Assessment feedback Foundations of Event Management (TOUR 2009) Assignment 2 – Reflective Report Weighting 60% Key assignment criteria Performance on this component Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Understanding of event (25%) Failure to identify a majority of the following:  mission/vision/goals  target markets  motivations of target markets  marketing Poor performance on responding to some of the following, while responding at a basic level to others:  mission/vision/goals  target markets  motivations of target markets  marketing Identified but with some level of ambiguity the following aspects:  mission/vision/goals  target markets  motivations of target markets  marketing Satisfactorily identified through a basic analysis the following aspects:  mission/vision/goals  target markets  motivations of target markets  marketing Satisfactory understanding of the event. Identified through a thorough analysis based on excellent research the following components.  mission/vision/goals  target markets  motivations of target markets  marketing Excellent in-depth understanding of the event was demonstrated. . No appropriate SWOT analysis was presented. Failure to meet the requirements. The SWOT analysis was not relevant and linked to the mission/vision/goals, target markets, their motivations, and situation analysis. The SWOT analysis was linked to the mission/vision/goals, target markets, their motivations and situation analysis, but not always coherent. The SWOT analysis was mostly logical and coherent. The SWOT analysis was conducted based on the research and in consideration of the nature of the event, and presented in a logical and coherent way. Understanding of event experience (40%) (the best experience) Failure to describe your event experience clearly. Your event experience was described, but failed to identify and discuss the key aspects of your event/experience. Your experience was described and evaluated, but not analysed. Your experience was described, evaluated and analysed, addressing most of the key aspects of your event experience. You presented a comprehensive and insightful discussion based on critical analysis of your experience which addresses key aspects of the experience. No application and discussion of relevant concepts/literature. Inappropriate concepts/literature were applied to discuss the issues, and/or some relevant concepts/literature were discussed but not appropriately applied. Some relevant concepts/literature were discussed, but their application to the event was limited. Demonstrated an understanding of relevant concepts/literature, and the arguments were provided based on the concepts/literature. Demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of relevant concepts/literature, and the arguments based on the concepts/literature were solid. (the worst experience) Failure to describe your event experience clearly. Your event experience was described, but failed to identify and discuss the key aspects of your event/experience. Your experience was described and evaluated, but not analysed. Your experience was described, evaluated and analysed, addressing most of the key aspects of your event experience. You presented a comprehensive and insightful discussion based on a critical analysis of your experience which addresses key aspects of the experience. No application and discussion of relevant concepts/literature. Inappropriate concepts/ literature were applied to discuss the issues, and/or some relevant concepts/literature were discussed but not appropriately applied. Some relevant concepts/literature were discussed, but their application to the event was limited. Demonstrated an understanding of relevant concepts/literature, and the arguments were provided based on the concepts/literature. Demonstrated a comprehensive in-depth understanding of relevant concepts/literature. The arguments based on the concepts/literature were solid. Recommendations (15%) No recommendations were provided. Your recommendations were not relevant to the areas for improvement identified in your previous discussion and/or identified as the key aspects. Relevant recommendations were provided but limited in scope and/or unrealistic. Relevant recommendations were provided responding to the areas for improvement identified in your discussion but they lacked details and/or were not specific and practical. Creative, realistic and specific recommendations were provided based on a comprehensive analysis. You did not consider the event mission/vision/goal, target markets, environments and SWOT analysis in your recommendations. The link of recommendations to the event mission/vision/goal, target markets, environments and SWOT analysis required further thought. Recommendations were not always linked to the event mission/vision/goal, target markets, environments and SWOT analysis. Recommendations were linked to the event mission/vision/goal, target markets, environments and SWOT analysis. You provided recommendations based on a detailed and comprehensive overview of the event. Referencing skills (10%) UniSA Harvard in-text reference and/or reference list is often incorrect. Failure to meet the minimum requirements regarding references. Mostly correct in-text referencing and reference list, with minor errors and occasional major errors. UniSA Harvard in-text referencing and the resultant reference list are correct, with only the occasional minor errors. At least 8 relevant references (includes minimum use of 5 academic resources) were used. Communication and presentation (10%) Failure to present content in a coherent way in terms of formatting and structure. Spelling and/or grammar is consistently incorrect. Failure to communicate in a formal academic style. Word count does not meet the given limit. Organised content clearly and attempted to follow structural requirements. Mostly correct spelling and grammar are used throughout, with minor errors and occasional major errors. Organised content clearly and logically, closely following structural requirements. Correct grammar and spelling are used throughout. Summary comment: The Graduate qualities being assessed by this assignment are indicated by an X: x GQ1: operate effectively with and upon a body of knowledge GQ5: are committed to ethical action and social responsibility x GQ2: are prepared for lifelong learning GQ6: communicate effectively x GQ3: are effective problem solvers GQ7: demonstrate an international perspective x GQ4:can work both autonomously and collaboratively Assignment grade Marker