Learning outcomes to be assessed in this piece of coursework:

		Reports
	% of Assessment	50%
	Outcomes
1.	Plan, design, and critically justify a battery of physiological monitoring tests relevant for a group of athletes or individual athlete (analysis, application, communication, knowledge and understanding, learning, problem solving).
2.	Interpret, analyse, and critically evaluate physiological monitoring test results, and disseminate findings in an appropriate format (Analysis, knowledge and understanding, communication).	ü
3.	Reflect on interpersonal and communication skills with an athlete (Communication, reflection).

 

This second assignment is a 2500-word report (consisting of a 1000-word “athlete-friendly” report, and a 1500-word scientific report) analysing, interpreting and critically evaluating the set of data derived from the physiological monitoring tests on the athlete. The data set will be posted up on Blackboard following the testing

Assessment Deadline

This essay should be submitted via Blackboard under the tab, <Assessment Information and Submission> then <Assignment 2: Details and Submission Area>

Although the data will not be available from the outset of the module, it is expected that you prepare for this assessment by practicing the data interpretation tasks given to you in this module, anticipating test results, obtaining normative data and reflecting on possible limitations or confounding variables that may influence test results.

Your report should have two sections:

Section 1: Athlete’s Report [1000 words]. An appropriate style of writing (for the benefit of the athlete) should be used to outline the findings; in other words, you should address the athlete as ‘you’ and only include references if you wish to refer the athlete to some additional reading.

 

The athlete’s report should include:

• a brief statement of the function and relevancy of each test for the athlete;
• analysis of all of the athlete’s results and what they mean in lay terms, with respect to normative/reference values (where available)*;
• how accurate you think the results were, and any factors that you think might have affected the results;
• brief recommendations for future performance, including statements of performance potential.

*Please note: there may not be any normative values for this sport for the test selected; in which case, either state this fact, or try to provide some other norms that are similar.

The athlete’s report should NOT include:

• information about the test protocol and procedures, as this has already been done;
• the results with which you have already been provided (e.g., the results on the data collection sheet); you should assume that the athlete has access to these results.

 

Section 2: Scientific Report [1500 words, excluding tables, charts and reference list]. Critically analyse the results and justify the findings with reference to appropriate published literature. Ideally, the report should be sectionalised, covering each of the results separately. Comments should be made on whether, why and how each of the physiological variables will confer a performance advantage for the athlete. Limitations of the test and of the test battery, to assess performance potential, as well as confounding factors, may also be discussed. If a particular method has been used to analyse test results (e.g., a method for detecting lactate threshold), then a justification for choice should be included.

 

The scientific report should include:

• interpretation and calculation (where appropriate) of results;
• justification for interpretation with evidence from research, including: critical analysis of confounding factors that might have affected results; critical analysis of test protocol/procedures; justification for choice of analysis and interpretation of test data;
• use of referencing and appropriate style.

 

The scientific report should NOT include:

• a training programme as this is beyond the scope of this module and this assessment
• a repetition of any of the data produced in the athlete report, unless you wish to highlight something different.

Word limit.

To make sure you adhere to the word limit for this piece of work:

• use charts and tables, where relevant (as these do not count in the overall word count);
• only critique the test protocol if the results are directly impacted;
• avoid repeating information in the scientific report that has already been presented in the athlete report, or in the results provided to you/the athlete.
• avoid giving information on the test protocol and procedures, unless these impact on the results.

 

Formatting guidelines

Your assignment, including the altered front page template, should be submitted ahead of the deadline via Blackboard. The saved title of your document should be in the format of Name/Module Code/Assignment 2.doc e.g. Jacky Forsyth SES94051-7 Assignment 2.doc. Detailed information on how to submit your work is under the tab <Assessment Information and Submission>.

The assignments must be typed in size 12 font, first line of each paragraph indented and double-spaced with 2.5-cm margins all round and justified (the same as this example paragraph). All the pages should include a running header (in the top right-hand corner) which is your username and each page must have the page number as the footer (centred). Remember to amend your Assessment E-cover Sheet.

Referencing will be assessed. All citations and the reference list must be in APA format. Links to online APA referencing resources have been provided in Blackboard under the assignment information and submission folder Editorial style should also conform to APA format. Regarding APA basics for the reference list, see the reference list below for an example. Remember for journal articles, italicise the name of the journal and volume (for books italicise the title only). The reference list should be on a separate page.

