Critically evaluate how and in what ways you can be enterprising in the career you aspire to achieve.
This is an open assessment task which should be equivalent to 2,000 words. By ‘open’ we mean that you can discuss with your tutor the exact nature of your assessment format (method and structure). Please note that assignments submitted in the format of a report or essay WILL NOT be accepted as you are encouraged to be enterprising within this assignment by exploring an alternative approach to written work.
Some examples of work which can be submitted are:
• a PowerPoint presentation with an ‘integrated’ voice over
• diagrams and flowcharts with annotations
• ‘mind maps’ and/or cartoons with accompanying commentary
• a series of linked documents (Word, PowerPoint, etc) joined up with an ‘overview’ document providing the narrative
• a video
• a screencast
• a series of electronic posters
• an infographic
Particular instructions to students:
Your report should include:
• Outline of career aspirations including rationale for choice
• Analysis of why this choice is preferred given alternative options
• Critical evaluation of suitability for chosen career
• Critical evaluation of how and in what ways you can be enterprising within your chosen career
• Clear and justified plan of action to assist job hunting and identify ways in which you can employ enterprise skills upon embarking on your chosen career
Weighted Assessment Criteria:
Your task will be graded against the following weighted criteria;
• Knowledge and understanding of the key concepts of entrepreneurship and innovation (25%)
• Use of resources to support arguments and discussions (25%)
• Use of analytical frameworks to support the analysis presented (25%)
• Evidence of introspection and PPDP (25%)
Study Skills Support
Study skills support for this assessment will be provided throughout the lectures and seminar sessions. It is imperative that you engage in these sessions, the directed tasks / readings and wider reading of the subject area. There are specific assessment seminars / workshops (see schedule above) which take place during semesters 2 to support students with preparing for this assignment.
Feedback & Feed-forward Strategy and how students can access their Feedback
Students will be provided with feedback in the following ways;
• Individuals will receive continual feedback on understanding through group and individual discussions and through applying knowledge.
• There will be opportunities every week during the first and second semester seminars to ask your tutor questions about the assessment;
• Sessions / workshops will be provided in semester two with a focus on preparing for the assignment;
Assessment Criteria – Task 2
Module Title: Enterprise for Hospitality and Tourism Professionals Level 6
Assessment Title: Open Format Assessment Weighted: 40%
Criteria Demonstrates critical knowledge and understanding of key concepts including the nature of enterprise, entrepreneurship and innovation within the hospitality and tourism industries (25%) Use of resources to support the analysis presented (25%) Ability to draw upon analytical frameworks to support discussion regarding suitability for chosen hospitality or tourism career (25%) Evidence of introspection throughout resulting in a clear set of action points for future personal and professional development (25%)
80 – 100% Outstanding Work Exceptional knowledge and in-depth understanding of principles and concepts Extensive evidence of integrating appropriate supplementary sources Extensive evidence of relevant and perceptive application of theory, and/or empirical results where applicable Holistic sense of critical reflection
70 – 79%
Excellent Work Excellent knowledge and in-depth understanding of principles and concepts Evidence of extensive reading of supplementary sources Clear evidence of relevant application of theory, and/or empirical results where applicable Excellent sense of critical reflection
60 – 69%
Very Good Work Comprehensive knowledge and in-depth understanding of principles and concepts Evidence of reading a range of supplementary sources Very good evidence of relevant application of theory, and/or empirical results where applicable A very good sense of critical reflection
50 – 59%
Good Work Appropriate knowledge and understanding of principles and concepts Evidence of reading directed reading and some supplementary sources Occasional relevant application of theory, and/or empirical results where applicable A good sense of critical reflection
40 – 49%
Acceptable Work Basic knowledge of key principles and concepts only Evidence of basic reading only Limited evidence of relevant application of theory, and/or empirical results An acceptable sense of critical reflection
Marginal Fail Limited and/or superficial knowledge of key principles and concepts Minimal evidence of reading No evidence of relevant application of theory, and/or empirical results A poor sense of critical reflection
Fail Insufficient evidence of key principles and concepts Little or no evidence of reading No evidence of relevant application of theory, and/or empirical results No evidence of critical reflection
1. Presentation 2. To break down current propensities in Russian varying media interpretation and subtitling in the Russian setting; 3. The idea and elements of Discourse Markers (Well, you know and I mean) in English 4. To construct the corpora and perceive how the Discourse markers 'well', 'you know ' and 'I signify' work in subtitles ( their specifics and capacities) (in the Big Bang hypothesis ( season 1-3)); The Use of the Discourse Markers 'Well', 'You know' and 'I signify' in subtitles and their Russian Translation (in the American TV demonstrate 'The Big Bang Theory'). Setting 1. Introduction 2. The state and improvement of varying media interpretation in the Russian setting. 2.1. The history of Russian film interpretation. 2.2. Film subtitling in Russia. 