This article was downloaded by: [Linnaeus University]On: 03 October 2014, At: 02:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhat20

An Industry-Driven Model of Hospitality Curriculum forPrograms Housed in Accredited Colleges of Business:Program Learning Outcomes-Part IIINancy Swanger a & Dogan Gursoy aa School of Hospitality Business Management at Washington State University , Pullman ,Washington , USAPublished online: 24 May 2013.

To cite this article: Nancy Swanger & Dogan Gursoy (2007) An Industry-Driven Model of Hospitality Curriculum for ProgramsHoused in Accredited Colleges of Business: Program Learning Outcomes-Part III, Journal of Hospitality & TourismEducation, 19:2, 14-22, DOI: 10.1080/10963758.2007.10696886

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2007.10696886

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

14 Volume 19, Number 2

introductionIn the hospitality industry, change is an accepted and neces-

sary part of doing business. Whether it be to stay ahead of the

curve in everything from menu development to recently enacted

legislation, hospitality operators must be able to position their

businesses to be agile enough to remain competitive in today’s

world. So, too, must hospitality programs if they are to provide

their graduates with the tools necessary to be successful in the

ever-changing global economy.

As accrediting bodies such as ABET (engineering), NCATE

(education), AACSB (business schools), IFT (food science) and

others require programs in higher education to have assessment

plans in place, a sudden and pressured move toward compli-

ance has begun. While compliance may be what gets the ball

rolling, in many cases, the enhanced performance that results

from the implementation of quality assessment plans needs to

be what drives the continued participation. Design of a quality

assessment plan requires very focused research into each area of

the institution under review—in this case, a hospitality business

management program housed in an accredited college of busi-

ness.

This research is the fourth phase of a six-phase project to

assess the curriculum of a four-year hospitality school housed in

an accredited college of business, and its specific purpose is to

identify program learning outcomes for the school and to devel-

op an instrument to assess those learning outcomes to improve

the quality of the undergraduate learning experience. In order

to determine the needs of the industry, a survey was developed

and mailed to 2339 hospitality industry professionals in the first

phase of the research. Responses from 328 professionals from

190 different companies were analyzed to help determine the

focus for the hospitality program. The second phase of the study

identified the most important subject-matter areas, as deter-

mined by the respondents, and suggested a curriculum model for

hospitality programs housed in accredited colleges of business

(Gursoy and Swanger 2004). Phase three of the research involved

the grouping of course-content items, again as rated by the in-

dustry professionals, into the required courses suggested in the

an industry-driven Model of Hospitality Curriculum for Programs Housed in accredited Colleges of Business: Program learning outcomes- Part iii By Nancy Swanger, Ph.D. and Dogan Gursoy, Ph.D.

Nancy Swanger, Ph.d. and dogan Gursoy, Ph.d. are both Associate Professors with the School of Hospitality Business Management at Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA.

model (Gursoy and Swanger, 2005). The purpose of this study is

to complete the fourth phase of the project, which is to suggest

learning outcomes for a hospitality program, housed in an ac-

credited college of business.

While previous studies (Baum 1991; Burbidge 1994; Knut-

son and Patton 1992; Li and Kivela 1988; Tas 1988; Nelson and

Dopson 2001; Dopson and Nelson 2003) have looked at industry

perspectives regarding the importance of various skills and

abilities necessary for success, none has taken that information

and woven it into the academic arena through the definition of

learning outcomes for hospitality programs housed in accredited

colleges of business. The purpose of this study is to do just that.

The specific research questions of this study were:

1. What are the learning outcomes for a hospitality manage-

ment program housed in an accredited college of business as

determined by an industry-driven model for curriculum?

2. What are the dimensions and top-level performance criteria

(objectives) measures of each of the learning outcomes?

3. How can a hospitality school assess whether the learning

outcomes are achieved?

