| Category | Assignment | Subject | Management |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | Leeds Beckett University | Module Title | PPAD in Sport Management |
|
School |
Carnegie School of Sport |
|
Level |
4 |
|
Semester |
1 |
|
Credits |
20 |
|
CRN |
19844 |
|
This module aims to support students’ transition into and through a university degree. More specifically, it aims to:
The module will support an early assessment point to facilitate good study practices. The module is strategically aligned to the Academic Adviser programme with Academic Advisers delivering small group content to their advisees. |
|
1 |
Develop key academic skills and attributes within the context of Sport Business Management or Sport Marketing degree. |
|
2 |
Develop an appreciation of personal attributes, strengths and weaknesses in relation to career aspirations. |
|
3 |
Develop an understanding of skills for sport business and sport marketing industries, particularly creativity, enterprise, research, teamwork, communication and leadership. |
|
4 |
Develop a basic understanding of research techniques in sport business and sport marketing. |
Indicative Module Content and Learning Activities:
Students are expected to:
| Week Commencing Date | Lecture | Seminar | Assessment Focus |
| 22/09/2025 |
Introduction to Module Assessments Overview Skills required to work in Sport Management |
Personal Development Time Management Activity Organisation Discussion Understanding your learning style |
Assessment 1 - Skills Audit and Study Smart |
| 29/09/2025 |
Academic Good Practice & Searching for Literature How to submit your skills audit |
What skills do you have? Goal setting Academic Good Practice and Learning to search for literature. |
Assessment 1 - Skills Audit and Study Smart |
| 06/10/2025 | Critiquing Literature & Developing Arguments |
Careers in Sport Management LinkedIn profile building. Searching the job market. |
Assessment 1 - Skills Audit and Study Smart |
| 13/10/2025 |
Research in Sport Management: Primary & Secondary Research Harvard Referencing and Plagiarism |
Research to inform practice. Referencing in Practice. Assessment 2 support. |
Assessment 2 – Research Methodologies Case Study |
| ASSESSMENT 1 SKILLS AUDIT DUE MONDAY 13TH OCTOBER 2025 BY 12 NOON | |||
| 20/10/2025 | Research in Sport Management: Quantitative & Qualitative Methods | Quantitative and Qualitative Research Skills | Assessment 2 – Research Methodologies Case Study |
| 27/10/2025 | ENRICHMENT WEEK | ||
| 03/11/2025 | Presentation Skills |
Mock Presentations Peer Feedback Group Reflection Improvisation Exercises |
Assessment 3 – AI Essay Critique |
| ASSESSMENT 2 RESEARCH CASE STUDY DUE MONDAY 3rd NOVEMBER BY 12 NOON | |||
| 10/11/2025 |
Essay Planning Academic Writing Skills |
Action Planning/Essay Development | Assessment 3 – AI Essay Critique |
| 17/11/2025 |
Reflective Skills Critical Analysis Artificial Intelligence |
Reflection in Practice Use of Artificial Intelligence |
Assessment 3 – AI Essay Critique |
| 24/11/2025 | Utilising Feedback |
Case study analysis Peer feedback exercises Feedback plan Overcoming emotional barriers |
Assessment 3 – AI Essay Critique |
| 01/12/2025 | Introduction to PPSI Module | Planning for Placement | |
| 08/12/2025 | Assessment 3 Support | Assessment Tutorials | |
| ASSESSMENT 3 ESSAY DUE THURSDAY 8TH JANUARY 2026 BY 12 NOON | |||
| Assessment Method: | Portfolio (20%) | Re-assessment Method: | Portfolio (20%) |
| Word count: | 500 words | Word count: | 500 words |
| Assessment Date and Time: | 13/10/25 by midday | Re-assessment Date and Time: | 17/03/2026 |
| Feedback Method: | Written online | Feedback Method: | Written online |
| Feedback Date: | 10/11/25 | Feedback Date: | 14/04/2026 |
| Learning Outcomes Assessed: | 1,2,3,4 | Learning Outcomes Assessed: | 1,2,3,4 |
| Assessment Method: | Portfolio (20%) | Re-assessment Method: | Portfolio (20%) |
| Word count: | 500 words | Word count | 500 words |
| Assessment Date and Time: | 03/11/25 by midday | Re-assessment Date and Time: | 17/03/2026 |
| Feedback Method: | Written online | Feedback Method: | Written online |
| Feedback Date: | 01/12/25 | Feedback Date: | 14/04/2026 |
| Learning Outcomes Assessed: | 1,2,3,4 | Learning Outcomes Assessed: | 1,2,3,4 |
| Assessment Method: | Portfolio (60%) | Re-assessment Method: | Portfolio (60%) |
| Word count: | 1000 words |
Word count: |
1000 words |
| Assessment Date and Time: | 08/01/26 by midday |
Re-assessment Date and Time: |
17/03/2026 |
|
Feedback Method: |
Written online |
Feedback Method: |
Written online |
|
Feedback Date: |
05/02/26 |
Feedback Date: |
14/04/2026 |
|
Learning Outcomes Assessed: |
1,2,3,4 |
Learning Outcomes Assessed: |
1,2,3,4 |
Students will be required to engage in a series of formative assessments, aligned to specific teaching and learning activities throughout the module. These will include the timely completion of related self-audits, reflections, writing exercises and presentations, concluding with a summative action plan of future priorities and planned behaviours.
