Faculty of Higher EducationHOH728 / HOH729 Feb – Nov 2020 Prepared by: Julie London ©William Angliss Institute Page 15 of 26Assessment 2 Part B – Reflection Workplace Capabilities Category FailPassCreditDistinctionHigh DistinctionWord count and originality compliance Word count more than 20% +/-Originality score above 20% Originality match/s above 6% to one source Less than 2 Academic ReferencesWord count under 20% +/- Originality score equal to or below 20% Originality match/s equal to or below 6% to one source 1 Academic references 1 Industry based referencesIdentification of capabilities requiring development 40%Little or no identification of employment capabilities requiring development. No identification of future professional opportunities. Limited identification of employment capabilities requiring development. Limited identification of future professional opportunities. Thoughtful identification of employment capabilities requiring development. Strong identification of future professional opportunities. Thoughtful and identification of employment capabilities requiring development. Strong identification of future professional opportunities. Extremely clear and thoughtful identification of employment capabilities requiring development. Strong identification of future professional opportunities. Transformativeplan 40%Little or no transformative plan. Little or no evidence of reflection or solutions. Limited transformative plan. Minimal evidence of reflection. Limited solutions presented. Clear transformative plan. Evidence of careful reflection. Range of solutions presented to implement changes. Very clear transformative plan. Evidence of insightful reflection. Broad range of solutions presented to implement changes. Very clear transformative plan. Evidence of insightful and thoughtful reflection. Broad range of creative solutions presented to implement changes. Style and organisation 20%There are numerous grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. The writing includes some grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors which distract the reader and require some editing and revision. Largely free of grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. There are no grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. There are no grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.
Faculty of Higher EducationHOH728 / HOH729 Feb – Nov 2020 Prepared by: Julie London ©William Angliss Institute Page 16 of 26Assessment 3:Work Experience – Proof of Hours (600 Hours) Submit via Moodle Due date: Assessment 3, which needs the date removed and instead: If you have completed 600 hours since Nov 1, 2019, please submit your payslips now. If you have not completed 600 hours since Nov 1, 2019, but you have been stood down or terminated, please submit your payslips now. In the Assessments Listed in Due Date Order, below the table, Assessment Type:Payslips or Employer Letter Weighting:Hurdle Details: Document at least 600 hours relevant work experience in the resort and hotel industry. Please note – 600 hours is a minimum and your Payslips or Employer Letter should provide proof of these hours.If you are submitting Payslips to support your hours, please scan the payslips and submit in 1 document If you are submitting an Employer Letter, please note the guidelines provided on Moodle. The letter must be on letter head and must include the name and address of the venue and the name and contact details of the person who signs it – no mobile phone numbers. Please make sure the letter indicates that you have completed the hours during the relevant dates – again, see example for details. If you have worked in multiple positions, you are required to submit an Employer Letter or Payslips for each position that you are claiming hours for. ***Please notify Kylie Sweetman immediately if you change your work place: Name of Venue Name and contact number of Supervisor, Manager or HR contact If you change jobs and you wish to claim the hours you have worked in the job you are leaving, make sure you ask the employer to complete the paper work you need before you leave.
Faculty of Higher EducationHOH728 / HOH729 Feb – Nov 2020 Prepared by: Julie London ©William Angliss Institute Page 17 of 26Assessment 1 Part A Problem Statement Due Date: Friday 24th April, 2020 Assessment Method: Submit via Turnitin in Microsoft WORD formatWord Count: 1,000 words Weighting: 15% Details: Identify the department that you would like to focus on for your professional development and research project. For example, this could be HR, Marketing, Revenue, Front Office or Food and Beverage. You may choose an organisational issue that interests you or a broad problem you have identified within your department. Outline the specific topic that you would like to focus on for your research project. You should provide as much detail as possible so that you are clear in your own mind what you are going to do and what resources you will need. Include the following: Overall area of focus: Specific activity area or project you would like to work on Expected outcome. As you can no longer conduct primary research within your work place, this will be purely a research report with recommendations. Nevertheless, you are required to imagine that you will be undertaking primary research, and within your Problem Statement you need to include details of the resources you would require if you were, in fact, going to conduct the research, as originally intended for this assessment. What research would you undertake? Why? What would be trying to find out? What resources would you need to do this? Be as specific as possible. If you were conducting the research for real, you would eventually need to outline this to your manager or other staff as part of the project. oAn example could be access to data – again be specific – what data to you need and from whom? oAccess to staff oFinancial or time release oApproval from management oAccess to guests oAccess to other experts oProvide a timeline. Even though you are not going to conduct the research, please make your timeline as realistic as possible as if you were actually going to complete the primary research.
