1. Home
  2. HSC
  3. HSC Exams
  4. 2010 HSC Exam papers
  5. 2010 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Hospitality
Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

2010 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Hospitality

Contents

Introduction

This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Hospitality. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2010 Higher School Certificate examination, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses.

This document should be read along with the relevant syllabuses, the 2010 Higher School Certificate examinations, the marking guidelines and other support documents which have been developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of Hospitality.

Teachers and candidates are reminded that if candidates are undertaking the 240-hour VET Industry Curriculum Framework in Hospitality and they want to undertake the HSC examination in Hospitality they need to be entered separately for the examination through Schools Online (Administration) by the due date that is published in the Higher School Certificate Events Timetable.

General comments

Teachers and candidates should be aware that examiners may ask questions that address the syllabus outcomes in a manner that requires candidates to respond by integrating their knowledge, understanding and skills developed through studying the course.

Candidates need to be aware that the marks allocated to the question and the answer space (where this is provided on the examination paper), are guides to the length of the required response. A longer response will not in itself lead to higher marks. Writing in excess of the space allocated may reduce the time available for answering other questions.

Candidates need to be familiar with the Board’s Glossary of Key Words which contains some terms commonly used in examination questions. However, candidates should also be aware that not all questions will start with or contain one of the key words from the glossary. Questions such as ‘how?’, ‘why?’ or ‘to what extent?’ may be asked or verbs may be used which are not included in the glossary, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.

Candidates need to be mindful of the rubric at the beginning of Section III. Candidates also need to be aware that they can be disadvantaged if they answer strand questions they have not studied in their two-year course. Generally, such responses lack depth and breadth of knowledge and understanding of the relevant hospitality sector.

Section II

Question 16

  1. In better responses, candidates identified the multiple functions of the role of the front office. They provided multiple relevant examples.

    In weaker responses, candidates identified only one function of the front office of a large hotel or identified the function with an example only.

  2. In better responses, candidates clearly showed the interrelationship of or the link between, the two chosen departments using relevant examples.

    The weaker responses identified the role of the two departments either by listing or providing a statement identifying one role without linking or showing the interrelationship of the two departments. Some responses showed that here were difficulties in understanding the term ‘interrelationship’.

Question 17

  1. In better responses, candidates demonstrated knowledge of cross-contamination, providing a definition using the correct terminology. They gave an appropriate example of a situation which could result in cross-contamination.

    In weaker responses, candidates provided either a definition of cross-contamination or an example of its occurrence. Less detailed examples of cross-contamination were more commonly provided.

  2. In better responses, candidates made evident the relationship between hygiene procedures and the prevention of cross-contamination. They provided examples of hygiene procedures to prevent cross-contamination with a clear explanation of how cross-contamination is prevented. They linked specific hygiene procedures clearly to the prevention of cross-contamination.

    In weaker responses, candidates provided general information about hygiene procedures or else they provided examples of preventative hygiene procedures or cross-contamination. They often failed to explain how hygiene procedures can prevent cross- contamination and information was either less detailed or included simple statements.

Question 18

  1. In better responses, candidates outlined the influence that occupational health and safety (OHS) and job function have on personal presentation standards. They also provided appropriate examples.

    In weaker responses, candidates either made statements about occupational health and safety (OHS) issues, or job function, or provided examples.

  2. In better responses, candidates discussed in detail factors that influence both customer needs and expectations and provided examples of these factors.

    In weaker responses, candidates provided general information with no detail, or they listed only a few points with or without examples.

Question 19

In better responses, candidates clearly explained the relationship between safe work practices and procedures and the prevention of breaches in a health, safety and security context. They made excellent use of industry terminology and industry examples and drew upon applied knowledge from their work placement to provide a strong link between safe work practices and breaches.

In weaker responses, candidates listed safe work practices and procedures. They provided limited knowledge of breaches in health, safety and security and the link in many responses was either irrelevant or vague.

Question 20

The better responses made evident the relationship between each factor and potential conflict. Candidates supported their responses with relevant industry examples that were clearly identified and specific, drawing on their work placement, and they used correct terminology throughout the response.

In weaker responses, candidates addressed one or two of the factors or made general or non-specific statements. They used weaker examples or made inferred links to the Hospitality industry. Some responses were written as points with no explanation or examples, often indicating a solution rather than a potential conflict.

Section III

Question 21

In better responses, candidates provided detailed arguments to justify the importance of using environmentally sustainable work practices, relating their answer to the sustainability of the Hospitality Industry and the environment. They used arguments related to carbon footprint, increased landfill, pollution of waterways and air, effect on wildlife and the production of methane gas. They linked these to specific work practices such as how to save energy through switching off lights, electronic light sensors or regular maintenance of equipment. A number of candidates demonstrated a detailed knowledge of environmental legislation.

