2009 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 2009 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 2009 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 students are advised that, in December 2008, the Board of Studies approved changes to the examination specifications and assessment requirements for a number of courses. These changes will be implemented for the 2010 HSC cohort. Information on a course-by-course basis is available on the Board’s website.
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), are 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 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
-
In the better responses, candidates used industry terminology demonstrating an understanding of storage areas in a large hotel and stock contained in each specified area. They made reference to industry experience (work placement) and provided multiple and appropriate examples of stock for each storage area.
In the weaker responses, candidates did not use industry terminology for the storage areas or to identify or provide specific examples of stock stored in each area. Some candidates also misunderstood the question and interpreted the word ‘stock’ as soup stock.
-
In the better responses, candidates discussed storage areas and provided an appropriate description of the conditions. Details provided included major characteristics such as ‘sanitised’ and ‘secure’, with specific temperatures for different areas. These responses gave well-developed descriptions of the characteristics using industry terminology.
In the weaker responses, candidates provided very general explanations with no detail or they listed only a few points. Weaker responses often identified principles of food storage, hygiene and food safety instead of characteristics of the storage space. In this section, interpreting the word ‘stock’ as soup stock again created difficulties in answering the question correctly.
Question 17
Better responses showed a good understanding of personal and environmental hygiene, providing a definition of both with a related example. In the better responses, candidates identified the risks involved in handling linen such as bloodstained linen, handling garbage, and contamination by bacteria. Handling linen and garbage were addressed separately in the better responses. Where handling garbage and linen were grouped together, they were associated with an appropriate risk such as contamination.
In the discussion of minimising the risks, multiple controls were stated for handling both linen and garbage. Controls were described in detail and with examples or procedures supplied. Statements were supported using appropriate industry terminology by making reference to personal protective equipment (PPE), sanitising, potentially infectious items, rodents and vermin.
Better responses clearly identified the appropriate risk with the suitable control. These also described either handling linen or garbage in depth and supplied a brief statement of the other. The risk and the control were linked appropriately.
Mid-range responses grouped handling linen and garbage together and briefly identified the risk and control common to both, with very brief descriptive statements. These responses demonstrated knowledge of the controls to minimise risks, but did not link these to either handling linen or garbage.
Other mid-range responses identified a number of controls using appropriate industry terminology.
Weaker responses referred to handling either linen or garbage. Generalised statements were used with no examples, and correct industry terminology was not used. Everyday examples and terminology were used in the weaker responses.
Question 18
In the better responses, candidates provided a range of health and safety procedures to be followed when cleaning agents and chemicals are used in the hospitality industry. Candidates identified and elaborated on these procedures.
In the weaker responses, candidates either identified only a limited number of health and safety procedures when using cleaning agents or chemicals, or merely made statements about cleaning or health and safety.
Question 19
In the better responses in part (a), candidates demonstrated a good knowledge of WorkCover. The candidates recognised WorkCover as a government organisation that supported the role of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. They identified clearly the main features of its role and provided a concise response with clear examples. In the better responses in part (b), candidates included a range of responsibilities using appropriate industry terminology and workplace examples. These candidates provided a description rather than just a list of responsibilities and referred to responsibilities of the employer throughout the response.
In the weaker responses in part (a), candidates confused WorkCover with worker’s compensation, seeing it as an insurance policy. They referred to WorkCover as covering the employee or paying for the injury. In the weaker responses to part (b), candidates discussed one responsibility but used little or no industry terminology, or provided no workplace examples. These candidates referred to the employee or the Occupational Health and Safety Act rather than the employer.
Question 20
In the better responses, candidates made evident the relationship between an employee’s work performance and keeping up to date with industry information. Candidates explained the benefits to their work performance, including maintaining professionalism and providing quality service, with reference to multiple relevant sources. Sources included internet, libraries, mentors, trade journals and legislation. These candidates could readily link sources with examples to strengthen their response.
Some candidates listed a range of general sources such as ‘the internet’, rather than the specific website from which the information was drawn. They displayed strong general knowledge of legislation and acts, rather than an application of how the legislation would further enhance their work performance. These candidates wrote about work performance in a global sense, relating to the industry as a whole rather than at an individual level.
In the weaker responses, candidates did not acknowledge sources and made limited, general statements. These responses were non-specific that in some cases contained an inferred source or example.
Section III
Question 21
In the better responses, candidates drew upon the topics of Work with Colleagues and Customers, Work in a Socially Diverse Environment and Develop and Update Hospitality Industry Knowledge. They provided comprehensive knowledge from each of these areas and supported their knowledge with detailed industry examples and terminology. Furthermore, candidates in this range then made reasoned judgements regarding the importance of the interpersonal, communication and customer service skills, thereby accurately addressing the key term ‘assess’ in the question. Better responses demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the hospitality industry, drawn from other core units and knowledge gained from work placement.