Faculty of Higher EducationHOH728 / HOH729 Feb – Nov 2020 Prepared by: Julie London ©William Angliss Institute Page 18 of 26Assessment 1 Part A – Problem Statement Category Unsatisfactory Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction ORIGINALITY and WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE Originality score + 20% or single originality + 6% Word count +20%.Originality score equal to or below 20%. Originality matches equal to or below 6% to one source. Word count under 20% +/- the specified requirement.PRESENTATION, WRITTEN EXPRESSION, REFERENCING Unacceptable professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure. Lack of organisation in the arrangement of ideas and material.Acceptable professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure and. Some organisation of material and ideas.Sound professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure and logical organisation of material and ideas. Very good professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure andlogical organisation of material and ideas.High level professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure and logical organisation of material and ideas. Sources are appropriately referenced. Identification of a research problem & objectives, hypotheses. 60% Demonstrates little or no understanding of the research topic. The research problem, objectives, rationale and significance are not sufficiently articulated.A basic articulation of the research problem with researchable, feasible and relevant objectives. A weak statement of the rationale and the significance of the research problem. A sound and competent articulation of the research problem with researchable, feasible and relevant objectives. A clear statement of the rationale and the significance of the research problem.Provides a very good articulation of the research problem with researchable, feasible and relevant objectives. A very good statement of the rationale and the significance of the research problem. Excellent articulation of the research problem with researchable, feasible and relevant objectives. Clear statement of the rationale and significance. An excellent statement of the rationale and the significance of the research problem.Resources 30% Fails to indicate the resources that would be required or provide a feasible plan to access resources. Provides a weak and incomplete identification and justification of the appropriate resources that would be required. Demonstrates a competent identification and justification of of the appropriate and feasible resources that would be requiredVery good identification and justification of the appropriate and feasible resources that would be required. Access required to resources identified. Excellent identification and justification of the appropriate and feasible resources that would be required. Access required to resources identifiedTimeline10% No or unrealistic timeline provided Basic timeline provided that correlates to assessment timeframes Achievable timeline provided that demonstrates consideration of key milestones Well considered, achievable and detailed timeline providedWell considered, achievable and detailed timeline provided
Faculty of Higher EducationHOH728 / HOH729 Feb – Nov 2020 Prepared by: Julie London ©William Angliss Institute Page 19 of 26Assessment 1 Part B Literature Review and Research PlanDue Date: Friday 10th July 2020, 11.59pm Assessment Method: Submit via Turnitin in Microsoft WORD formatWord Count: 2,000 words Weighting: 25% Details: Critically review the literature relevant to your individual research topic. A selection of both academic and industry literature should be reviewed for this assessment. In your review consider the research questions, the discipline-related theoretical frameworks, the underlying ontological and epistemological perspectives and the conclusions reached.Based on your review, formulate your design method and research plan, and include as a part of your submission.
