AIM University Group

Learning Outcome 1: REFERRED

AC 1.1 – Knowledge of key terminology and theories
Result: REFERRED
Shanoya, your submission shows a basic awareness of some key terms within tourism and hospitality, including the Silk Road, the Grand Tour, wide-body aircraft, the Boeing 747, airline alliances, low-cost carriers, online booking, mobile technology, and AI customer service. However, the way these terms are used across your responses suggests familiarity rather than understanding. In Q1, you mention the Silk Road and cultural sharing, but you do not explain what the Silk Road was, what it connected, or what specific hospitality services it gave rise to. In Q2, your response describes the Grand Tour as a trip for youths to shape modern luxury travel and study abroad, but you do not define it clearly as the practice of wealthy young European men travelling for educational and cultural enrichment, and you do not provide any historical context. In Q3, you correctly name the Boeing 747 and airline alliances, but your explanation remains brief and does not demonstrate a secure command of what these terms mean in the context of tourism growth. Across the paper, terminology is present but not sufficiently defined or applied with enough precision to fully meet this criterion. To achieve a pass on resubmission, you need to clearly define each key term before applying it, and demonstrate that you understand what it means, not just that you have heard it.

AC 1.2 – Analysis and application of concepts to real-world scenarios
Result: REFERRED
Shanoya, your responses across both sections of the paper are largely descriptive and do not yet demonstrate the level of analysis and application required to meet this criterion. In Q1, you state that the Silk Road boosted tourism through cultural sharing and infrastructure, but you do not explain how this happened or what specific developments it led to, such as the emergence of caravanserais, inns, or early hospitality services. In Q2, you mention that the Grand Tour shaped modern luxury travel and study abroad programmes, which is a relevant connection, but your explanation is too brief to demonstrate real analytical understanding of how the Grand Tour influenced the hospitality industry or modern educational tourism. In Q3, you correctly note that the Boeing 747 carried more people and reduced ticket prices, and that airline alliances made travel faster and smoother, and you make a reasonable connection to tourist growth — this is one of the stronger responses in your paper. However, you do not discuss the wider impact on globalisation or the structure of the modern tourism industry. In Q4, your two examples of online booking and AI customer service are relevant, but both are explained only at a surface level without exploring how they have specifically changed traveller behaviour or industry operations. In Q5, you identify benefits such as price comparison and speed, and challenges such as overcrowding, higher costs, and AI limitations, which shows some awareness, but the analysis is shallow and the challenges identified are not always well connected to the technology being discussed. In Q6, your response is brief and while it correctly links cheaper flights to tourism growth and cultural exposure, it does not explore broader economic or social impacts. Your Section B essay covers the right historical areas — trade routes, the Industrial Revolution, aviation, and technology — and there is a basic narrative thread, but it reads as a descriptive summary rather than a critical analysis, with no clear cause-and-effect reasoning explaining how each development shaped the industry we see today. For your resubmission, focus on moving beyond what happened and explaining how and why, using specific industry examples to support your points throughout.

AC 1.3 – Class participation and discussion contributions | PASS

Learning Outcome 2: Incomplete
No Submission

Learning Outcome 3: REFERRED

AC 3.1 — Referred
Shanoya, your Question 1 definitions are present but underdeveloped. Your guesthouse definition is the strongest, correctly identifying it as small, local, and linked to Pelican Cay's existing accommodation. However, the remaining definitions that appear in the submission are very brief and surface-level, and critically, there is no evidence of the required five terms being fully addressed — the submission appears to begin mid-paper, so if definitions for terms such as DMO, tour operator, culinary tourism, and carrying capacity are missing or incomplete, significant marks will have been lost here. Examples are sparse or absent across the definitions that are visible. AC 3.1 cannot be passed on the basis of what has been submitted.

AC 3.2 — Referred
Your Question 2(a) identifies the correct core problem — the airport can only handle small planes, limiting visitor numbers — but the analysis is thin. The consequence is stated rather than explained, and the practical action proposed (government offering subsidies to attract another airline for limited flights) is vague and does not address the structural issue of the runway itself. The second consequence regarding internal roads is identified and a solution offered (build roads or provide transport), but again the depth is minimal. Your Question 2(b) distinction between travel agencies and tour operators is accurate at a basic level — a travel agency sells travel while a tour operator creates and sells complete packages — and you make a reasonable point that a tour operator could help Pelican Cay by promoting it and turning its existing attractions into simple tours. However, the response lacks development and does not demonstrate a clear understanding of the wholesaler-retailer relationship or how these intermediaries work together. AC 3.2 is not passed.

AC 3.3 — Referred
Your Question 3(a) offers two experiences — a beach development with local food and chill spots, and a waterfall hike guided by locals — both of which are reasonable ideas applied to Pelican Cay. However, neither is developed with sufficient detail, sensory description, or a clearly identified and justified target market. Simply stating that travellers would choose Pelican Cay for its peacefulness is not enough to demonstrate understanding of market segmentation. Your Question 3(b) homestay recommendation is your strongest response in this section. You correctly argue that low-cost family homestays are appropriate given the island's limited infrastructure and 30-room guesthouse capacity, link the recommendation to the government's community benefit goal, and note that homestays allow gradual tourism development without large financial investment. This shows genuine understanding of the case study context. Your Question 4 comparisons are accurate at a basic level — tour operators create packages while travel agencies sell them, and resorts offer full amenities while guesthouses are simpler and more personal — but both comparisons lack the depth and Pelican Cay application needed to score well. Your Question 5 response addresses all three sectors, which is a positive, but each is treated superficially. Travel correctly identifies the need to pave the runway; tourism recommends developing the rainforest, fish market, and rum distillery into experiences; hospitality recommends expanding through small locally owned guesthouses or homestays and links poor accommodation to negative reviews. The logic is sound but underdeveloped throughout, with no systems integration or discussion of how the sectors depend on each other. AC 3.3 is not passed.

Learning Outcome 4: PASS

AC 4.1 — Q1(a) and Q1(b) | Pass
Shanoya, you identified three relevant service principles and applied them to the Coral Bay case, but communication and empathy were blended into a single idea rather than developed as distinct concepts, and each principle needed fuller explanation before moving into the case. Your corrective actions were appropriate but too brief. In Q1(b), you correctly identified both the agent's and management's transactional mindsets and proposed customer-centric alternatives, though the two decisions needed clearer separation and more discussion of the long-term consequences of a transactional culture.

AC 4.2 — Q2(a) and Q2(b) | Pass
You defined personalisation and customisation correctly and proposed three practical touchpoints, but the guest experience perspective was underdeveloped — you described what the hotel would do without explaining how each action would make the guest feel recognised, valued, and in control. Your Q2(b) evaluation was one of the stronger sections of your paper. You correctly framed Carnival as predictable, critiqued the manager's reactive attitude, and proposed a seasonal peak planning system with adjusted staffing and stock. More specific operational controls such as room allocation audits and escalation procedures would have strengthened this further.

AC 4.3 — Q3(a), Q3(b), and Q4 | Pass
You identified all three communication failures correctly and clearly — verbal in Incident A, non-verbal in Incident B, and written in Incident C — with appropriate corrective actions for each. The impact on guest trust and reputation needed more depth. In Q3(b), your similarity and difference were accurate and clearly expressed. In Q4, you identified the core issues well and proposed relevant solutions including a guest profile system, recurring feedback review, staff empowerment, and training. The chain reaction was attempted but needed to be more step-by-step, and there was no department-level systems integration across front desk, housekeeping, food and beverage, guest relations, and online reputation management.