Literature Review

One of the biggest challenges hospitality educators face

today is determining clear objectives for the curriculum that

meets the constantly changing needs of the industry. It is crucial

to close the gap between what is taught to students and what

the industry expects of the students being hired (Dopson and Tas

2004; Gursoy and Swanger 2004, 2005; Okeyi, Finley and Postel

1994). Therefore, investigation of the curriculum of hospitality

and tourism administration programs has been a growing area of

research in recent years. Several studies examined the skills a

graduate needs to be successful in the hospitality industry (Baum

1991; Burbidge 1994; Christou 2002; Dopson and Nelson 2003;

Knutson and Patton 1992; Li and Kivela 1988; Tas 1988; Tas, LeB-

recque and Clayton 1996). These studies usually reported very

general lists that were identified by surveying hotel managers

and/or students; however, many researchers argue that in de-

veloping a curriculum, educators need to consider three major

components of hospitality education: substantive knowledge,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

50 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

15Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Education

skills, and values (Dopson and Tas 2004; Gursoy and Swanger

2004, 2005). Many studies have also looked at the components

of hospitality curriculum and the need to integrate operational,

as well as, managerial skills for success (Dopson and Tas, 2004;

Baum, 1991; Burbidge 1994; Christou 2002; Dopson and Nelson

2003; Knutson and Patton 1992; Li and Kivela 1988; Tas 1988;

Tas, LeBrecque, and Clayton 1996; Kay and Russette, 2000; Okei-

yi, Finley, and Postel 1994; Dopson and Tas, 2004).

Several researchers examined existing curriculums using

data gathered from industry professionals, faculty, and students

regarding the skills necessary for success in the industry and pro-

posed revised curriculums. For example, Tas (1988) undertook a

survey involving the general managers of 75 hotels and identified

a set of 36 competencies (skills) college graduates are expected

to possess. Based on these results, Tas postulated a management

education curriculum for the hospitality industry. Baum (1991)

replicated the study in the United Kingdom and reported the

main divergence was in the positioning of two critical factors relat-

ing to legislation/regulation and professional/ethical standards.

Even though, investigation of the curriculum of hospitality

and tourism administration programs has been a growing area

of research in recent years, development of learning outcomes

and assessment of those outcomes received little attention.

This might be due to the legacy of educational assessment,

which tends to be one of pain and suffering—or at the very

least, inconvenience (Rutz and Lauer-Glebov 2005). Driven by

an accountability push by both internal and external constitu-

encies such as the accreditation agencies, state and federal

authorities, assessment requires measuring education as a set

of commodities delivered by an apparatus to paying customers

(see Urciouli, 2005, for a description and history, as well as an

argument against this trend). Difficulties in defining and tracking

quality control and customer satisfaction within the university

system make developing outcomes and assessing them even

more painful and more inconvenient (Rutz and Lauer-Glebov

2005). However, in recent years, federal and state legislatures

and accreditation agencies have been pushing higher education

institutions, particularly state-funded higher education, to de-

velop learning outcomes and measures to assess those learning

outcomes in order to protect public interest regarding the cost

and benefits of higher education (Urciouli, 2005).

Since the beginning of the 20th century, higher education

institutions and academics have been trying to determine what

the outcome of higher education is supposed to be (Urciouli,

2005). Like the rest of the higher education institutions, hos-

pitality schools have been trying to answer the same question.

Hospitality educators agree clear objectives for the curriculum

should be determined and those objectives should meet the

constantly changing needs of the industry in order to prepare

graduates for a successful career (Dopson and Tas 2004; Gursoy

and Swanger 2004, 2005). While some hospitality researchers

suggest operational issues such as working knowledge of prod-

uct/service are important for success in the industry (Kay and

Russette 2000), others suggest managerial and behavioral issues

such as interpersonal relations and managerial skills were more

important for success in the industry (Okeiyi, Finley, and Postel

1994). Others suggest these two approaches to curriculum should

be integrated in order to prepare students for a successful ca-

reer in the industry; the curriculum of hospitality schools should

not only train them to learn necessary skills to operate but also

enable them to gain a substantial knowledge on how to manage

(Dopson and Tas 2004). However, while many studies over the

years have looked at assessment and learning outcomes (Hartel,

2004; Pales, et al., 2004; Carey and Gregory, 2003; Amin and

Amin, 2003; Ewell, 1998; Wiggins, Winter 1996; Wiggins, Spring

1996; Wiggins, 1993; Cizek and Wiggins, 1991; Wiggins, 1989),

none has focused on the discipline of hospitality.

