CRN 19844 PPAD in Sport Management Assessment 3 Brief Semester 1, 2026 | LBU

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.