TOUR2001 TOURIST & VISITOR BEHAVIOUR 代写

100%原创包过,高质量代写&免费提供Turnitin报告--24小时客服QQ&微信：273427

TOUR2001 TOURIST & VISITOR BEHAVIOUR

Facility Design Assessment Feedback (45%)

Student 1 Student ID Marker Tutorial Date Grade

Student 2 (if pairs) Student ID

Criteria 7 Exemplary 6 Superior 5 Good 4 Adequate 3 Unsatisfactory (Fail)

Understanding of

the design concept/

proposal

You provide a detailed and

comprehensive introduction to your

design concept

You provide a detailed introduction

to your design concept

You provide a reasonably

detailed introduction to your

design concept

You introduce your design concept,

but some details are lacking

Your introduction to the design

concept is brief and lacking in most

details

Your design proposal is very creative

and has been strongly and

comprehensively justified with

relevant, focused literature

Your design proposal shows some

creativity and has been strongly

justified using relevant literature

Your design proposal has been

soundly justified, and is

supported with reference to

relevant literature

Your design proposal has been

justified but better use of relevant

literature would strengthen this

justification

Your justification of the design

proposal is poor, with limited

evidence of relevant literature to

support your justification

Analysis and

discussion of

design proposal

components

Supported with credible evidence,

you have clearly identified and

comprehensively profiled distinct and

relevant market segments

Supported by sound evidence, you

have clearly identified and profiled

distinct and relevant market

segments

Supported by appropriate

evidence, you have identified

and profiled some distinct and

relevant market segments

You have profiled some appropriate

market segments but these profiles

could be strengthened with more

credible evidence

Your market segments lack

distinction; your profiles are often

simplistic and/or not well supported

by research

You have cleverly drawn on

motivational theory to develop a

comprehensive and convincing

profile of the motives for each

segment

You have carefully drawn on

motivational theory to develop a

significant profile of the motives for

each segment

You have drawn on motivational

theory to develop a useful profile

of the motives for each segment

With some reference to motivational

theory, you have developed an

adequate profile of the motives for

most market segments

You have shown little evidence of

understanding and applying

motivational theory to describe

market segments

You have provided detailed, creative

and well justified suggestions for the

positioning and image of your

facility

You have provided interesting and

valid suggestions for the positioning

and image of your facility

You have provided sound

justification for most suggestions

relating to the positioning and

image of your facility

Though not always justified, you

have provided some suitable

suggestions for the positioning

and/or image of your facility

Your positioning and image ideas

are often weak and/or not informed

by theory

The layout of your facility has been

comprehensively considered, with

strong and relevant justification given

for decisions regarding physical

space, visitor management and

orientation

The layout of your facility has been

carefully considered, with relevant

justification given for decisions

regarding physical space, visitor

management and orientation

The layout of your facility has

been considered, with sound

justification given for most

decisions regarding physical

space, visitor management and

orientation

Adequate attention has been paid to

the layout of your facility, with

justification given for some

decisions regarding physical space,

visitor management and/or

orientation

There are practical issues with the

layout of your facility; decisions

made regarding physical space,

visitor management and/or

orientation tend to be descriptive

and/or unjustified

Your approach to experience

design and visitor satisfaction is

comprehensive, insightful and

carefully considered

Your approach to experience design

and visitor satisfaction is insightful

and relevant

Your approach to experience

design and visitor satisfaction is

appropriate

Though not insightful, you have

suggested some useful approaches

to managing experiences and

satisfaction

You have proposed very simple

and/or ineffective strategies for

managing experiences and

satisfaction

Creation and

application of

support materials

Your illustrations are detailed,

creative and professional, and

enhance the communication of key

aspects of the proposal

Your illustrations are highly effective

in communicating the key aspects of

the proposal

Your illustrations are mostly

effective in communicating the

key elements of the facility

While illustrations have been

included, a better design and

presentation would enhance their

usefulness

Your illustrations are too simplistic,

inaccurate and/or have been poorly

designed

Your carefully created support

materials add impact to your report,

enhancing the reader’s

understanding of your proposal

Your well-created support materials

enhance the reader’s understanding

of your proposal

Your choice of support materials

assists the reader to understand

your proposal

The reader’s understanding of your

proposal has been assisted by

some of your support materials

Poor choice of support materials

has impacted on the reader’s

understanding of your proposal

Criteria 7 Exemplary 6 Superior 5 Good 4 Adequate 3 Unsatisfactory (Fail)