Sample Reference Formats (APA)

Gibbs, J. C., Williams, N. I., & De Souza, M. J. (2013a). Prevalence of individual and combined components of the female athlete triad. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 45(5), 985–996. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31827e1bdc

Gibbs, J. C., Williams, N. I., & De Souza, M. J. (2013b). Prevalence of individual and combined components of the female athlete triad. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 45(5), 985–996. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31827e1bdc

Sleek, S. (2006, January). Psychologists build a culture of peace. APA Monitor, pp. 1, 33. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/peacea.html

Thomas, J. R., & Nelson, J. K. (2006). Research methods in physical activity. (4^th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Williams, J. M., Rotella, R. J., & Heyman, S. R. (2008). Stress, injury and the psychological rehabilitation of athletes. In J. M. Williams (Ed.). Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 267-279). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. 

When referencing in text, use all names of authors (plus date) unless there are fewer than six (otherwise, use et al.), and use et al. thereafter. For instance:

Williams, Rotella and Heyman (2008) found that injury incidence is related to stress.

Or

Injury incidence has been found to be related to stress (Williams, Rotella, & Heyman, 2008).

Following this initial citation, write: Williams et al. (2008) found that…

Note that ampersand (&) is used when the reference is inside the brackets.

For secondary citations, use the following format:

Jones and Smith (2007), as cited in Williams et al. (2008), found that….

A secondary citation is when author(s) cite someone else’s work, to which you do not have access/have not obtained. You must acknowledge all these secondary citations.

Anonymous Marking

For summative assessment purposes, Sport and Exercise uses anonymous marking whenever possible. Please ensure that your name only appears on the front template sheets of your submission. This will be removed ahead of being graded. Please ensure that your student username (e.g. af461208) appears as a header on each page of your submission.

The athlete will be given a copy of your feedback (your athlete report), but your name or any distinguishing features will be removed.

	Fail (GP 0-49%)	Pass (50-59%)	Merit (60-69%)	Distinction (70-100%)	%
ATHLETE REPORT
Function and relevancy of each test.	No/incorrect/long-winded statement of each test’s function or relevancy for athlete.	Sound statement provided on the function/relevancy of each test for the athlete.	Clear and accurate statements provided but maybe not in appropriate language and/or some facts missing.	Clear, concise and accurate explanation of the function of each test in lay terms, and relevancy for athlete.	5
Analysis of results, and what they mean with respect to reference/normative values.	No/inappropriate analysis and explanation of findings. Results not adequately presented with respect to normative values.	Findings presented; possibly some inaccuracies in data analysis and explanation. Reference values indicated; athlete may not be related to them.	Findings presented with good analysis and explanation; data are correctly analysed and clearly presented. Tabulated reference values covering range of general to elite, where available.	Findings presented and explained in a clear and concise manner, with charts where appropriate. Excellent and correct data analysis. Tabulated reference values including range from general to elite, where an elite athlete would be expected to be located, and where the athlete is located [where available].	15
Recommendations for future performance.	No/inappropriate recommendations made. No/inappropriate statement about performance potential.	Sound recommendations and sound performance potential identified.	Realistic recommendations made. Realistic and accurate statement of performance potential.	Realistic recommendations made in supportive manner. Realistic, accurate and excellent statement of performance potential made in supportive manner.	5
Appropriate structure and writing style.	No/inadequate structure to report. Inappropriate writing style.	Sound structure and writing style.	Report structure easy to follow, clear, and written in appropriate style.	Excellent structure. Report written clearly and concisely in lay/personal terms, e.g., using ‘you’.	5
SCIENTIFIC REPORT					0
Interpretation of results.	Little or inappropriate interpretation/calculation of results.	Sound interpretation/ calculation of results, using charts where appropriate.	Good, accurate interpretation/ calculation of results, using charts where appropriate.	Insightful and accurate interpretation/ calculation of results, with charts used where appropriate.	25
Support of analysis and interpretation with evidence from research.	Little or no justification for interpretation, with little or no research evidence.	Sound justification for interpretation using research.	Good justification of interpretation with evidence from research. Good critique of test battery/procedures and confounders. Rationale given for all analyses.	Excellent justification for interpretation with evidence from research. Excellent critique of test protocol/procedures for particular athlete; excellent rationale for all analyses; critical analysis of confounding factors affecting results.	35
Use of referencing and style. Academic writing style.	No/inadequate in-text referencing or reference list. Poor academic writing style.	Sound in-text referencing with accompanying reference list. Sound academic writing style.	Good use of in-text referencing with accompanying, appropriately-formatted reference list, with secondary sources identified. Good academic writing style.	Excellent use of in-text referencing of primary, full-text sources, to support arguments with limited use of direct quotes; accompanying appropriately-formatted reference list. Excellent academic writing style.	10
TOTAL					100