Recent Question/Assignment

ASSESSMENT 1 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title BEG609: Business Events in a Global Context
Assessment Case Study
Individual/Group Individual
Length 2,000 Words (Essay format)
Learning Outcomes This assessment addresses the following subject learning outcomes: a. Critically reflect upon the impact of major, hallmark and mega events on local, national and international economies and how they integrate with the hospitality industry.
b. Evaluate the role of key business event bodies and associations local, national and international perspectives.
Submission By 11:55pm (AEST/AEDT), Sunday, Week 5
Weighting 40%
Total Marks 100 marks
Context:
The purpose of all BEG609 assessments is for you to reflect upon theories learned throughout the term. Reflecting on the subject’s theories, class discussions, research materials, and activities, will give you the ability to apply event management principles in your future career in the Hospitality Industry and Global Business sector.
Instructions:
Compare two (2) mega/major/hallmark events of the same genre (e.g. Oktoberfest and Carnivale; FIFA World-Cup & Olympics) held world-wide within the last five (5) years. The activity requires you to write an essay with a structure which covers the following inclusions.
Provide a brief background of your chosen events and target market. Are they mega, major or hallmark events and why, when, where and for whom were they held? Compare and discuss both events with respect to the:
• Social, cultural, economic and environmental impacts (each)
• The push and pull factors, plus destination images used to promote the event to target markets and audiences
BEG609_Assessment_1_Brief_Case Study Due Week 5 Page 1 of 5
• Your recommendations for improvement of the events. If you were the organiser, what would be your recommendations based on your findings? Consider technological enhancements, venue, marketing strategies, event timing, sustainability, revenue etc.
Assessment must include theories covered within module one to three (1-3) and cite academic articles in the text.
Submission Instructions:
• Typed and formatted following the Assessment Structure Style Guide and uploaded to BlackBoard on time the day before presentation, no later than 11:55 PM.
• To be submitted in electronic form as a word-processed file to BlackBoard PDF-PROCESSED FILES WILL INCUR AN AUTOMATIC FAIL WITH A ZERO GRADE.
• Please keep essay length to 2,000 words +/- 10%.
• Students must refer, in text, to a minimum of 12 academic articles plus other as required, in order to show competency in the assessment.
• All referencing must be in accordance with the Academic Writing Guide: APA 7th Edition on SharePoint.
• A TUA cover sheet to be attached to your paper
• Essay format must be professionally displayed, Arial 12, 1.5 spacing and justified.
• See marking rubric attached in the following page(s) and remember you do not need to attach this rubric to your submissions.
NOTE: Referencing
You must refer to a minimum of 12 academic articles, plus others as required, in order to show competency in the assessment. You may reference chronologically, rather than alphabetically, for ease of presentation. It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more information on referencing here in the Academic Writing Guide found via the Academic Skills website.
Academic Integrity
All students are responsible for ensuring that all work submitted is their own and is appropriately referenced and academically written according the Academic Writing Guide. Students also need to have read and be aware of Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure and subsequent penalties for academic misconduct. These are viewable online.
Students also must keep a copy of all submitted material and any assessment drafts.
BEG609_Assessment_1_Brief_Case Study Due Week 5 Page 2 of 5
Assessment Rubric
Assessment Criteria Fail
(Unacceptable) 0-49% Pass
(Functional)
50-64% Credit
(Proficient) 65-74% Distinction
(Advanced)
75 -84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
Use of
literature/evidence of reading
20% Either no evidence of literature being consulted or irrelevant to the assignment set.
Pdf file submitted. Literature is presented uncritically, in a purely descriptive way and indicates limitations of understanding. Clear evidence and application of readings relevant to the subject; uses indicative texts identified. Able to critically appraise the literature and theory gained from a variety of sources, developing own ideas in the process. Has developed and justified using own ideas based on a wide range of sources which have been thoroughly analysed, applied and discussed.
Inaccurate or Selection of theory is Most key theories Insightful and Assignment
inappropriate choice of appropriate, but some are included in the appropriate selection of demonstrates
Knowledge of theory theory. aspects have been work in an theory in key areas. integration and
20% Pdf file submitted. missed or appropriate innovation in the
misconstrued. straightforward selection and
manner. handling of theory.
Fails to analyse Can analyse a limited Can analyse with Able to analyse a range Can analyse new
information. range of information guidance using given of information with and/or abstract data
Analysis, Discussion Response demonstrates with guidance using classification / minimum guidance, can and situations
and a lack of reflection on, or classification / principles. apply major theories and without guidance
Recommendations personalization of, the principles. Response compare alternative using a wide range
40% theories, concepts, Viewpoints and demonstrates a methods and techniques of techniques
and/or strategies interpretations are minimal reflection for obtaining data. appropriate to the
presented in the course unsupported or on, and topic.
materials to date. supported with flawed personalization of, Response demonstrates Response
Viewpoints and arguments. Examples, the theories, personalization of, the demonstrates an in-
interpretations are when applicable, are concepts, and/or theories, concepts, depth reflection on,
missing, inappropriate, not provided strategies and/or strategies. and personalization
and/or unsupported. presented. or are Viewpoints and of, the theories,
Examples are not irrelevant interpretations are concepts, and/or
provided. supported. Appropriate strategies presented
Pdf file submitted. examples are provided, in the course
as applicable.
materials to date. Viewpoints and interpretations are insightful and well supported. Clear, detailed examples are provided, as applicable.
Presentation and
Referencing
20% Unsatisfactory level of presentation quality. None or almost no photos, diagrams etc. Incompetent level of understanding of relevant software. No evidence of any Presentation quality to a minimal level.
Somewhat reasonable level of graphic use: very few photos, diagrams etc, however no context.
Very little evidence of Presentation quality to a competent level.
Reasonable level of graphic use, some photos, diagrams, drawings etc. Reasonable Very effective presentation quality. Good use of graphics. Good level of understanding of the relevant software. Good citing and reference list. Excellent use of graphics (photos, diagrams, tools etc.) Superior understanding of the relevant software. Extremely creative presentation ideas
significant idea for an idea for the evidence of an idea Variety of sources well resolved and
presentation. presentation. for presentation. implemented.
Incorrect citing. Somewhat reasonable Reasonable Excellent citing and
understanding of the understanding of the reference list.
No and/or very poor reference list.
Pdf file submitted. relevant software.
Incorrect citing.
Poor reference list. relevant software. Appropriate citing and reference list. Wide variety of quality sources.