The general education literature suggests the aims of higher

education, in terms of desired learning outcomes, can be clas-

sified into subject-based, personal transferable, and generic

academic outcomes (Allan 1996). According to Allan (1996) the

subject-based outcomes are discipline specific and should reflect

the factors that are likely to prepare graduates for a successful

career. On the other hand, the personal transferable and the ge-

neric academic outcomes include widely applicable skills such as

critical thinking, use of information, teamwork, and communica-

tions skills. Allan’s (1996) view of the general purposes of higher

education is further supported by Atkins (1995). According to At-

kins (1995), the general purposes of higher education are: (1) to

provide a general educational experience of intrinsic worth in

its own right, (2) prepare students for the creation, application

and dissemination of knowledge, (3) prepare students for a spe-

cific profession, and (4) prepare them for general employment.

Tynjälä (1999) further divides these general aims into sub-com-

ponents. According to Tynjälä (1999), the purpose of general

educational experience is to develop students with a “trained

mind,” which includes development of critical thinking skills and

the ability to think conceptually to establish a base for lifelong

learning. Preparation of students for the creation, application,

and dissemination of knowledge includes obtaining the concep-

tual frameworks of the subject studied, thorough knowledge of

some aspects of the subject, an understanding of the subject’s

methods, and experience with knowledge creation. Preparation

for a specific profession involves integration of theoretical and

practical knowledge, development of skills such as interacting

with customers, delivering world class service, and an ability to

reflect on one’s own practice. Finally, preparation of students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

50 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

16 Volume 19, Number 2

for general employment covers the ability to reflect on and learn

from practical experiences, the development of communication

skills including oral presentation and report writing, and the

development of technical skills such as use of communications

technology and foreign languages.

Studies also suggest the success of any curriculum revision,

learning outcomes, and the assessment of those outcomes heav-

ily relies on how well it fits into the culture it was created (Rutz

and Lauer-Glebov 2005). A conflict between higher education

institutional learning outcomes and departmental learning out-

comes is likely to generate disastrous results for the department

and the students. Therefore, departmental learning outcomes

should reflect institutional values, vision, and expected out-

comes of the institution.

In short, the preceding discussion suggests learning out-

comes of a department should reflect the overall institutional

values, vision, and fit well into the institutional culture while

preparing students to develop skills, abilities, and knowledge

necessary for a successful career.

MethodologyThe purpose of this study was to identify the program learn-

ing outcomes for hospitality school students and to develop an

instrument to assess those learning outcomes to improve the

quality of the undergraduate learning experience. Doing so will

help ensure that students graduate with the necessary knowl-

edge, skills, and abilities deemed important for a successful

career in business and society. However, as discussed above, the

purpose of a university education is not only to gain knowledge

and application of management skills, but also to allow the

individual to better contribute to society. The university and

the specific department or school can assist the student to de-

velop structures and processes for life-long learning skills for a

more fulfilling life experience. The results from the assessment

process are likely to provide information that can be used to

determine whether or not intended outcomes are being achieved

and how the hospitality curriculum can be improved.

For this phase of the study, the outcomes were defined for

a hospitality program, which aligned with university learning

outcomes. Next, objectives for each of the program learning

outcomes were determined. Finally, an instrument was devel-

oped to assess student achievement on those program learning

outcomes at important stages in the program. These learning

outcomes, corresponding objectives, and assessment tools go

beyond the traditional course learning objectives and measuring

students’ learning by traditional course grades. It is true course

grades may be a satisfactory measure of student performance in

a specific course; however, it is only one source of information

about student achievement. A traditional course grade indicates

how much, and perhaps how well, an individual student has

learned the prescribed information being tested on that par-

ticular exam, but the grades, either singly or in combination,

do not necessarily reflect the role of that test in the context of

the overall departmental objectives for the hospitality major.

