1. Home
2. HSC
3. HSC Exams
4. 2012 HSC Exam papers
5. 2012 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Hospitality

2012 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Hospitality

Contents

• Introduction
• Section II
• Section III
• Section IV

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 2012 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 2012 Higher School Certificate examinations, the marking guidelines and other support documents developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of Hospitality.

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 mark allocated to the question and the answer space (where this is provided on the examination paper) is a guide to the length of the required response. A longer response will not in itself lead to higher marks. Writing far beyond the indicated space 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 that are not included in the glossary may be used, 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 correctly outlined the correct features/procedures an employee could follow, eg stay calm, make sure to follow instructions and take down as many descriptions as possible.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates made a statement about a procedure.

2. In better responses, candidates clearly explained the relationship between a broken/malfunctioning piece of equipment and the potential for a security breach.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates made a statement about broken/malfunctioning equipment or a breach in security without making any link.

Question 17

1. In better responses, candidates provided TWO examples of how the Privacy Act 1988 can apply to a receptionist, such as not disclosing information about guests and making sure phone calls were not directly put through to the guest.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates only provided ONE example of how the Privacy Act 1988 can apply to a receptionist or just made a general statement.
2. 1. In better responses, candidates clearly explained why receiving gifts and services free of charge could be an ethical issue.
      
      In weaker responses, students either identified an ethical issue or provided an example of a free gift or service.
   2. In better responses, candidates clearly explained why tipping could be an ethical issue.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates either identified an ethical issue or provided an example of tipping.

Question 18

1. In better responses, candidates correctly identified criteria for the selection of PPE, in particular suitability for the task and correct fit for protection. Some candidates identifed manufacturer’s specifications and serviceability, eg durability, ease of maintenance and WHS legislation.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates confused the terminology ‘criteria’ and ‘selection’ of PPE. These candidates generally gave some information relating to PPE, such as a list of appropriate examples, although some were not always relevant to the hospitality industry. Most candidates made at least one relevant statement and/or identified one criterion.
2. In better responses, candidates provided a comprehensive list of examples of PPE for housekeeping attendants and understood the term ‘justify’. These candidates explained in detail why the PPE item(s) were required: eg housekeepers use strong chemicals when cleaning and masks should be worn to prevent inhalation of toxic fumes or enclosed leather shoes are worn when cleaning to prevent injury to feet from a variety of equipment and furniture.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates could list some PPE for housekeeping attendants but struggled to provide the justification for its selection.
3. In better responses, candidates provided detailed information about the responsibilities of both employer and employees in regard to PPE. Examples of employer’s responsibilities included: provide PPE, train employees on correct use and selection and maintain/replace damaged PPE. Examples of employee responsibilities included wearing correctly fitted PPE, maintaining PPE for future use and identifying equipment for repair.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates did not clearly differentiate between the roles of employers and employees and their responsibilities in regard to PPE.

Question 19

1. In better responses, candidates showed a clear understanding of the different types of teams in a hospitality organisation. Candidates clearly identified the type of team and described the characteristics and features of these teams. Types of teams included ad hoc teams, working parties, committees such as Workplace Health and Safety Committees and key department teams.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates identified a number of key departments as different types of teams. They listed the different roles of each department, without making a link to working in a team.
2. In better responses, candidates identified the qualities of teamwork. Candidates subsequently evaluated these qualities and how they contributed to the smooth running of the hospitality organisation. In better responses, candidates also made judgements about how these qualities are beneficial to a hospitality organisation.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates defined teamwork and identified the qualities that contribute to teamwork. In some responses, candidates provided an example of a team within a hospitality establishment working together to complete a task without evaluating its contribution to the smooth running of the hospitality organisation.

Question 20

In better responses, candidates provided detailed information about a range of personal and environmental hygiene risks. Students subsequently justified why these risks cause concern for the hospitality industry including issues around non-compliance with legislation, the economic and social costs to the business and customer’s expectations and their general awareness of hygiene issues. In some better responses, candidates linked these risks and consequences to a range of foodborne illnesses and food poisoning.

In mid-range responses, candidates defined the terms ‘personal’ and ‘environmental’ hygiene and listed characteristics that related to these two areas rather than providing the risk. Candidates explained why these risks are a cause for concern for the hospitality industry. However, in many cases candidates repeated the cause for concern for both the personal and environmental hygiene risk.