In better responses, candidates acknowledged that interpersonal and communication skills related to both customers and colleagues. Examples included interpersonal skills such as personal presentation, teamwork, and knowledge of other cultures. Candidates addressed both verbal and nonverbal forms of communication, including body language and written communication. Specific content was provided, such as open, closed and reflective questions, active listening and culturally sensitive language. Customer service skills included meeting customers’ needs and expectations, displaying product and service knowledge, complaint-handling skills and prompt, efficient service.
Judgement statements on the reputation of the business, loss of productivity and revenue, team work, repeat business, meeting legislative requirements, prevention of cultural misunderstandings and improvement of workplace efficiency were included.
In the mid-range responses, candidates provided a general understanding of two or more of the required skills; some supported the responses with relevant industry examples and terminology. Some candidates made judgement statements regarding the importance of these three areas. These, however, were general statements such as ‘interpersonal skills are important as this ensures that customers are happy and will return’.
In the weaker responses, candidates provided general information about working in the hospitality industry with customers and/or colleagues. Some responses included a general example such as ‘communication involves talking’ or ‘interpersonal skills make customers happy’.
Question 22
In the better responses, candidates provided well-reasoned responses incorporating the use of HACCP and the selected food. Chicken was the most commonly selected food, with many candidates demonstrating a clear understanding of the principles of HACCP. The use of multiple industry examples and terminology to support the response was evident at this level. Terminology used was appropriate and often extensive throughout the responses. Candidates who provided the better responses wrote in detail, although many placed more emphasis and detail on the aspects of delivery and service. A good analysis on the use of HACCP was provided. Implications were clearly linked back to HACCP and food poisoning. Fewer candidates provided multiple implications relating to business, reputation and legal implications. The better responses demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the stages of the use of HACCP in terms of safe food production.
In the mid-range responses, candidates showed a clear understanding of the relationship between food poisoning and poor food safety habits. General reference was made to the specific principles of HACCP in this range of responses. Many candidates provided degrees of understanding of HACCP and safe production from delivery to service but lacked depth and range in implications. Industry terminology was used and examples were provided with reference to cross-contamination, bacterial food poisoning, in particular Salmonella, and coloured chopping boards. Implications varied at this level, from relating only to food poisoning, to addressing many implications. Some candidates addressed limited implications and understanding of HACCP to a greater level. Others demonstrated a good understanding and application of HACCP with less emphasis on implications. Some did not provide any implications.
In the weaker responses, candidates tended to paraphrase the question and repeat basic information on food safety throughout the response. Some responses provided a definition of HACCP and limited information on food safety. Overall there was little evidence of addressing the links between HACCP and food production. Many candidates explained the acronym of HACCP, while some focused on safe food production, putting a greater emphasis on hygiene and temperature. These responses concentrated on the delivery stage, with some reference to the preparation and service stages in terms of either safe food production or HACCP. General examples of safe food production were provided, using limited industry terminology. Some confusion between food safety and employee safety was evident. Overall these weaker responses lacked detail and understanding of HACCP and the stages of safe food production.
Question 23
In the better responses, candidates demonstrated a detailed understanding of flow of service supported by examples of procedures, sequencing, and mise en place requirements. Candidates provided reasons for monitoring flow of service and staff responsibilities in this process. They also provided detailed information about equipment and materials required for mise en place in order to maintain effective flow of service and ensure good communication. Reference was made to appropriate use of service ethic and interpersonal skills. In better responses, candidates detailed costs and benefits of a sequential flow of service.
In the weaker responses, candidates provided a general or limited understanding of flow of service or an aspect of flow of service. These candidates listed basic implications such as communication and general tasks. In many cases, weaker responses listed or provided simple explanations or examples of implications where there was no flow of service. Some candidates listed tasks or duties in a procedure.
Question 24
In the better responses, candidates provided detailed steps for processing a reservation in accommodation premises. These candidates demonstrated an awareness of equipment and methods of receiving and processing reservations and identified selling techniques, rates and market segments and the need to communicate with other departments. In better responses, candidates were able to detail the costs and benefits of industry standard procedures and the appropriate use of service ethic, interpersonal skills and communication. They detailed a sequential accommodation reservation procedure. They also detailed staff responsibilities and implications of the use of effective procedures to customer satisfaction.
In the weaker responses, candidates provided general or limited information about reservation processes for accommodation premises or discussed general reservation procedures not specific to accommodation. These candidates often discussed part of a reservation process and listed basic implications for poor reservation practices. In weaker responses candidates listed basic steps for taking general reservations and suggested simple products to sell.
2009935
NSW Government