An assessment tool that measures a student’s learning through-

out his/her college career based on overall program outcomes

is likely to provide more accurate information about his/her

overall learning. In addition, the assessment tool proposed in

this study, which measures student learning based on overall

departmental outcomes and corresponding objectives is likely to

determine programmatic strengths and weaknesses.

outcomes for the Hospitality Program The overall department/program goals serve as the founda-

tion for assessment planning. Program assessment is intended to

provide information on how well students are performing rela-

tive to the outcomes established by the department/program.

Therefore, the first purpose of this study was to develop learning

outcomes for a hospitality school that is housed in an accredited

(AACSB, Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business)

college of business. A three-step approach was used to identify

the departmental learning outcomes:

Step 1: A survey of hospitality industry professionals was

conducted in order to determine the qualifications and com-

petencies desired from new hospitality business management

graduates. The survey instrument was developed using a four-

step procedure (Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 1991).

A self-administered survey questionnaire was mailed to

2,339 industry professionals, whose names and addresses were

retrieved from a database maintained by the hospitality school

involved in the study.

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were

used to report the rank order importance of the subject matter

and course content variables. Frequencies were used to report

the demographic profile data of the respondents. (Please see

Gursoy and Swanger 2004, 2005 for detailed discussions on the

methodology employed and results and findings of the first step).

Step 2: A hospitality industry panel was formed to assist the

hospitality program in determining the learning outcomes for the

major. The industry professionals presented their thoughts about

what the hospitality major’s learning outcomes should be during

a panel discussion. This group was made up of eight individuals

representing the broad segments of the hospitality industry—

lodging and foodservice.

The purposes of the first two stages were to 1.) Gather data

from a group of industry professionals from across the country to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

50 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

17Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Education

overcome sampling and generalizability limitations of previous

studies, and 2.) Fine tune the findings with an expert panel dis-

cussion. These included identifying the most important and least

important course subjects and course content items, as ranked

by industry professionals, for success in the industry and also an

analysis of the differences in the rankings between industry seg-

ments. The goal of this study was to then take those results and

assess the suggested curriculum model for the development of

program learning outcomes and the top-level performance crite-

ria for each outcome.

Step 3: Several discussions with the faculty members

were held to determine the most important competencies the

hospitality graduates should posses upon graduation. More

specifically, as related to this phase of the study, a series of

meetings were held with the research team, the faculty, and a

curriculum design consultant to incorporate the findings from

the industry survey into program learning outcomes. Based on

the discussions in these meetings, the research team proposed

a set of learning outcomes for the hospitality program. Each of

the proposed learning outcomes was discussed with the faculty

members. Based on the recommendations of the faculty, pro-

posed outcomes were revised and presented to the faculty for

final approval. After a lengthy discussion on each of the revised

program learning outcomes, they were approved by the faculty.

Program learning outcome objectivesAfter determining the learning outcomes, the objectives for

each of the learning outcomes were determined. The objectives

for each outcome were determined through discussions among

faculty members and industry experts. In addition, the Center

for Teaching, Learning, & Technology was consulted to assist the

hospitality program in developing and identifying the objectives

for each outcome. A group of faculty members, with the help of

the teaching and learning consultant from the Center for Teach-

ing, Learning, & Technology, determined the objectives and

developed an assessment instrument. Each of the objectives was

discussed with the faculty members and approved by them.

resultsBased on the findings from the previous phases of the

study (please see Gursoy and Swanger 2004, 2005 for detailed

discussions on the results and findings of the previous phases

of the study), and after a series of discussions with faculty

members, a set of program learning outcomes was developed

for the undergraduate hospitality core curriculum along with

an assessment tool to measure those learning outcomes. Those

program learning outcomes center on ten dimensions— indus-

try knowledge, diversity, global awareness, life-long learning,

technology, critical thinking, effective communication, ethical

leadership, teambuilding, and world-class service—and align

with the university’s vision, culture, and educational goals. The

university’s outcomes were developed in accordance with the

aforementioned federal and state legislation and accreditation

requirements. The university’s six educational goals (Office of

Undergraduate Education, 2005) state that baccalaureate gradu-

ates “will:

• Use knowledge of evidence and context to reason and reach

conclusions as well as to innovate in imaginative ways.

• Analyze and communicate appropriately with mathematical

and symbolic concepts.

• Use a disciplined and systematic approach to accessing,

evaluating, and using information.