These candidates demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of environmentally sustainable work practices. They provided a wide range of work practices from each area of the question – materials, energy and equipment and associated consumables, with industry examples. Candidates used industry terminology throughout their responses, which were also logical and cohesive.

Mid-range responses listed and/or described a number of strategies related to environmentally sustainable work practices across all three areas using brief statements regarding the importance of these practices, rather than linking the work practices/strategies to the reasons for implementing the practices. They did not provide an argument to support the importance of implementing the strategies they listed.

Some candidates made statements regarding the importance of environmentally sustainable work practices. However, their responses were general and did not provide detailed work practices or industry examples.

In weaker responses, candidates either misinterpreted the question or provided very limited work practices/strategies. They re-worded the question and used domestic examples that were not relevant to the hospitality industry. These candidates demonstrated a limited understanding of environmental sustainability.

Some candidates listed strategies related to occupational health and safety (OHS) and food hygiene, rather than environmentally sustainable work practices. In addition, some candidates misunderstood concepts in the question. For example some candidates referred to human energy instead of electrical, gas or solar energy.

Section IV

Question 22

  1. In better responses, candidates provided a clear understanding of mise en place and described a range of mise en place tasks that may take place in a commercial kitchen. They gave a clear definition of mise en place and referred to a wide range of activities.  Many industry examples were included, and relevant terminology was used to support the response.

    In mid-range responses, candidates showed a good understanding of mise en place and provided some examples of activities that take place in a commercial kitchen. These responses often referred to only one or two tasks and tended to focus on the preparation of ingredients.

    In weaker responses, candidates tended to paraphrase the question and demonstrated a very weak understanding of mise en place. General examples of tasks were given, especially relating to the cutting of vegetables, using limited industry terminology. Overall, these responses lacked detail and examples of these activities in a commercial kitchen.

  2. In better responses, candidates provided a detailed understanding of the components of workflow and analysed its effect on both colleagues and customers. A range of components of workflow were discussed in detail, with reference made to how positive or negative workflow can influence both colleagues and customers. Industry terminology and appropriate examples supported quality responses.

    Mid-range responses provided a general understanding of some of the components of workflow and may have provided a simple analysis. These responses often included a suitable industry example that related to colleagues and/or customers.

    In weaker responses, candidates provided limited information about components of workflow or discussed basic information about activities that take place in a commercial kitchen.  These candidates did not analyse the implications of workflow on both colleagues and customers.

Question 23

  1. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a detailed understanding of the information that food and beverage attendants may be required to provide to customers. They included a range of types of information with a greater emphasis on information relating to the menu, including information about choices, allergies and ingredients. Other information included local attractions, beverages recommendations in relation to food and beverage selections. These candidates expanded on the information by providing characteristics and features of the information.

    In mid-range responses, candidates provided similar relevant information which may be provided to customers; however, they provided fewer characteristics and features of this information in their responses. Many responses were in the form of a list.

    In weaker responses, candidates referred to the role of the food and beverage attendant rather than describing the information they may provide to customers. These candidates responded with broad statements with no features or characteristics of the information given.

  2. Better responses provided a comprehensive analysis of the procedures required for the preparation and service of two non-alcoholic beverages. They provided a range of procedures relevant to the preparation of these beverages. These candidates demonstrated an awareness of the components and relationship between the procedures given in their responses: for example, texturing of milk to a certain temperature, overheating milk, and bitter coffee if the machine extracted the wrong amount.

    In mid-range responses, candidates provided similar procedures for the preparation and service of two non-alcoholic beverages but with less detail and analysis. They provided fewer characteristics and features of this information in their responses. Responses were often in the form of a list with little to no reference to the relationship between the procedures.

    In weaker responses, candidates provided general or limited information about non alcoholic beverages, with little understanding of the procedures relevant to these beverages. These candidates provided very limited information relating to the procedures and quite often provided lists containing limited information.

Question 24

  1. In better responses, candidates described the information which should be supplied and confirmed to the guests when making a room booking. Some provided the characteristics and features of the information.

    Weaker responses provided few or no characteristics and features of the information.

  2. In better responses, candidates provided details and a comprehensive analysis of the range of procedures required to service a check-out room. These candidates demonstrated an awareness of the components and relationship between the procedures given in their responses.

    In mid-range responses, candidates provided similar procedures for servicing the check-out room but with less detail and analysis. Responses were often in the form of list rather than in paragraphs, with little to no reference to the relationship between the procedures.

    In weaker responses, candidates provided general or limited information about servicing the room, with little understanding of the procedures required to service a check-out room. These candidates provided very limited information relating to the procedures and quite often provided lists with limited information.

20110204

Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size