ABSTRACT
The primary purpose of this study was to determine how the current hospitality management curriculum at The International Hotel School contributes to students’ preparedness from their own perspectives.
Generic and curriculum specific skills that can be used for curriculum evaluation were identified, a framework of curriculum variables to rate the level of student preparedness was developed, the effectiveness of the hospitality management curriculum from the perspectives of students’ perceptions of preparedness was analysed, and the aspects that contribute most to student preparedness were identified through a literature study and an empirical investigation.
The findings were summarised and it was recommended that The International Hotel School needs to review the hotel and restaurant accounting course and the experiential learning components. Furthermore, lecturers of The International Hotel School should receive training on the implementation of more interactive course content delivery methods.
Key terms:
Curriculum evaluation; Hospitality Management; Student perceptions; Career preparedness; Generic skills; Curriculum specific skills; Concentration areas skills; Framework of curriculum variables; Experiential learning; Interactive course content delivery.
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | ||
| Page | ||
| DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT | ii iii iv | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES | vi x | |
| LIST OF FIGURES | xii |
CHAPTER 1 ORIENTATION
- INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE 1
- DEMARCATION OF THE RESEARCH 7
- Third year students 7
- AN OVERVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 8
- Overview of the hospitality industry 9
- Skills gaps in the hospitality chamber 10
- DEMARCATION OF THE RESEARCH 7
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE STUDY
22
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
SYNOPSIS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
| BIBLIOGRAPHY | 94 | |
| ANNEXURE A | RANKING OF SKILLS AREAS BY MEAN | 110 |
| ANNEXURE B | QUESTIONNAIRE | 112 |
| ANNEXURE C | CODING OF OPEN-ENDED QUESTION RESPONSES | 119 |
ANNEXURE D PERMISSION FROM THE INTERNATIONAL HOTEL SCHOOL
123
| LIST OF TABLES | ||
| Page | ||
| TABLE 1.1 | Organisation of the hospitality sector as per THETA sector skills | |
| Report 2010/11 | 10 | |
| TABLE 2.1 | Curriculum variables, skills areas, courses, and descriptions | 31 |
| TABLE 3.1 | The key features of the two main research method approaches | 50 |
| TABLE 3.2 | Summary of the key features of the two main research method | |
| approaches | 51 | |
| TABLE 3.3 | Motivation for the decision on quantitative research | 52 |
| TABLE 4.1 | Respondents’ demographic profile | 68 |
| TABLE 4.2 | Ranking of hospitality functional areas | 69 |
| TABLE 4.3 | Ranking of hospitality concentration/emphasis areas | 70 |
| TABLE 4.4 | Level of preparedness to work in the industry | 71 |
| TABLE 4.5 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum of the hospitality programme | ||
| 71 | ||
| TABLE 4.6 | Quality of education/training in current programme | 71 |
| TABLE 4.7 | Value of current programme | 71 |
| TABLE 4.8 | Likelihood of recommending this hospitality programme | 72 |
TABLE 4.9 Students’ overall evaluations of the hospitality management programme
72
TABLE 4.10 Results of multiple regression analysis for generic skills 73
TABLE 4.11 Results of multiple regression for hospitality specific skills 76
TABLE 4.12 Results of t-test between students who are currently working in the industry and students who are not currently working in
the industry 78
| LIST OF FIGURES | ||
| Page | ||
| FIGURE 2.1 | A framework for measuring students’ preparedness | 42 |
| FIGURE 2.2 | Key elements which belong to generic skills | 42 |
| FIGURE 2.3 | Key elements which belong to curriculum related skills | 43 |
| FIGURE 2.4 | Breakdown of functional areas | 44 |
| FIGURE 2.5 | Breakdown of concentration areas | 45 |
| FIGURE 4.1 | Model for regression analysis of hospitality specific skills | 75 |
CHAPTER 1
ORIENTATION
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
The purpose of this study is to analyse and assess how hospitality training programmes help students to prepare for their future careers within the hospitality sector. More specifically, taking into account that this is a dissertation of limited scope, the study aims to determine how the current hospitality curriculum at the International Hotel School contributes to students’ preparedness from their own perspectives.
The Department of Trade and Industry reported that tourism in South Africa has been identified as an immediate priority sector within the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative (JIPSA). The rationale for this priority on the tourism sector is that it has been identified as one of the key economic sectors with great potential for growth (Department of Trade and Industry, 2008:22). It is estimated that for every twelve new tourists to South Africa, a new job is created and by 2010 the country planned to accommodate ten million foreign visitors annually (THETA Sector Skills Plan, 2010/2011:9).
The tourism sector of the South African economy, as it is with the rest of the world, is one of the most diverse and varied. It includes all the business and leisure activities as listed below:
- Accommodation
- Conferencing
- Conservation
- Conventions
- Entertainment
- Event hosting
- Exhibitions
- Gaming
- Conferencing
- Guiding
- Hospitality
- Safaris
- Sightseeing
- Spas
- Tours
- Travel
- Transportation
- Hospitality
(THETA Sector Skills Plan, 2010/11)
The economies of countries such as Egypt, Greece, Mauritius, Seychelles, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and cities such as Dubai and Las Vegas, rely heavily on the revenue generated from their tourism activities (Boyatzis, 1995:69).