Based on the results of your skills audit, provide a brief overview of the skills you identified as strengths. For each strength, explain how you have developed these skills and give real-life examples from your previous experiences (e.g. school, work, extracurricular activities, volunteering). Highlight any specific successes or achievements that have resulted from these strengths.
Look at the skills in which you scored lower on your audit and identify at least two key areas for improvement. For each skill, discuss why you believe it needs development and how improving these skills will benefit your personal, academic and professional life. Mention any challenges or barriers that have prevented you from developing these skills so far.
Using the results of your audit, set two short-term and two long-term goals to improve the skills identified in Task 2. For each goal, describe the action(s) you will take to achieve it, including any resources or support available to you (Skills4Learning workshops, tutors, academic support services). Ensure that your goals are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound).
Instructions to Students
Please read carefully the assessment and grade/marking descriptors overleaf:
| Course Title(s): | BA (Hons) Sport Business Management and BA (Hons) Sport Marketing |
| Module Title: | Personal, Professional and Academic Development |
| Assessment Title: | Portfolio – Skills Audit |
| Level: | 4 |
| Weighting: | 20% |
| Criteria and Weighting | 100-86 | 85-70 | 69-60 | 59-50 | 49-40 | 39-30 | 29-15 | 14-0 |
|
|
An exceptional evaluation of skills, with clear identification of strengths and areas for improvement. SMART goals are highly detailed and realistic, supported by a thorough action plan. Strong connections are made between current skills and future academic and professional contexts. The work is exceptionally organised, coherent and flawless in presentation. | An excellent evaluation of skills with clear identification of strengths and areas for improvement. SMART goals are well-developed and realistic, supported by a solid action plan. Clear connections are made between current skills and future development. The work is well-organised, coherent and contains few errors. | A very good evaluation of skills with very good identification of strengths and areas for improvement. SMART goals are clear but may lack depth, and the action plan is very good. Links to future development are present. The work is well-structured with minor issues in clarity or presentation. | A good evaluation of skills with good identification of strengths and areas for improvement. SMART goals and the action plan are good and present. Connections are made to future development. The work is clear but may have several issues with structure or presentation. | A satisfactory evaluation of skills with adequate identification of strengths and areas for improvement. SMART goals and the action plan are underdeveloped and lack clarity. Adequate connections to future development are made. The work has issues with organisation and presentation. | A limited evaluation of skills with minimal identification of strengths and areas for improvement. SMART goals and the action plan are incoherent or unrealistic. Connections to future development are largely absent. The work is disorganised and difficult to follow. | A very limited evaluation with little or no identification of strengths and areas for improvement. SMART goals and the action plan are largely missing. Connections to future development are absent. The work is unclear and contains numerous errors. | No meaningful evaluation of skills, goals, or action plan. No connections to future development are made. The work is incoherent, unstructured, and does not meet the basic requirements. |
| Course Title(s): | BA (Hons) Sport Business Management and BA (Hons) Sport Marketing |
| Module Title: | Personal, Professional and Academic Development |
| Assessment Title: | Portfolio – Research Skills Case Study |
| Level: | 4 |
| Weighting: | 20% |
| Criteria and Weighting | 100-86 | 85-70 | 69-60 | 59-50 | 49-40 | 39-30 | 29-15 | 14-0 |
|
|
An exceptional review of basic research methods, with highly insightful conclusions. The case study responses demonstrate a thorough basic understanding of research methods and applies them excellently to the context of sport management. The recommendations are well-developed, realistic, and based on robust evidence. The work is exceptionally structured and clearly presented. | An excellent review of basic research methods, with clear and relevant conclusions. The case study responses show a strong basic understanding of research methods and applies them well to sport management. Recommendations are well-reasoned and based on solid evidence. The work is well-organised, coherent and contains few errors. | A very good review of basic research methods, with insightful conclusions. The case study responses demonstrate a very good basic understanding of research methods. Recommendations are very good but could be more detailed. The work is well-structured but may have minor issues in clarity or presentation. | A good analysis of basic research methods, though conclusions may be simple. The case study responses show a good basic understanding of research methods, with some inaccuracies or underdeveloped points. Recommendations are good but lack depth or evidence. The work is clear but may have some issues with structure or presentation. | A satisfactory analysis of basic research methods, though conclusions may be limited. The case study responses show a satisfactory basic understanding of research methods, with some inaccuracies or underdeveloped points. Recommendations are present but lack depth or evidence. The work is clear but may have several issues with structure or presentation. | A limited analysis of data, with minimal conclusions that lack clarity or relevance. The case study shows little understanding of research methods and is largely inaccurate or incomplete. Recommendations are largely absent or irrelevant. The work is disorganised and difficult to follow. | A very limited analysis of data with little or no relevant conclusions. The case study demonstrates very limited understanding of research methods, with numerous inaccuracies. Recommendations are absent or unrelated to the case. The work is unclear and contains numerous errors. | No meaningful analysis of data or conclusions. The case study demonstrates no understanding of research methods. Recommendations are completely missing, and the work is incoherent, unstructured, and fails to meet basic requirements. |
