London School of CommerceMODULE TITLE: - Contextualising International Hospitality Management Subject to University Approval

PROGRAMME: Msc International Hospitality Management

SEMESTER: Semester One

ACADEMIC YEAR PERIOD: Feb- May 2014

LECTURER SETTING ASSESSMENT: - David Mwaura

DATE ASSESSMENT SET AND LOADED ON TO STUDENT PORTAL:-

DATE ASSESSMENT TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTTED:- 21st Feb 2014

SUBMISSION METHOD/MODE:-Online via Turnitin (Student Portal)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assessment Type: Case Study

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Indicative Assessment Requirements for the Module;-

Individual AssignmentSelect one hospitality brand of your choice and critically analyse how the effective management of the brand can help to achieve

competitive advantage in the hospitality industry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maximum Word Limit and Assessment weighting for each aspect within the assessment:

Word countYour assignment should be 2000 words.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Assessment Requirements

FormatPresent your case study in a report format. Please ensure that you acknowledge ALL your sources of data and appropriately

Harvard reference them.

Marking Criteria

The following marking scheme will be used for marking the assignment;

Introduction-coverage of the background of the topic and the organisation selected (10 marks maximum) Weak coverage with little or no justification: 1-3

Satisfactory coverage with some justification: 4-7 Good coverage with good justification: 8-10

Literature review-Collection of data from a range of sources (25 marks maximum) Little or no evidence of data: 1-9 Satisfactory range of sources: 10-16 Excellent range of sources: 17-25

Analysis and evaluation of the case study (25 marks maximum) Weak analysis with little or no evaluation: 1-9 Satisfactory analysis with some evaluation: 10-16 Good analysis with good evaluation: 17-25

Recommendations for management of case study about taking forward action in relation to the topic under consideration (20 marks) Poor recommendations with little or no explanation: 1-7 Satisfactory recommendations with some explanation: 8-13 Good recommendations with good explanation: 14-20

Presentation, argument and Harvard referencing (20 marks maximum) Poor presentation, poorly structured argument and poor Harvard referencing: 1-7 Satisfactory presentation, logically structured argument and satisfactory Harvard referencing: 8-13 Good presentation, logically structured argument and satisfactory Harvard referencing: 14-20

TOTAL MARK: 100 %

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Module Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:-

1. Critically evaluate and comprehend the nature and scope of the hospitality industry;2. Critically evaluate the key issues relating to marketing, human resource management and financial management in the

Hospitality industry;

3. Discuss and critically analyse the importance of customer care, quality, HRM and the consumer in the Hospitality industry.

London School of CommerceMODULE TITLE: - Contextualising International Hospitality Management Subject to University Approval

PROGRAMME: Msc International Hospitality Management

SEMESTER: Semester One

ACADEMIC YEAR PERIOD: Feb- May 2014

LECTURER SETTING ASSESSMENT: - David Mwaura

DATE ASSESSMENT SET AND LOADED ON TO STUDENT PORTAL:-

DATE ASSESSMENT TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTTED:- 21st April 2014

SUBMISSION METHOD/MODE:-Online via Turnitin (Student Portal)

Assessment Type: A research proposal Paper

Indicative Assessment Requirements for the Module;-

Individual AssignmentYou are required to prepare a Research Proposal Paper that sets out the work that you will do in your Major Projects Module (Msc Dissertation) in semester 3.

Maximum Word Limit and Assessment weighting for each aspect within the assessment:

Word countYour research proposal should be 2000 words.Weightage: 50 % of the module

Description of Assessment Requirements

Format of a ProposalThe Proposal should specify your research topic and the rationale for choosing it including the research aims; objectives and research questions. In addition to the literature review, it should present a schematic model of your proposed research; describe your research methodology, the access you have for carrying out the research, and the planned analyses of the data. Please also attach the timetable for your planned research in the form of a Gantt chart.

1. Title page

2. Table of content

3. Introduction

4. Background to the research

5. Organisational background

6. Rationale of the research

7. Aims; Objectives and Research questions

8. Literature Review

9. Methodology

10.Data analysis

11.Timetable (Gantt Chart)

12.Bibliography/References

ResearchYou are expected to use a wide range of sources for your secondary research both academic (e.g. journal articles and books) and

tourism and hospitality industry sources of data (e.g. UNWTO, WTTC, IMF, World Bank, industry magazines etc.),

Marking Criteria

The following marking scheme will be used for marking the assignment;

