i have sent you files of my assessment
Tourism Planning Environments Assignment 2 1500 words – 30% Imagine you are an independent tourism planning expert (what is this?) You need to FIND, CRITIQUE and COMPARE two publically available tourism discussion papers on topics of your choice (what is a discussion paper?) USE - The policy planning cycle (p. 196 of your text) to CRITICALLY EVALUATE and COMPARE each discussion paper Your assessment includes a reflection on lessons you have learnt through undertaking this critique and how it might assist you in writing your own Discussion Paper (what is a reflection?) The assignment is divided into three sections as follows: · Critique two discussion papers on a tourism related issue · Compare & contrast the two discussion papers · Reflection on learnings SECTION ONE Critique two discussion papers on a tourism related issue (worth 18/30) 1. This first section is more heavily weighted in the marking scheme. 2. Evaluate the structure and content of each of the two discussion papers using the policy planning cycle. 3. Evaluate means to judge the quality and significance of the papers. The “structure for a critical review” handout MAY help you with this task; in particular analysing the strengths and weaknesses of a paper. 4. Specifically this assignment asks you to use the Policy Planning Cycle and relate it to the paper. 5. The marking criteria states ‘Examined against all stages of the policy planning cycle & strengths & gaps are well identified” So this means ‘does the paper follow the stages of the policy cycle, to what extent, and what (if anything) is missing?’ Dredge & Jenkins 2007 Tourism Planning and Policy p. 196 A generic policy cycle process follows these general stages. Analyse the tourism discussion paper by identifying whether it includes these sections and include evidence about how it has fulfilled each section. Example: Has the discussion paper achieved each the section of the policy cycle successfully? How can you judge this? Have they used evidence from statistics, government reports, academic sources, general media sources, up to date information (recent reports). Have they been very thorough in their discussion? Have they used case studies and examples (e.g. tourist attractions) Put in quotes or paraphrases from the discussion paper as examples.. These are the stages of the above policy cycle: a) Identifying issues – what are some of the problems? Or some of the needs for developing tourism? b) Analysis of issues – (Looking at the problem in more detail – giving examples) c) Policy solution (Federal or State). Instruments (plans, tax, funding or regulation). What are some of the suggestions for new strategies or policies or solutions to the issue? d) Consultation – working with other organisations (stakeholders – company, government, tourist board, hotels, anyone who has an interest in tourism in the region) e) Selection of alternative – what other plan would work instead? This may not be included in all discussion papers f) Implementation – when and how to begin the plan? g) Evaluation – a review of the plan after it has been implemented? This may not be included in all discussion papers Compare & contrast the two discussion papers (worth 6/30) 1. This is less heavily weighted in the marking scheme 2. Compare and contrast the two discussion papers with regards to structure, quality and effectiveness. 3. Comparing – what is similar? 4. Contrasting – what is different? 5. In the marking rubric this section also asks you to refer to the policy cycle 6. You are asked to talk about how effective the papers are at communicating with the target audience. Who is the target audience? How well do they communicate? What PROOF do you have of this good/poor communication? Example: The first paper focused on ……………… as did the second paper. Both papers used a similar policy cycle process, which followed these steps:…… Both papers were easy to read and access and included case studies and …. The papers were equally effective at communicating with the target audience of stakeholders and professionals within the tourism community in their regions Reflection on learnings (worth 6/30) 1. This is less heavily weighted in the marking scheme 2. How has writing the assessment improved your skills? 3. Could writing this assessment help you to write a discussion paper? Example: Writing this assignment gave me insight into the tourism planning process and helped me to learn…. It was very beneficial in gaining skills in … LANGUAGE SUMMARY Examples of reflective language What was I doing/ involved in? What seems significant to pay attention to? What specifically worked (or didn’t work)? Reflecting on how the experience connects with your own knowledge, understanding or practice? And in what ways? How has the learning experience changed you? Give examples In summary, what do you think about this situation/ experience or practice? What conclusions can you draw? How can you justify these? In hindsight, would you do something differently next time and why? REFLECTIVE WRITING: I was involved with I recognized that Over time I came to realize that On reflection, I now see that On contemplation, I realize that.. This experience has given me insight into I found this experience links