HOSP1003 Food and Beverage Operations
HOSP1003 Food and Beverage Operations
Assessment brief
Assessment name Assessment 2
Assessment type Wiki
Assessment mode Group
Due date 18 December 2022 9.00 AM AEDT
Length 1200 words
Weighting 30%
Task You are required to work in groups to build a wiki that responds to each of the
discussion topics below in relation to dining out.
Reasons and motivations
Expectations
Perceived Risks
Key elements that make up the experience
Rationale This task is designed to examine the experience of dining out at a restaurant
from the perspective of the guest and consider elements such as: What needs
and expectations does it fulfil? What are the pleasurable aspects as well as the
risks involved? What is its social and cultural value?
Marking criteria
Notes Content- 18 marks
Research - 6 marks
Written Expression- 3 marks
Group Contract- 3 marks
In the tutorial you will learn how to set up a Wiki and how to structure your responses. See also the suggested structure and word counts for each section, below.
Readings 2.1-2.4 in My Readings are essential for this assessment and must be referred to in your submission. Other good readings are 3.1 and 3.2.
Be very focussed and to the point. Make the writing succinct.
Get someone to proofread your work (its hard to read your own work and see any mistakes as you are too familiar with it).
A minimum of four academic references is required for this assignment.
Marks and feedback will be provided to you in Week 10
Important note: In order to achieve a passing grade in this unit you must submit all assessment tasks and obtain a score of at least 50% of the total assessment marks for the unit.
Suggested wiki structure:
Page 1: Group Contract (not included in the word count)
Use the pro forma on MY SCU/ Assessment Tasks and submissions as a guide and then write up your contract. Add it as a attachment onto your wiki, do not cut and paste it. How well you work together is dependent on how good your contract is.
Page 2: Introduction (100 words)
Introduce what you are going to talk about. Start with the sentence: This wiki will look at the experience of eating in a restaurant. We will look at elements such as:
Page 3: Reasons and motivations (250 words)
Please include at least five points about the reasons or motivations for eating out. You may comment on an event such as a:
Family outing
Lone diner
A group working on a business deal
A group of friends out to celebrate a birthday
Page 4: Expectations (250 words)
Please include at least five points about what people might expect when they go out to eat. You may comment on things like:
When a diner goes to a restaurant what do they expect and why?
What shapes their expectations?
How would the expectations of a diner shaped by where they go to eat? For example: a fine dining restaurant/fast food place/ family run joint.
Page 5: Perceived Risks (250 words)
Please include at least five points about the risks when you dine out. You may comment on:
What are the perceived risks involved in dining out?
Can purchasing a service (e.g.a meal in a restaurant) be perceived as riskier than buying a product (e.g. takeaway meal)?
What can go wrong?
Page 6: Key elements that make up the experience (250 words)
Please include at least five points on the elements that can be factored into a restaurant dining experience. You may comment on:
What are the key elements that make up the experience?
If its not just about the food, then what are the other elements?
Page 7: Conclusion (100 words)
Sum up what you have discussed
Page 8: List of references
It is important that all in text references are in alphabetical order in the refence list . Note: No matter how good your content is you will not get the marks if it is not backed up with appropriate referencing. Remember all the research you do in this assessment is relevant and can be used for Assessment 3.
Marking Criteria
Criteria Excellent Very good Good Needs improvement Missing
Content: 60% The aspects of dining out are described extremely well. All elements, including reasons and motivation, expectation, risks involved, and key elements are addressed very clearly, comprehensively and show depth of thought. Excellent reference to the required readings The aspects of dining out are described very well. All elements, including reasons and motivation, expectation, risks involved, and key elements are addressed clearly, and show depth of thought. Very good reference to the required readings The aspects of dining out are described competently. All elements, including reasons and motivation, expectation, risks involved, and key elements are addressed clearly and there is evidence of consideration and t Good reference to the required readings The aspects of dining out are outlined at a basic level. All elements, including reasons and motivation, expectation, risks involved, and key elements are mentioned but it needed greater attention to detail and evidence of thought and consideration. Some reference to the required readings The aspects are not outlined well. All elements are mentioned but the work lacks depth and attention to detail. It is an inadequate wiki because it needed a lot more work to give it depth. Little or no reference to the required readings
Written expression language use, word count:10% Clear, coherent writing style. Well-structured and easy to follow. Outstanding attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar.
In text referencing and reference list are excellent Clear, coherent style with a very good structure. Comprehensive attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar.
Only a very few errors. In-text referencing and reference list are well done with few errors Good style with a reasonable structure. Competent attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar. A few grammatical errors.
In text referencing and reference list are competently done. Minor errors. Adequate style and structure. Some lack of attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar. Quite a few grammatical errors.
In text referencing and reference list are adequate but lack attention to detail. Poor style. Disordered. Ungrammatical writing. Confused structure. Little attention to spelling and punctuation.
In text referencing and reference list are incomplete/contain errors.
Research: 20%
Evidence of adequate depth and breadth of research More than 6 academic appropriate references 6 appropriate academic references 5 appropriate academic references 4 appropriate academic references Less than 4 appropriate academic references
Group Contract: 10% Excellent contract with ground rules, timelines, roles and responsibilities, contingency plans and mechanisms for group communication very clearly defined Very good contract with ground rules, timelines, roles and responsibilities, contingency plans and mechanisms for group communication very clearly defined Good contract more detail in some areas required
Adequate contract with basic rules, timelines, roles and responsibilities established
Poor contract with all areas lacking in detail