Selection of a suitable research title and appropriate research aims; objectives and research questions (15 marks maximum) Weak title and/or lack of clear aims and objectives: 1-5 Appropriate title with some appropriate aims and objectives: 6-10 Good title with clear aims, objectives and questions: 11-15Collection of secondary data (Literature review) from a range of sources (40 marks maximum) Little or no evidence of data: 1-10 Satisfactory range of sources: 11-25 Excellent range of sources: 26-40Selection of a suitable methodology (25 marks maximum) Weak methodology with little or no justification: 1-8 Appropriate methodology with some justification: 9-17 Appropriate methodology with good justification: 18-25Structure, Presentation and Harvard referencing (20 marks maximum) Weak presentation, poorly structured argument and poor referencing: 1-7 Satisfactory presentation, logically structured argument and satisfactory Harvard referencing: 8-13 Good presentation, a well-structured argument and good Harvard referencing: 14-20

Module Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:-4. Evaluate alternative methodologies for measuring the performance of the hospitality industry and critically discuss the

influence of social science on contemporary practices in hospitality management;5. Analyse policy and practice in hospitality organisations and identify appropriate methods for the conduct of

management and organisational research.6. Develop a robust research proposal and appropriate strategy for undertaking MSc Hospitality Management

dissertation. And demonstrate the ability to integrate research findings into a coherent and sustained piece of work.

Level 7 Marking Criteria

Distinction 70%+

Pass (strong) 55-69%

Pass (threshold +) 40-54% Fail 20-39% Fail 0-19%

KNOWLEDGE&

UNDERSTANDIN

G

of the academic

discipline, field of study, or

area of professional

practice

as 55-69 &excellent coverage, offering sophisticated or original insights;a synthesis, possibly, of disparate material.

as 40-54 &an awareness of problems & insights much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of the discipline/practice.

a systematic understanding of relevant knowledge;good identification, selection and & understanding of key issues;awareness of current problems &/or new insights;conceptual awareness enabling critical analysis; accuracy in detail.

Coverage of some relevant issues with moderate understanding; identification of some underpinning issues.

paucity of relevant material in support of response

RESEARCH I:

READING &USE OF OTHER APPROPRIATE RESOURCES

as 55-69 &extensive, well-referenced research both in breadth & depth.

as 40-54 &a range in breadth or depth of well-referenced research

a good range of reading, beyond core or basic texts, with sources appropriately acknowledged according to academic conventions of referencing.

the range of reading may be limited; sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged.

inadequate resourcing &/or sources insufficiently acknowledged.

RESEARCH II:

METHODOLOGY

as 55-69 &sophisticated evaluation of possibilities and limitations of methodologies used.

as 40-54 &a comprehensive & critical understanding of techniques applicable to the student’s own research.

a practical understanding of how established techniques of research & enquiry are used to create & interpret knowledge in the discipline; research work planned in scale and scope so that

understanding of methodologies used but these may have been used to too little effect

inadequate understanding of methodologies, used inappropriately or erroneously.

Distinction 70%+

Pass (strong) 55-69%

Pass (threshold +) 40-54% Fail 20-39% Fail 0-19%

adequate and appropriate evidence is gathered.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

& INTERPRETATIO

N

as 55-69 &imaginative, insightful, original or creative interpretations;impressive, sustained level of analysis & evaluation;a cogent argument with awareness of limitations.

as 40-54 &a command of accepted critical positions;conceptual understanding that enables the student to propose new hypotheses.

the ability to deal with complex issues both systematically & creatively, & make sound judgements;consistent analysis and critical evaluation of current research & advanced scholarship in the discipline;a coherent argument supported by evidence.

some ability to deal with complex issues;judgements not all well substantiated;some evaluation of research & scholarship;the ability to construct an argument may be limited.

analysis is limited, deriving from limited sources &/or too limited to a single perspective;argument or position not made clear;self-contradiction or confusion.

COMMUNICATION SKILLS &

PRESENTATION

as 55-69 &Authoritative, articulate communication demonstrating a balance of enthusiasm and control

as 40-54 &Persuasive communication skills; the academic form largely matches that expected in published work

clear expression, observing academic form;(in written work) predominantly accurate in spelling & grammar; conclusions communicated clearly for specialist & non-specialist audiences as appropriate.

there may be errors in academic form and/or (in written work) spelling & grammar.

poor observation of academic conventions;deficiencies in spelling & grammar.

CRITICALREFLECTION:

PERSONAL &/OR PROFESSIONAL APPLICATION & EVALUATION.

as 55-69 &sophisticated critical self-evaluation;new insights informing

as 40-54 & decision-making in complex situations;originality in addressing needs or specifications, and /or

collaborative or individual problem-solving, & planning & implementing of tasks appropriate to a professional context;the independent learning

some exercise of initiative & personal or professional responsibility but a limited self-

weakness in independent learning, decision-making &/or self-evaluation.

Distinction 70%+

Pass (strong) 55-69%

Pass (threshold +) 40-54% Fail 20-39% Fail 0-19%

practical situations.

solving problems. ability and self-evaluation required to continue to advance the student’s knowledge & understanding, & to develop new skills appropriate to a professional context.

evaluation