3. The thought and elements of Discourse Markers in English 3.1. Basic qualities and the utilization of "Well" 3.2. The utilization of "You know" and "I signify" 4. Interpretation methodologies of "You know", "Well" and "I signify" into Russian in the TV arrangement Big Bang Theory. Presentation In this examination paper, I endeavor to exhibit the utilization of Discourse Markers (from now on DMs) "Well", "You know" and "I signify" in subtitles and their Russian counterparts. I will likewise give a knowledge into the historical backdrop of Russian film interpretation and subtitling. With the procedure of globalization and the expanding quantities of outside film creation in Russia, varying media interpretation has turned out to be one of the need thinks about. This point is of current intrigue in light of the fact that the varying media interpretation is a cutting edge subject, it seemed just in the Twentieth century. These days remote, predominantly Western, film-and video items take the greatest piece of the Russian film advertise. American movies and TV arrangement are winding up more mainstream, so there is a need of conveying a quality interpretation to Russian watchers. This is a critical issue, as the quantity of individuals who talk an outside dialect isn't high, however there are increasingly film items that should be interpreted. The most mainstream kind of the AVT in Russia and in Eastern Europe is naming while in Europe, particularly in nations with a few authority dialects, it is subtitling. Subtitling is ending up more utilized as a part of Russia, particularly among English students, that is the reason I will center around this sort of the AVT. The investigation of talk markers has been pulling in a developing number of language specialists. In spite of the fact that there is no efficient examination of the talk markers particularly with regards to subtitling. Talk markers assume a major part in passing on the importance of the expression. Regardless of whether the DMs are believed to be 'good for nothing' as without them the expression has a similar essential significance, these phonetic gadgets can be utilized to oblige the articulation's understanding. The DMs give relevant directions which help in the creation and translation of sound discussion at both nearby and worldwide levels of association (Schiffrin 1988). Etymologists have been focusing on the efficient, semantic and down to earth elements of the distinctive DMs in view of various materials. Brinton (1996) brings up the two utilizations of the DM "well" from the point of view of conversational examination, those of qualifier and casing. Ostman considers the DM you know as down to business molecule. Schiffrin (1987) claims that each DM with the exception of goodness and well has a center importance and contends that a DM has an indexical capacity that can give the logical directions to the specific expression. Fraser (1993) finishes up from the aftereffects of his exploration that DMs have a center importance which isn't reasonable however procedural; their more particular understandings are "consulted by the specific circumstance, both of which are semantic and calculated." According to Blakemore, DMs ought to be examined that how they work as imperatives to the setting from the viewpoint of phonetics, inferring that articulations with same suggestion can have distinctive relevant significance using diverse DMs. The selection of DMs well, I mean and you know for this work is affected by an assortment of reasons. As a matter of first importance, these DMs and their relevant and additional logical highlights have not been contemplated legitimately with regards to subtitling. Also, these DMs are generally utilized as a part of a talked dialect, that is the reason I will endeavor to examine them with regards to the TV arrangement 'The Big Bang Theory'. 'The Big Bang Theory' is an American situational drama on the CBS Network, which portrays the lives of two skilled researchers and their companions. It mirrors the genuine existences of American individuals and contemporary oral English, as in the TV demonstrate the exchanges are as near genuine unconstrained dialect as could reasonably be expected. The primary reason for this work is to investigate the DMs "Well", "You know" and "I signify" in subtitles and to give cases of interpretation into Russian. In like manner, the reason expresses the goals that should be thought about: 1. To break down current inclinations in Russian varying media interpretation; 2. To take a gander at subtitling in the Russian setting; 3. To perceive how the Discourse markers well, you know and I mean work in subtitles and their specifics; 4. To form the corpora; 5. To take a gander at the ways these DMs are exhibited in Russian subtitles; 6. Classification of interpretation systems of the DMs. Book index that can be utilized  A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv (eds.). 1998. Pragmatics and Beyond (No. 57): Discourse Markers [C). John Benjamins.  Blackmore, Danie. 1992. Understanding Utterances. [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.  Blackmore, Danie. 2002. Pertinence and Linguistic Meaning: the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Even minded Markers. [J]. Diary ofPragmatics. (6): 167-190.  Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are Discourse Markers? [J). Diary ofPragmatics. (31): 931-952.  Grice, H.P. 1989. Concentrates in the Way of Words. [M].Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.  Halliday, M.A.K. furthermore, R. Hasan. 1976. Union in English. [M] London: Longman. 47-52.
 He, A.W. and Lindsey, B. 1998. You Know as an Information Status Enhancing Devices: Arguments from Language structure and Interaction. [J]. Capacities ofLanguage. (5): 133-155.  http://www.dioenglish.com/wiki/index.php?edition-see 7457-I .  http://www.icoolen.com/film_veido/bigbang_s1eO1. [1 I ] Lenk, Uta. 1998. Talk Markers and Global Coherence in Conversation. [J]. Diary o f Pragmatics, (30): 245-257. (12) Levionson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. [MJ. Cambridge University Press. 34-55.
 Redeker, G. 1991. Survey Article: Linguistic Markers of Discourse Structure. [J]. Semantics. (29): 1139-1172.  Rouchota, V. 1998. Procedural Meaning and Parenthetical Discourse Markers. In Jucker, A.H. and Ziv. Y. (eds). Talk Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Banjamins. 97-126. [ 15] Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Talk Markers. [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Schiffrin. Deborah. 2001. Talk Markers: Language, Meaning and Context. In Schiffrin, D. and D. Tannen (ed.). The Handbook ofDiscourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. 54-68. (17] Schourup, L. Talk Markers: Tutorial outline. Lingua 1999, (107): 227-238.
 Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986. Importance: Communication and Cognition (1 release) [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
 Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Importance: Communication and Cognition (second version) [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[20) Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2004. Importance Theory. [MJ. In L. Hom and G. Ward (eds.). Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
 Van Dijk, TeunA. 1979. Down to business Connectives. [J]. Diary ofPragmatics. (31): 447-456.  Verchueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. [M). London: Edward Arnold Limited.>GET ANSWER