In weaker responses, candidates listed personal and environmental hygiene risks. Some candidates discussed environmental sustainability rather than environmental hygiene risks.

Section III

Question 21

In better responses, candidates provided an extensive analysis of the effect of an employee’s awareness of culturally diverse elements. Candidates supported answers with numerous links and specific workplace industry examples. Candidates made clear relationships between elements of cultural diversity and the interactions that an employee may have with a variety of colleagues and customers by using a variety of precise industry language.

In mid-range responses, candidates linked elements to workplace examples and interactions. These candidates described workplace examples and/or consequences, but did not explain and discuss them as elements. Some candidates’ responses briefly named and defined elements but made little or no linking with workplace interactions. Candidates used some industry terminology but provided no clear link to an appropriate element.

In weaker responses, candidates provided basic information about an aspect of cultural awareness. They did not provide any industry examples and many responses were in point form with no structure. Candidates indicated few or no interactions between employees and colleagues and customers.

Section IV

Question 22

1. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a detailed understanding of a material safety data sheet. They demonstrated a clear understanding of the information that a MSDS could contain, including directions and precautions for use, safe handling, storage requirements, first aid and any PPE that may be required.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates either made a general statement about what a MSDS is or confused the MSDS with a cleaning schedule.
2. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a detailed understanding of cleaning practices in the commercial kitchen, using specific industry examples. They made evident a relationship between duties and their link to quality service. In better responses, candidates understood that cleaning practices, such as sanitising, removed bacteria and prevented cross contamination, enabling safe, quality food to be delivered to customers without the threat of food poisoning. In these responses, candidates also demonstrated an understanding that clean kitchens improved the aesthetic qualities of establishments, which encouraged customers to return for business.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates made statements about cleaning and its link to quality service but gave very little detail on specific cleaning practices.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates listed cleaning practices or an implication of poor cleaning on an establishment. They failed to list any specific cleaning practices and in many cases reworded the question.
3. In better responses, candidates comprehensively explained the relationship between the procedures and issues for deep-frying, how problems could be overcome and provided industry specific examples.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates explained deep-frying safety and cleaning rather than addressing how problems could be overcome. Some candidates talked about MSDS sheets and provided some industry specific examples.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates referred only to safety, PPE requirements and training.

Question 23

1. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a detailed understanding of a material safety data sheet. They provided a clear understanding of the information that a MSDS could contain, including directions and precautions for use, safe handling, storage requirements, first aid and any PPE that may be required.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates either made a general statement about what an MSDS is or confused the MSDS with a cleaning schedule.
2. In better responses, candidates explained a variety of cleaning practices used in the service area and stated the duties of the waiter. In better responses, candidates related the effect of poor cleaning to service and used specific industry examples. They showed the relationship between cleaning duties and the quality of service expected by diners in a fine-dining restaurant and the repercussions if this was not done correctly, such as damage to reputation leading to loss of business.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates only listed cleaning practices or the implication of poor cleaning on an establishment.
3. In better responses, candidates comprehensively explained the relationship between the procedures for processing accounts (ways of presenting the final account, split bills, discount vouchers, tips) and the methods of payment (cash, EFTPOS, credit card, gift certificates and in-house guest accounts) and the way these accounts are processed (manual, electronic, computerised and cash/card back to room).They provided industry specific examples.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates confused the term accounts with bank account details of customers and maintaining the privacy of these accounts.

Question 24

1. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a detailed understanding of features of a MSDS. They identified the importance of PPE, storage of chemicals, dilution of chemicals and the specific uses of the chemicals in relation to different areas in a large hotel.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates did not provide information about the MSDS in relation to cleaning.
2. In better responses, candidates discussed cleaning practices in all areas of a hotel and explained cleaning procedures, eg vacuuming floors, cleaning windows and toilets. They showed a strong relationship to quality service and repeat business. Candidates also showed the relationship between poor cleaning and service and unhappy customers.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates mentioned or listed some cleaning practices with no link to quality service or gave a statement that cleaning was important to make customers happy.
3. In better responses, candidates showed comprehensive knowledge of the procedures for preparing and making beds for guests, such as using correct PPE, separating linen, using clean linen, fluffing pillows, neatening edges and tucking sheets. These candidates showed an awareness of the problems that may occur when making beds, such as sharp objects or lost property.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates mentioned or listed a procedure for making a bed or gave a statement about a clean bed. Few or no industry examples were given.