Since the first democratic elections, in 1994, the South African government has realised the value of developing and harnessing the benefits and income of its tourism sector. Tourism is the only sector of the economy which has successfully increased the number of employment opportunities generated by its activities, in addition to increasing its contribution to the Gross Domestic Product of the country (Scriven, 2008:18).
However, for South Africa and its tourism sector to be able to continue to achieve this growth and realise its potential, requires skilled people to fill the newly created employment opportunities and to provide tourists and travellers with the goods and the services that they require (SA Tourism, 2008:8).
The skilling of the current and future employees within the tourism sector, fall under the mandate of the Tourism, Hospitality and Sport Education and Training Authority (THETA) (Education Sector Strategic Plan, 2004 – 2015:23). THETA was established under the Skills Department Act (No. 97 of 1998) for the tourism economic sector and its main function was, and still is, the raising of skills of those employed or wanting to be employed in this sector (THETA Sector Skills Plan, 2010/11:6). THETA underwent a name change at the beginning of 2010 and is now
referred to as CATHSSETA which stands for Culture, Arts, Tourism, Hospitality and Sport Sector Education and Training Authority ).
Baum (1991:3) argues that there can be several factors accountable for the increasing emphasis on the service industry such as technology enhancements, customers diverse needs, more choices available for customers, and the sky- rocketing competition amongst companies. Consequently, it has become more challenging to keep up with the changing patterns of consumers’ needs and expectations (Baum, 1991:3). As one of the core segments of the service industry, the hospitality sector has experienced the same challenges as others, in maintaining a skilled and qualified work-force able to cope with the current challenges and to cater for the changing needs of today’s customers (Christou, 2003:31).
As an applied discipline, hospitality education has a close and strong link with its industry, enabling hospitality students to be educated whilst keeping abreast with the current industry trends. However, the shortage of a skilled and specialised labour force has been an ongoing issue within the hospitality sector (Goodman,Sprague & Jones, 1991:66). The growing demand for hospitality workers and the shortage of skilled specialised labour may be translated into a growing demand for hospitality education programmes to adequately prepare the workforce to meet present and future demands within this enormous industry (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2009:109).
Reigel (1995:20) defines hospitality education as “a multi-disciplinary field”, which brings the perspectives of many disciplines, especially those found in social sciences, to bear on particular areas of application and practice in the hospitality and tourism sectors. Riegel continues to mention that the diverse field requirements have given rise to different types of specialised programmes through which students are able to learn their multi-disciplinary skills, in order to succeed in this industry. According to Darraugh (1989:21), hospitality programmes throughout the world are able to be uniquely administered, based on where they are housed. Darraugh continues to say that the programmes are housed in business, education, human ecology, and consumer science and that they are quite different in the type of concentration areas they offer. As a result of these complications, it is very
challenging to come up with consistent curriculum evaluation and programme ranking in this field, which is very evident in the existing literature (Christou, 2003:29).
Hospitality education has been a widely studied area as is the area of hospitality curriculum evaluation (Dopson & Tas, 2004:39). Lowry and Flohr (2005:28) describe the hospitality sector to be service oriented resulting in most hospitality programmes putting more weight on industry expectations and opinions, as opposed to the providers’ and students’ preferences. Swanger (2007:14) supports this statement and continues by mentioning that this results in most of the relevant hospitality curriculum studies being overly focused on the employer’s perspective, with very few focusing on the actual providers and recipients of the education. Often employers (i.e. industry practitioners) lack the adequate knowledge to rationally assess hospitality curricula (Cappel & Kamens, 2002:467). Students and faculty members, on the other hand, are able to rationally assess the hospitality programmes with regards to how well they contribute to students’ preparedness for their anticipated future hospitality careers (Swanger & Gursay, 2007:21).
It is often stressed that some level of industry involvement is important in hospitality curriculum evaluation as hospitality education is heavily linked to the industry (Dopson & Tas, 2004:40). This issue is addressed by including industry experience as a prime requirement for jobs in the hospitality academic world (Kieser, Lawrence & Appleton, 2004:29). Knutson and Patton (1992:38) argue that in this regard, the educators are in a better position to evaluate the curriculum as they are able to interpret both sides of the coin, namely the academic side and the industry side. Swanger and Gursay (2007:17) however, mention that faculty members may, in addition, lack specific knowledge of the curriculum outside the scope of their teaching emphasis, and thus might not accurately judge the student preparedness outside of their own areas of expertise. More so, the level of the faculty members’ judgement within their own area, may be highly biased, and may not be a true reflection of student preparedness, even though they are the ones who are delivering the learning to the students (Swanger & Gursay, 2007:17). Lowry and Flohr (2005:34) state that students, on the other hand, are best able to judge their own level of preparedness as they are the ones who are going through the process of learning, which is part of the curriculum. Faculty members are therefore only able to judge certain generic and
fundamental skills of the students and definitely not the specific skills and their appropriateness in career preparedness as taught in the curriculum (Lowry & Flohr, 2005:35). Thus, curriculum evaluation in hospitality education should involve both the perspectives of the students, and the knowledge of the providers, who are experts in both industry and academics (English & Kaufman, 1975:112).