Research and

discussion

You have produced a fully

comprehensive and interesting

design proposal

You have produced a detailed and

interesting design proposal

You have produced a

reasonably detailed design

proposal

While adequate, your design

proposal could be enhanced with

more detailed information

Your design proposal lacks

detailed information

Creative and logical links have been

skillfully drawn between the different

components relative to the design

proposal

Logical links have been drawn

between the different components

relative to the design proposal

Mostly logical links have been

drawn between the different

components relative to the

design proposal

Though not always logical, some

links have been drawn between the

different components relative to the

design proposal

There has been few attempts to

draw links between the different

components relative to the design

proposal

Your discussion is cleverly supported

by extensive and credible evidence

drawn from relevant sources, and a

sophisticated synthesis of materials

Your discussion is supported by

credible evidence drawn from

relevant sources, and a skillful

synthesis of materials

Your discussion is supported by

useful evidence drawn from

mostly relevant sources, and

appropriate synthesis of

materials

Your discussion shows evidence of

some appropriate research but

materials require better synthesis

Much of your discussion is

unsupported by credible sources,

and/or materials lack synthesis

It is extremely likely that your design

proposal will be favourably

considered by members of industry

It is likely that your design proposal

will be favourably considered

With some minor changes, it is

likely that your design proposal

will be favourably considered

With mostly minor and occasional

major change there is some chance

your design proposal will be

considered

Unless major changes are

undertaken, it is highly unlikely that

your design proposal will be

considered

Report genre and

mechanics

Your title page is attractive and your report is professionally presented

following the parameters and guidelines provided

The format chosen for your title page and report are appropriate but

stronger adherence to the parameters and guidelines provided would

improve your report’s appeal and presentation

The format chosen for your title

page & much of your report is not

of an acceptable business standard

Strongly supported by your well-designed table of contents, there is an

obvious and logical connection between your ideas/themes, enhancing the

structure, synthesis and readability of your report

Despite some minor errors/oversights in your table of contents,

ideas/themes have been developed; however, connections are not

always obvious/logical which sometimes impacts on the flow and

readability of your report

In many places, including your

table of contents, sections and/or

ideas/themes do not logically flow

or link

Appendices contain relevant information that complement and support your

report

Though not always technically correct in its use, some relevant

information has been included in your appendices

Appendices contain superfluous

information and/or are incorrectly

used

Your writing is fluent, lively and interesting Your writing is fluent but not always interesting Your writing tends to be disjointed

Correct grammar and spelling is used throughout, with the occasional minor

error

Mostly correct grammar and spelling is used throughout, with minor

errors and the occasional major error

Spelling and/or grammar is

consistently incorrect

In-text referencing and the resultant reference list are correct, with only the

occasional minor error

Mostly correct in-text referencing and reference list, with minor errors

and the occasional major error

In-text referencing and/or reference

list is inadequate and/or often

incorrect

Figure and table titles are numbered and used correctly and are referred to in

the text of the proposal

Figure and table titles are not always numbered and used correctly

and/or are not referred to in the text of the proposal

Figure and table titles not included

and/or not well worded and/or not

referred to in text

You have adhered to an acceptable word limit range

The word limit just falls outside an acceptable range You have not adhered to the word

limit

NB: Most of the above points for report genre/mechanics must be highlighted

to support an overall grade of 6 or 7.

NB: Most of the above points for report genre/mechanics must be

highlighted to support an overall grade of 4 or 5.

Grade 2 Does not meet the minimum requirements for Grade 3 Grade 1 Fail with serious deficiencies; major components are missing OR failure to submit