• Write, speak, and listen to achieve intended and meaningful

understanding.

• Employ self-understanding and interact effectively with oth-

ers of similar and diverse cultures, values, perspectives, and

realities.

• Hone a specialty for the benefit of themselves, their com-

munities, their employers, and for society at large.”

After identifying the learning outcomes and associated ob-

jectives, a measurement instrument was developed to assess

them. The purpose of the assessment scoring form is to measure

student growth over time throughout their academic career.

Whether assessing the work of a first-semester freshman or a

graduating senior, the same scoring form will be used and stu-

dent progress will be documented along the way. Table 1 shows

the scoring form which includes each of the program learning

outcomes, along with the dimensions of the outcome to be as-

sessed.

Methods of assessment There are many ways of assessing whether students have

met learning outcomes and usually the best method is the

method that fits both the disciplinary context1 and the learn-

ing outcomes for the majors. Several programs/departments

use a capstone course that calls on students’ knowledge of the

discipline, as well as on their abilities to work in teams, to de-

velop creative solutions to problems; others collect portfolios

of student work and evaluate them. On the other hand, some

programs/departments require a performance of some kind that

demonstrates students’ understanding of concepts, methodology,

and critical thinking in the field. Many experts believe a combi-

1 The program learning outcomes are applicable in all of the follow-ing contexts: the discipline of hospitality, cultural/social diversity, educational, technological, global, political, economic, ethical, and personal experience.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

50 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

18 Volume 19, Number 2

Table 1

Hospitality Program assessment Scoring form

Scoring Form for Program Learning Outcomes

Paper/Presentation/Project Title:

Course:

Rater:

Faculty Administration Student Assessment Specialist Community Colleague Other: (clarify)

Dimensions of Hospitality Business Management Score

1. Demonstrates understanding of the hospitality industry, as a whole, and its various segments, in particular.

2. Demonstrates understanding and application of concepts of economics in hospitality business management.

3. Demonstrates understanding and application of concepts of marketing in hospitality business management.

4. Demonstrates understanding and application of concepts of accounting in hospitality business management.

5.Demonstrates understanding and application of concepts of management information systems in hospitality busi-

ness management.6. Demonstrates understanding and application of concepts of finance in hospitality business management.

7. Demonstrates understanding and application of concepts of management in hospitality business management.

8. Demonstrates understanding and application of concepts of law in hospitality business management.

9.Demonstrates understanding and application of concepts of human resource management in hospitality business

management.10. Demonstrates understanding and application of concepts of statistics in hospitality business management.

Dimensions of Critical Thinking Score

1. Identifies and summarizes the problem or question at issue.

2. Identifies and presents the student’s own perspective.

3. Identifies and considers other salient perspectives and positions.

4. Identifies and assesses the key assumptions.

5. Identifies and assesses the quality of supporting data/evidence.

6. Identifies and considers the influence of the context on the issue.

7. Identifies and assesses conclusions, implications, and consequences.

Dimensions of Effective Communication Score

1. Have effective, efficient, and persuasive presentation skills.

2. Displays professional presentation of self.

3. Demonstrates adequate planning and preparation.

4. Provides effective visual communication.

5. Presents clear structure and organization.

6. Effectively engages audience to communicate information.

7. Demonstrates mechanical accuracy.

8. Able to convey information through both writing and speaking.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

50 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

19Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Education

9. Has the ability to receive information through critical reading.

Dimensions of Ethical Leadership Score

1. Incorporates entrepreneurial thinking.

2. Models the traits of successful leaders to influence the behavior of others.

3. Appreciates diversity.

4. Demonstrates ethical awareness and behavior.

Dimensions of Teambuilding Score

1. Identifies appropriate tasks for developed strategic and tactical goals.

2. Assigns and aligns quality and quantity of work with stated goals.

3. Develops appropriate responsibility for tasks related to stated goals.

4. Able to understand and apply consequences to the performance required.

5. Builds interpersonal relationships within and across teams.

Dimensions of World-Class Service Score

1. Models world-class service practices for personal satisfaction and satisfaction of those served.

Dimensions of Global Perspective Score

1. Understands the importance of having a global perspective.

2. Demonstrates cross-cultural values.

3. Demonstrates environmental values.

Dimensions of Diversity Score

1. Appreciates differences, regardless of their origin.

2. Unites diverse personal identities based on a pluralistic set of values.

3.Builds relationships with people from different cultures, ethnic and historical backgrounds, social classes, genders,

abilities, and age cohorts. 4. Understands the differences among diverse cultures and backgrounds