| Course Title(s): | BA (Hons) Sport Business Management and BA (Hons) Sport Marketing |
| Module Title: | Personal, Professional and Academic Development |
| Assessment Title: | Portfolio – AI in Sport Management |
| Level: | 4 |
| Weighting: | 60% |
| Criteria and Weighting | 100-86 | 85-70 | 69-60 | 59-50 | 49-40 | 39-30 | 29-15 | 14-0 |
| Academic References are provided and correctly utilised using the Leeds Beckett Harvard Referencing format to integrate citations/references into the student’s work. A suitable academic reference list is also provided and justified by the work. (10%) | Able to cite with precision and reference an extended and comprehensive balance of secondary source types. Flawless Harvard style throughout the essay. | Able to accurately cite and reference a wide range and balance of secondary source types. Harvard style throughout the essay. | Harvard style, some minor inaccuracies / omissions. Very good list provided at the end and mainly accurate. | Harvard style, occasional inaccuracies / omissions. Good list provided at the end and mainly accurate. | Harvard style, but consistent inaccuracies / omissions. Basic list provided at the end and multiple inaccuracies / omissions | Harvard style, but major occasional inaccuracies / omissions. Poor list provided at the end and major inaccuracies. | Harvard style, major inaccuracies / omissions. Inadequate list provided at the end and major inaccuracies | Not in Harvard style and major inaccuracies / omissions. Very poor / no list provided at the end, major inaccuracies / omissions. |
| Review of AI Generated Essays (40%) | An exceptional critique with highly insightful review of the AI-generated essays. Identifies multiple strengths and weaknesses in the content, argumentation, and accuracy. Discusses ethical implications of AI in academic work with thorough examples. The critique is exceptionally clear and well-structured. | An excellent review with strong discussions on the AI-generated essays. Identifies clear strengths and weaknesses in the content, and discusses ethical considerations. The critique is well-organised, coherent, and contains few errors. | A very good review that provides very good discussions on the AI-generated essays. Identifies strengths and weaknesses but may lack some depth in certain areas. Ethical considerations are addressed. The work is well-structured but may have minor issues in clarity or presentation. | A good review that offers good insight to the AI-generated essays. Some strengths and weaknesses are identified, but the review may be underdeveloped or lack detail. Ethical considerations are briefly mentioned. The work is clear but may have some issues with structure or presentation. | A satisfactory review with limited discussion of the AI-generated essays. Strengths and weaknesses are somewhat vague or unclear, and ethical considerations are adequately addressed. The work has issues with organisation, clarity, or presentation. | A limited critique with minimal discussion. The discussion of strengths, weaknesses, and ethical concerns is largely absent or irrelevant. The work is disorganised and difficult to follow. | A very limited review with little or no relevant discussions. Ethical considerations are not discussed, and the review lacks coherence. The work is unclear and contains numerous errors. | No meaningful review provided. There is no review of the AI-generated essays, and ethical considerations are entirely absent. The work is incoherent and fails to meet basic requirements. |
| Rewriting Section of AI Essay (50%) | A highly detailed and insightful rewrite, demonstrating an exceptional understanding of the topic. The section is rewritten in the student’s own words with robust use of supporting literature. The work is exceptionally well-organised, clear, and flawlessly presented. | A well-developed and clear rewrite, showing an excellent understanding of the topic. The section is rewritten effectively with excellent use of supporting literature. The work is well-structured and free from errors. | A very good rewrite, showing a very good understanding of the topic. The section is rewritten in the student’s own words, though some areas may lack depth. Insightful discussions are present and could be developed further. The work is clear with minor issues in structure or presentation. | A good rewrite, showing a good understanding of the topic. The section is rewritten, though some areas may be underdeveloped or rely too heavily on the AI-generated content. Good use of supporting literature. The work is clear but may have some issues with structure or presentation. | A satisfactory rewrite, showing a basic understanding of the topic. The section is rewritten with minimal insight and sufficient supporting literature. The work has issues with organisation and clarity. | A limited rewrite, showing minimal understanding of the topic. The section is poorly rewritten with little or no supporting literature. The work is disorganised and difficult to follow. | A very limited rewrite, showing little or no understanding of the topic. The section is poorly rewritten with no supporting literature. The work is unclear and contains numerous errors. | No meaningful rewrite provided. The section is not rewritten in the student’s own words, and there is no use of supporting literature. The work is incoherent and fails to meet basic requirements. |
Need last-minute online assignment help with your PPAD in Sport Management Module Handbook? We’re here for you! Our experienced writers deliver high-quality, AI-free, and plagiarism-free assignments at affordable rates. We know how important your grades are, which is why we guarantee on-time delivery and full academic support. You are assured that our management assignment help will make you productive and help you achieve high grades in your academic year. We’ve got you covered. Check out our free list of assignment samples and see the quality for yourself. We’re available 24/7 to help you succeed in your academic journey. Contact us now to get expert help and score better—without any stress!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
sadf