and hosting an event 3. Appraise the components of a bid document for a sport event, and make justified recommendations on how they could be improved Word Count The word count is 1500 words. There will be a penalty of a deduction of 10% of the mark (after internal moderation) for work exceeding the limit by 10% or more. The limit includes quotations and citations but excludes the references list, Appendices, Ethics paperwork, and other parts as detailed. In other words, everything after the Table of Contents and before the References is included in the word count. In a written report any tables or other words within the main body (even if included as a picture) will count toward the word count. How to submit your assessment The assessment must be submitted by 18:00 on 24/02/23. No paper copies are required. You can access the submission link through the module web. · Your coursework will be given a zero mark if you fail to submit your work as directed by the module leader. Please take care to ensure that you have fully submitted your work. · Please ensure that you have submitted your work using the correct file format, unreadable files will receive a mark of zero. The Faculty accepts Microsoft Office documents, unless otherwise advised by the module leader. If you write your coursework using Apple pages, please ensure to convert your work to .pdf before submission. · All work submitted after the submission deadline without a valid and approved reason (see below) will be given a mark of zero. · The University wants you to do your best. However we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you can’t submit your coursework by the deadline – these events should be beyond your control and not easy to predict. If this happens, you can apply for an extension to your deadline for up to 5 working days, or if you need longer, you can apply for a deferral, which takes you to the next assessment period (for example, to the resit period following the main Assessment Boards). You must apply before the deadline. You will find information about the process and what is or is not considered to be an event beyond your control at https://share.coventry.ac.uk/students/Registry/Pages/Deferrals-and-Extension.aspx · Students MUST keep a copy and/or an electronic file of their assignment. · Checks will be made on your work using anti-plagiarism software and approved plagiarism checking websites. GUIDELINES AND BACKGROUND TO THIS ASSIGNMENT Plagiarism As part of your study you will be involved in carrying out research and using this when writing up your coursework. It is important that you correctly acknowledge someone else’s writing, thoughts or ideas and that you do not attempt to pass this off as your own work. Doing so is known as plagiarism. It is not acceptable to copy from another source without acknowledging that it is someone else’s writing or thinking. This includes using paraphrasing as well as direct quotations. You are expected to correctly cite and reference the works of others. The Centre for Academic Writing provides documents to help you get this right. If you are unsure, please visit www.coventry.ac.uk/caw. You can also check your understanding of academic conduct by completing the Good Academic Practice quiz. Self-plagiarism or reuse of work previously submitted You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), either for your current course or for another qualification of this and any other university, unless this is specifically provided for in your assignment brief or specific course or module information. Where earlier work by you is citable, ie. it has already been published/submitted, you must reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently will also be considered to be self-plagiarism. Self-plagiarism is unacceptable because you cannot gain credit for the same work twice. The University VLE includes a plagiarism detection system and assessors are experienced enough to recognise plagiarism when it occurs. Copying another student’s work, using previous work of your own or copying large sections from a book or the internet are examples of plagiarism and carry serious consequences. If you are a business student and joined Coventry University in September 2020 or later please use APA 7th edition referencing, if you joined prior to this date you may use APA or the existing Harvard Reference Style (Coventry version) that you are familiar with. Law students should use OSCOLA. Please be consistent in the referencing style that you use and use it correctly to avoid a case of plagiarism or cheating being brought. If you are unsure, please contact the Centre for Academic Writing, your Progress Coach or a member of the course team. Return of Marked Work You can expect to have marked work returned to you 10 working days after submission. If for any reason there is a delay you will be kept informed. Marks and feedback will be provided online. As always, marks will have been internally moderated only, and will therefore be provisional; your mark will be formally agreed later in the year once the external examiner has completed his / her review.