Dimensions of Lifelong Learning Score

1. Demonstrates effective research and information management skills.

2.Demonstrates understanding of the continuing impact of societal, technological, governmental and economic

forces on their professional lives. 3. Demonstrates perseverance and learns from mistakes when self-directing life-long learning.

4. Demonstrates a willingness to update and upgrade skills.

5. Develops abilities to supplement knowledge learned in the classroom.

Dimensions of Technology Score

1. Able to retrieve and create information using technology.

2. Able to organize and analyze information using technology.

3. Able to disseminate and communicate information using technology..

Average Score

Comments:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

50 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

20 Volume 19, Number 2

nation of assessment approaches can be the most effective way

to measure student learning. Since the purpose of this study was

to develop and assess learning goals for a hospitality program,

this plan proposes that both the capstone course assessment and

the course-embedded assessment methods be used as assess-

ment tools. While not every learning outcome will be assessed in

every required course in the hospitality curriculum,2 each will

be assessed at each level (100-400) with all being assessed dur-

ing the capstone course.

Course-Embedded Assessment. Assessment practices em-

bedded in academic courses generate information about what

and how students are learning within the program and classroom

environment. Course-embedded assessment takes advantage of

already existing curricular offerings by using standardized data

instructors already collect or by introducing new assessment

measures into courses. The embedded methods most commonly

used involve the development and gathering of student data

based on questions placed in course assignments. These ques-

tions, intended to assess learning outcomes, are incorporated

or embedded into assignments, exams, and research reports in

courses at various levels. Two, or more, faculty members deter-

mine student progress toward achieving the learning outcomes

of the program. This assessment is a separate process from that

used by the course instructor to grade the assignment, exam, or

report.

There are a number of advantages to using course-em-

bedded assessment. First, student information gathered from

embedded assessment draws on accumulated educational expe-

riences and familiarity with specific areas or disciplines. Second,

embedded assessment often does not require additional time

for data collection, since instruments used to produce student-

learning information can be derived from course assignments

already planned as part of the requirements. Third, the presen-

tation of feedback to faculty and students can occur very quickly

creating a coherent environment for ongoing programmatic

improvement. Finally, course-embedded assessment is part of

the curricular structure and students have a tendency to respond

seriously to this method.

Capstone Course Assessment. Capstone courses integrate

knowledge, concepts, and skills associated with an entire se-

quence of study in a program. This method of assessment is

unique because the courses themselves become the instruments

for assessing student teaching and learning. Evaluation of stu-

dents’ work in these courses is used as a means of assessing

student outcomes. For academic units where a single capstone

course is not feasible or desirable, a department may designate

a small group of courses where competencies of completing ma-

2 Please note the Scoring Form can be modified by cutting and pasting to include only the relevant learning outcomes for a particular course.

jors will be measured.

Capstone courses provide students with a forum to combine

various aspects of their programmatic experiences. For depart-

ments and faculty, the courses provide a forum to assess student

achievement in a variety of knowledge and skills-based areas by

integrating their educational experiences. Also, these courses can

provide a final common experience for students in the discipline.

Measurement Scale A Likert-type scale will be used for measurement, with

points ranging from one to five—one representing Emerging, five

representing Mastery. While it is hoped that each student would

achieve a five on the various dimensions of each outcome upon

completion of coursework at the 400 or senior level, that may

not be an entirely realistic expectation. Conversely, students

just entering the program may only earn one’s or two’s at the

100 level, which would be deemed perfectly acceptable. How-

ever, a realistic expectation would be that each student shows

growth from the starting point to the ending point of his/her

academic career.