Faculty of Higher EducationHOH728 / HOH729 Feb – Nov 2020 Prepared by: Julie London ©William Angliss Institute Page 20 of 26Assessment 1 Part B – Literature Review and Research Design & Methodology Category Unsatisfactory Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction ORIGINALITY and WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE Originality score + 20%. Single originality +6%. Words +/ -20%. Originality score equal to or below 20%. Originality matches equal to or below 6% to one source. Word count under 20% +/- the specified requirement. Structure Structure does not follow suggested format Structure follows suggested format – Is presented as a literature review Written work 10% Unclear writing style Unacceptable professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure and page formatting. Clear writing style Acceptable professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure and page formatting. Relevant and logical sequence of argument Sound professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure and page formatting. Relevant and detailed sequence of argument Good professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure and page formatting. Relevant and complex sequence of argument Excellent professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure and page formatting. Introduction 10% Does not provide clear direction of the review or initial findings Shows basic scope of the review and initial findings Clearly shows the scope and initial findings and limitations of the submission Definition of key terms 10% Key terms not defined Key Terms defined – general examples used to support the definition Key Terms defined – examples drawn from key and other regional destinations to support argument Key Terms well defined –good relevance of the examples drawn from key and other regional destinations to support argument Key Terms comprehensively defined – highly relevant examples drawn from key and other regional destinations to support argument
Faculty of Higher EducationHOH728 / HOH729 Feb – Nov 2020 Prepared by: Julie London ©William Angliss Institute Page 21 of 26Critical selection of material 30% Fails to provide a sufficient and adequate list of appropriate sources. Most of the literature is irrelevant to the project, and or/ is of low academic quality. Does not identify a research gap in the published literature. Provides a minimally acceptable list of sources. There are many gaps in the materials and seminal papers are missing. There are insufficient high quality materials. Suggests a hurried process, with a minimal critical assessment of each article. Provides an acceptable list of sources. There are some gaps in the materials and some seminal papers may be missing. There are insufficient high quality materials. Suggests a mediocre level of critique in the selection of materials. May tend to “pad” the list of sources Provides a very good list of sources that represents the most up to date material in the field. The list includes older seminal works where necessary. Provides a broad range of materials, most of which are high quality academic, but also includes some non-academic materials for which their selection is justified. Demonstrates very good proficiency in selecting materials. Provides an excellent list of sources that represents the most up to date material in the field. The list includes older seminal works where necessary. Provides a broad range of materials, of high quality academic, and also includes some non-academic materials for which their selection is justified. Demonstrates a high level proficiency in critical selection of relevant literature. Critique 20% Does not provide a critique of the literature. Most of the literature is irrelevant to the project, and or/ is of low academic quality. Does not identify a research gap in the published literature. Provides a weak critique of the literature. Some material is irrelevant and/or of low academic quality. Might not identify the research gap in the published literature clearly. Provides a good critique of mostly relevant literature. Material sourced is generally of a good academic quality, with an acceptable range of articles. Somewhat identifies the research gap in the published literature. Indicates a good knowledge of the research in the field. Provides a very good critique of the most relevant literature. The range of material is very good. Clearly identifies a research gap in the published literature. Provides an excellent understanding of the research in the field to date. Strong critique of the material with respect to the methods used and. Clearly identifies the research gap in the published literature by providing an overall view and details of individual works.Research Design & Methodology 20% No research design and/or methodology. Simplistic research design and methodology. Thorough research design and methodology. Expansive research design and methodology. Extensiveresearch design and methodology.
