Mark Rubrics and Reflection Presentations

The SL community assessments and inputs from participants are integral components of any effective SL project (Narsavage & Lindell, 2001:7), and at the end of the project term, students presented their final drafts of the business and marketing plans to a panel of assessors which included the SMTE representative(s), a representative from the government partner WESGRO, and two lecturers from the CPUT in the Department of Tourism Management.

The core function of the mark rubrics was to assess the student presentations and provide a mark based on their performance. These marks had a certain weighting towards the SL project report, where the total mark of the SL project weighs 20% towards the subject linked to the project. The total weighting of the SL project was divided into smaller marks for the project portfolio, plan presentation, business or marketing plan document and reflection presentation.

5.4.1 Student performance during the SL project

In effective SL projects, evaluations are also used as tools for enhancing student learning (Billig, 2000:663). This view emphasises the importance of SL evaluations being open and transparent and, most importantly, for the feedback to be shared with students; firstly, when the community members assessed the students on their project presentations, and secondly, when the projects were marked by the SL coordinators and the feedback was discussed with students, it allowed for improved performance.

SMTE comments on the mark rubric forms were more directed towards the impacts of the SL presentations on the perceptions of participating SMTEs. SMTE representatives on the mark rubrics reflected on their perceptions of the students’ presentations, and the students’ efforts during the project:

“...I would like to state that working with group 4 could have been more successful if we had more communication between the two groups. The amount of pages is also too much (56) and for applications I will have to scale it down to an acceptable amount. However there is still room for improvement.”

“...What transpired according to me is that there was no group cohesion (not working together) which culminated very poor presentation and ultimately they failed to produce something that can be useful to improve the marketing of my business.”

“...I found the students very eager to learn. They were friendly, knowledgeable and professional. They worked together as a team. Everyone participated and this is evident when they did the oral and in this speed point presentation. In my opinion as students they delivered high quality material. However there is always room for improvement and one has to keep abreast of ever- changing technology. Thank you”

“...My compliments to the lecturer as the students were very professional and well advised.” “...I was somewhat disappointed by the feedback as it seems that the students presentation and study was based almost entirely on my business plan document which I gave to them. The study was based on suggestions which I made to them. I would have liked to have more of their own independent thoughts and research. Otherwise it was great to be part of this project and I thank CPUT for the opportunity.”

“...It was a good experience for students to spend time in real business, in order to be better prepared in-terms of starting a job in the tourism Industry”.

“...Well presented information. Definitely drew attention to some things that we had overlooked. Job well done.”

“...It proved that students have a team effort when working on this assignment. There was a lot of sacrifices for their time, meaning that they had focus to achieve excellent results. I will conclude by mentioning that their performance was above my expectations.”

“...Considering that I only had 3 students in my team, I am impressed with the document produced. One or two more people would have made a huge difference and reduced the workload. Overall, I am quite happy.”

“...More research was needed they lack in working as a group.”

“...The whole document is fine; however need to be more practical. Industry vs Academic.”

The comments above from the community mark rubrics indicate critical determinants of SL project satisfiers and dissatisfiers for participating communities, which is essential for the analysis of study objective 2. The factors which were considered as determinants of SL project participation for communities as indicated in the mark rubric comments are summarised as follows:

 Team effort of students - student groups which indicated high levels of group cohesion were perceived as performing well by the communities;

 Levels of communication – lack of communication between the students and the participating companies, and

 Practical application of knowledge – student groups expressed limited ability to apply their theoretical learning to practical knowledge.

The completion of the mark rubrics was done on the day the students presented their final business and marketing plans to the communities. The comments could also be assessed as alluding to the students’ presentation skills of the final documents. Articulation is an essential graduate attribute of a tourism graduate student (Harvey, 2005:15-16). In this aspect the project has led to a reassessment of the level of training prospective tourism entrepreneurs should receive.

Student preparedness for SL participation is an important issue for SL project coordinators and university departments. The comments from the community members did not refer to students being ill-prepared for the SL project. This observation yielded positive results for the question on student preparedness resulting from curriculum knowledge. Previous comments from the SMTE interviews indicated that the students tended to be immature at times and appeared not to be well informed in terms of project expectations. This observation was noted and future planning of SL projects will have to address this issue.

5.4.2 Student performance during project presentations

Reflective learning enhances student engagement with knowledge (Oates & Leavitt, 2003:25-26). The second objective of the SL presentations was for students to reflect on their own experiences of the SL project and to share these experiences as a form of learning through the process of SL participation. This feedback from students’ on their own realisation of their learning was essential for their own growth. The following student reflections on SL experiences provide answers for objective 7. Added to benefits for participating communities, it is essential for the department to be informed on how students learn during the SL project, as highlighted by study objective 6. The student group presentations echoed the following sentiments:

“The overall project was a tough and challenging exercise, but we are glad we did it and proved to ourselves that we can work together, under pressure and complete the task. We gained new knowledge and found it interesting to implement out academic knowledge practically.”

“As a group we worked hard and we mastered team spirit. We now know we are able to work in an environment where we don’t know each other and still work together.”

“By doing the service learning experience we realised that in order for your business to be successful you must involve the community.”

“The group got to see and learn how a SMTE is run”

“The group learned how to actually compile a business plan”

The reflective statements summarised that students learned valuable lessons during the SL project. A comparative summary of all responses depicted as step 3 in Table 4.2 on page 50, was then needed to assess the benefits or limitations of the SL project for all participants. The following section will focus on a comparative analysis of the feedback from all sources, covering benefits of the SL project for the SMTEs, the University and the students.