Continual feedbackAssessments will be conducted on each student through

required courses at each level of the hospitality program cur-

riculum—100, 200, 300, 400. The assessment scores for each

student will be tracked and compiled into an annual report for

monitoring purposes. This report will serve two purposes: 1) It

will provide data on individual student progress as each student

moves through the curriculum toward graduation; and 2) It will

provide data to the program administration and faculty on par-

ticular strengths or deficiencies within the curriculum. Proper

implementation of the prescribed assessment plan will allow for

continuous improvement of the program’s students and the pro-

gram itself.

The rationale for accomplishing this is to publicly dem-

onstrate how a hospitality program continuously improves its

teaching environment and enhances the student learning experi-

ence. A major premise of the proposed assessment plan is that

both students and the faculty are responsible for learning and

the vision of the hospitality program is to educate students to be

well-rounded hospitality business managers.

discussionWith accrediting agencies emphasizing the need for as-

sessment in higher education at all levels, it is imperative that

program curriculum be studied and aligned to meet the needs

of identified stakeholders on an on-going basis. In recent years,

national organizations and agencies, and some state legislatures,

have been among those demanding more visible accountability

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

50 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

21Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Education

and concrete verification that fiscal and human resources in-

vested in educational institutions are being used in ways that

result in high quality education. The proposed plan addresses

the issues and concerns raised by the external constituencies.

In addition, utilization of the proposed plan is likely to enable

hospitality schools to publicly demonstrate how a hospitality

program continuously improves its teaching environment and

enhances the student learning experience.

Even though the hospitality industry consists of many di-

verse segments such as lodging, foodservice, gaming, consulting,

and others, program learning outcomes identified in this study

are important to all segments. To better prepare hospitality

students for the industry, assessment of students’ performance

using the proposed measurement instrument at each stage of

their undergraduate education is likely to enable administrators

to identify the areas where the program excels and areas that

need improvement. This process is necessary to ensure growth

is occurring and that learning outcomes are mastered upon

completion. As this could be an overwhelming feat to fully im-

plement, it is suggested that only a few outcomes be chosen and

assessed to start, gradually increasing the number of outcomes

assessed. As an example, the proposed assessment tool can be

used to evaluate critical thinking and effective communications

first. Regardless of the specifics of particular assignments, the

same assessment criteria can be used to evaluate those goals

in all classes at all levels in the hospitality curriculum. Student

progress on those learning goals can be tracked throughout their

education to ensure growth. While this piece is critical to fulfill-

ing accreditation requirements, perhaps more importantly, it

provides students with clearly defined benchmarks for perfor-

mance from day one for the duration of their studies within the

program.

In addition, future research to design learning outcomes for

each required course in the program, along with their own set of

performance rubrics, must also be conducted.

referencesAllan, J. (1996). Learning Outcomes in Higher Education. Studies in

Higher Education 21, 93–108.

Amin, M. & Amin, N. (2003). Benchmarking Learning Outcomes of Undergraduate Business Education. Benchmarking, 10 (6): 538-558.

Atkins, M. (1995). What Should We Be Assessing. In: Knight, P. Editor, 1995. Assessment for Learning in Higher Education Kogan Page, London, pp. 25–33.

Baum, T. (1991). The U.S. and the U.K.: Comparing Expectations of Management Trainees. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 32 (2): 79-84.

Burbidge, D. J. (1994). Student Perception of Preparation for Success: A View from Europe. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Educators, 6 (4): 45-50.

Carey, J. & Gregory, V. (2003). Toward Improving Student Learning: Policy

Issues and Design Structures in Course-Level Outcomes Assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (3): 215.

Cizek, G. & Wiggins, G. (1991). Innovation or Enervation? Performance Assessment in Perspective. Phi Delta Kappan, 72 (9): 695-699.

Christou, E. (2002). Revisiting Competencies for Hospitality Management: Contemporary Views of the Stakeholders. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 14 (1), 25-32.

Churchill, G. A. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measure of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Applied Social Research Method Series, Vol. 26. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dopson, L. R. & Tas, R. F. (2004). A Practical Approach to Curriculum Development: A Case Study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 16 (1), 39-46.

Dopson, L.R. & Nelson, A.A. (2003). Future of Hotel Education: Required Program Content Areas for Graduates of U. S. Hospitality Programs Beyond the Year 2000 – Part Two. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 15 (3): 11-17.