Faculty of Higher EducationHOH728 / HOH729 Feb – Nov 2020 Prepared by: Julie London ©William Angliss Institute Page 22 of 26Assessment 1 Part C Video Consultation Due Date: Friday 17th July 2020, 11.59pm Assessment Method: There are two submissions required. 1. Post your video on YouTube marked as searchable (but not public or private) and attach the link 2. Attach the YouTube link to the Video Forum in Moodle for fellow students to view. Word Count: N/A Weighting: 15% Details: Record a short video to on your research project reviewing your progress. In your video include the following: Why you chose your topic What are the key questions you are aiming to answer Who are the key authors on the topic you identified in your literature review How is your project going What are your findings so far Advice/feedback you would like from the rest of the team
Faculty of Higher EducationHOH728 / HOH729 Feb – Nov 2020 Prepared by: Julie London ©William Angliss Institute Page 23 of 26Assessment 1 Part D Final Research Report Due Date: Friday 16th October 2020, 11.59pm Assessment Method: Submit via Turnitin in Microsoft WORD formatWord Count: 3,500 words Weighting: 45% Details: Write a research report based on your property and the hotel / resort industry. Your submission must be in formal Research Report format and needs to include the following areas of discussion. Research Topic What is the objective of your research? Summarise your problem statement and why this research was proposed and conducted, as well as a statement of the results you are looking for. How is your research relevant to the hotel / resort industry? Literature Review Discuss your findings of the key literature on this topic. This should take the form of a concise summary of your previous literature review. This should be more that a linear review. You should seek to compare and contrast different points of view. Research Methods Describe your proposed methodology? How did you propose to do your research? Did you intend your research to be quantatative? Or did you intend your research to be qualitative? Or a mixture of both?Conclusion / Findings What might your research reveal if undertaken? Expand on how your proposed research links to your literature review? What could you and others learn from your research if it was undertaken? Recommendations How might your research benefit your workplace if it was undertaken? How might your research benefit a wider audience ie industry or academics if it was undertaken? Appendices All relevant documents, including your proposed survey Will be included in word count. References Evidence of your submission being supported by at least 8 high quality academic references.
Faculty of Higher EducationHOH728 / HOH729 Feb – Nov 2020 Prepared by: Julie London ©William Angliss Institute Page 24 of 26Assessment 1 Part D – Research Report Category Unsatisfactory Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction ORIGINALITY and WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE Originality score + 20% or single originality + 6% Word count +20%. Originality score equal to or below 20%. Originality matches equal to or below 6% to one source. Word count under 20% +/- the specified requirement. OVERALL INTEGRATION OF RESEARCH COMPONENTS Fails to provide an integrated and consistent approach to the research. Demonstrates an understanding of the need for an integrated approach to the components of the research. PRESENTATION, WRITTEN EXPRESSION, REFERENCING 5% Unacceptable professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure. Lack of organisation in the arrangement of ideas and material. Acceptable professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure and. Some organisation of material and ideas.Sound professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure and logical organisation of material and ideas. Very good professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure andlogical organisation of material and ideas..High level professionalism: spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure and logical organisation of material and ideas. Sources are appropriately referenced. Articulation of research topic 10% The research problem, objectives, rationale and significance are not sufficiently articulated. A basic articulation of the research problem with researchable, feasible and relevant objectives. A weak statement of the rationale and significance of the research. Provides some background and limited definitions of key concepts and terms. A sound and competent articulation of the research problem with researchable, feasible and relevant objectives. A clear statement of the rationale and significance of the research. Informative background with definitions of key concepts and terms. Provides a very good articulation of the research problem with researchable, feasible and relevant objectives. A very good statement of the rationale and significance of the research is provided. Informative background with clear definitions of key concepts and terms. Excellent articulation of the research problem with researchable, feasible and relevant objectives. Very lear statement of the rationale and significance of the research. Informative background with expansive definitions of key concepts and terms. Summary literature review 15% Incomplete or no literature review provided Full literature review from previous assessment is incorporated with limited refinement. Concise review of key literature provided. Demonstrated improvement from previous assessment. Concise review of key literature provided and linked to discussion and recommendations. Concise review of key literature provided and linked to discussion and recommendations. Research Methods20% Fails to indicate the methods proposed to complete the research project. Provides a weak and incomplete identification and justification of appropriate and feasible methods proposed to complete the project. Demonstrates a competent identification and justification of appropriate and feasible methods proposed for the project. Very good identification and justification of appropriate and feasible methods proposed for the project. Research limitations are discussed. Excellent identification and justification of appropriate and feasible methods proposed for sampling, data collection and analysis. research limitations are discussed.