to theoretical knowledge in that.,.. After consideration of my experiences, I realize that.. I found that.. Tourism Planning Environments (MKT01760) 1 Assessment 2: Critique & Comparison of Two Discussion Papers Due: 10 August @ 5:00pm (NSW) (uploaded via Turnitin on MySCU site) Length: 1500 words Weight: 30% Rationale: This assessment exposes you to the concept of a discussion paper. A discussion paper is an important consultation tool used in tourism planning and policy development and in workplaces. Familiarity with discussion papers is a key employment skill. A good discussion paper addresses all elements of the policy cycle. While the tool itself is used as part of the consultation stage, it addresses the early parts of the policy cycle by identifying the issue, providing context and analysis, and identifying potential policy solutions & instruments. It also addresses the latter parts of the cycle by outlining some alternatives and providing suggestions regarding implementation and evaluation. Thus Assessment 2 gets you to actively think about all parts of the policy cycle while preparing you for Assessment 3. Task: You are to assume the position of an independent tourism planning expert and are required to source, critique and compare two publically available tourism discussion papers on topics of your choice. These may be found online via a search of the internet or specific government sites. The policy planning cycle (p. 196 of your text) provides the framework for your critical evaluation of each individual paper and the comparison between them. Your assessment piece will conclude with a reflection section on lessons you learnt through doing this critique and how it might assist you in writing your own Discussion Paper (Assessment 3). In order to complete the task you are required to: Identify and introduce two relevant tourism related discussion papers and highlight the key issues they address (6 marks). Critique the structure of the discussion papers against the framework of the policy planning cycle (6 marks). Critique the content of the discussion papers with regards to sufficiency for relevant stakeholders (6 marks). Succinctly compare & contrast the two discussion papers with regards to structure, quality and effectiveness (i.e. your perception of the paper’s effectiveness in communicating with the target audience) (6 marks). Reflect on what you have learnt from this critique and comparison; how this assessment has/has not improved your awareness, professional skills and knowledge relating to tourism planning environments; and how it might benefit you in writing your own Discussion Paper (Assessment 3) (i.e. you need to engage with the Task for Assessment 3 for this) (6 marks). Tourism Planning Environments (MKT01760) 2 Marking rubric: Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail Introducing relevance & issues Two relevant papers identified and key issues they address are highlighted. 6 marks Outstanding introduction. Papers are clearly identified, succinctly & effectively described & key issues clearly defined. Very good introduction. Papers are clearly identified & described well & key issues are clearly defined. Competent introduction. Papers are identified & described quite well & key issues are defined. Adequate introduction. Papers are identified & somewhat described. Key issues are hinted at but could have been developed further. Inadequate introduction. Papers are not identified & described clearly. The issues are not outlined well or in enough depth. Structure critique – policy cycle The structure of each paper is examined with regards to the policy cycle – what elements are/aren’t adequately addressed? 6 marks Outstanding critique. Structure of paper is effectively examined against all stages of the policy planning cycle & strengths & gaps are well identified. Very good critique. Structure of paper is examined against all stages of the policy planning cycle & strengths & gaps are identified. Competent critique. Structure of paper is examined against most stages of the policy planning cycle & some strengths & gaps are identified. Adequate critique. Structure of paper is examined against some stages of the policy planning cycle. Some strengths & gaps are identified though with little rationale. Inadequate critique. Structure of paper is not adequately related to the policy planning cycle. Strengths & gaps are barely addressed and without rationale. Content critique – stakeholders The content of each paper is examined with regards to its key issue/topic – is the information sufficient/lacking for stakeholders to provide informed input? How so? 6 marks Outstanding critique. Critically examines each paper with depth & identifies strengths and/or weaknesses of each very clearly & succinctly with reference to key stakeholders. Very good critique. Critically examines each paper with depth & identifies strengths and/or weaknesses of each clearly & with reference to key stakeholders. Competent critique. Critically examines each paper & identifies some strengths and/or weaknesses of each. Adequate critique. Examines each paper & notes some strengths and/or weaknesses of each but with little rationale. Inadequate critique. Little if any critical engagement with the content of the