Erdogan, B. Z. & Tagg, S. (2003). The Advertising Agency Manager’s Response Patterns to a Mail Survey and Follow-Ups. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21 (6), 392-399.

Ewell, P. (1998). National Trends in Assessing Student Learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 87 (2): 107-113.

Gursoy, D. & Swanger, N. (2004). An Industry-Driven Model of Hospitality Curriculum for Programs Housed in Accredited Colleges of Business.

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 16 (4): 13-20.

Gursoy, D. & Swanger, N. (2005). An Industry-Driven Model of Hospitality Curriculum for Programs Housed in Accredited Colleges of Business – Part II. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 17 (2): 46-56.

Gursoy, D. and Swanger, N. (in press). Performance-Enhancing Internal Strategic Factors: Impacts on Financial Success, International Journal of Hospitality Management.

Hartel, R. (2004). Making the Transition to Outcomes-Based Instruction. Journal of Food Science, 69 (3): 96.

Kay, C and Russette, J. (2000). Hospitality-Management Competencies. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(2), 52-63.

Keegan, S. N. & Lucas, R. (In Press). Hospitality to Hostility: Dealing with Low Response Rates in Postal Surveys. International Journal of Hospitality Management.

Knutson, B.J. & Patton, M.E. (1992). “How Prepared Am I to Succeed in the Hospitality Industry?” What The Students Are Telling Us. Hospitality and Tourism Educator, 4 (3): 38-43.

Li, L. & Kivela, J. (1988). Different Perceptions Between Hotel Managers and Students Regarding Levels of Competency Demonstrated by Hospitality Degree Graduates. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 5 (2), 47-54.

Nelson, A. & Dopson, L. (2001). Future of Hotel Education: Required Skills and Knowledge for Graduates of U.S. Hospitality Programs Beyond the Year 2000 – Part I. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 13 (5), 58-67.

Office of Undergraduate Education (2005). [On-line]. Six Learning Goals. Available Internet: https://my.wsu.edu/portal/page?_page-id=142,64698&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL. Accessed on September 23, 2005.

Okeiyi, E., Finley, D. and Postel, R. T. (1994). Food and Beverage

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

50 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

22 Volume 19, Number 2

Management Competencies: Educator, Industry, and Student Perspectives. Hospitality and Tourism Educator, 6(4), 37-40.

Pales, J., Cardellach, F., Estrach, M., Gomar, C. (2004). Defining the Learning Outcomes of Graduates From the Medical School at the University of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). Medical Teacher, 26 (3): 239.

Paxon, M. C. (1992). Follow-Up Mail Surveys. Industrial Marketing Management, 21 (3), 195-201.

Rutz, C. and Lauer-Glebov, J. (2005). Assessment and Innovation: One Darn Thing Leads to Another, Assessing Writing, 10 (2), 80-99

Tanner, J. F. (1999). Organizational Buying Theories: A Bridge to Relationships Theory. Industrial Marketing Management, 28, 245-255.

Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards Expert Knowledge? A Comparison Between Constructivist and a Traditional Learning Environment in the University. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 357-442.

Tas, R. F., LaBrecque, S. V., and Clayton, H. R. (1996). Property-

Management Competencies for Management Trainees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 90-96.

Tas, R., (1988). Teaching Future Managers. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, 29 (2), 41-43.

Urciouli, B. (2005). The Language of Higher Education Assessment: Legislative Concerns in a Global Context. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 183-204.

Wallace, D. (1954). A Case For-and Against-Mail Questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly, 18 (1), 40-52.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Accountability, Testing, and Schools: Toward Local Responsibility and Away From Change by Mandate. Business Horizons, 36 (5): 13-23.

Wiggins, G. (Winter 1996). Embracing Accountability. New Schools, New Communities, 12 (2): 4-10.

Wiggins, G. (Spring 1996). Anchoring Assessment with Exemplars: Why Students and Teachers Need Models. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 (2): 66-67.

Wiggins, G. (1989). A True Test: Toward More Authentic and Equitable Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70 (9): 703-713.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

50 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014