Your blog assessment builds the critical analysis and professional communication skills central to tourism and leisure management. Use this resource to understand what's expected of you, how to think analytically, and what success looks like.
Blogging is the format for this assessment because it develops skills you'll use in tourism and leisure management — skills that sit at the intersection of evidence-based thinking and real-world communication. While many commercial tourism blogs are descriptive, with information and entertainment as their key purposes, your blogs need to include genuine critical analysis. The Bloom's Scaffold and Critical Analysis tools in this resource are designed to help you get there — and you'll see exactly how that analytical depth is rewarded in the Marking Criteria.
You're writing for an audience, not just an assessor. Blogging mirrors how tourism and leisure professionals actually communicate — through destination commentary, industry analysis, and stakeholder engagement. Think about who you're writing for and what you want them to take away.
Your three entries are spaced across the semester deliberately. As you encounter new course concepts, you can apply them progressively to your chosen topics. Each entry is a chance to deepen your thinking from where the last one left off.
You choose your own tourism and leisure stories: events, destinations, campaigns, government initiatives, new developments. Selecting topics that genuinely interest you makes a real difference to the depth and engagement of your analysis.
Your field visit entry asks you to produce more than text — a 4–5 minute self-narrated video blending your own footage, voice-over, imagery, and third-party material. This is the kind of multimedia communication that contemporary tourism and leisure industries actually use.
Blog entries are scaffolded using Bloom's Taxonomy. Click each level to see what it looks like in practice. Aim for Levels 4–6 in your writing.
The most common feedback on student blogs: "too descriptive," "lacks critical analysis," "little evidence of critical reflection." Levels 1–3 alone won't demonstrate the depth required. A high-quality entry moves from briefly setting the scene (Level 1–2) into genuine questioning and evaluation (Levels 4–5).
Find, recall, identify basic information
Describe, summarise, explain in your own words
Use concepts in new contexts
Question, compare, investigate relationships
Judge, defend, critique with reasoned argument
Propose, design, invent new solutions or arguments
Critical analysis is the search for meaning — exploring consequences, deepening thinking, and questioning assumptions. Three frameworks help structure this process.
Provide background context: what is it, where, when? This section is descriptive — but keep it brief. Its only purpose is to orient the reader.
Present your position. Compare viewpoints, apply theoretical frameworks, use evidence. This is where analysis lives — questioning, contrasting, exploring significance.
Conclude by addressing implications: what happens if the problem is ignored? What should change? What does this mean for the industry? Make your reader care.
How to use STEEP in your blog: You don't need to address all five dimensions in every entry — but deliberately choosing 2–3 lenses forces you beyond surface description. For example, an entry on a new eco-resort can't just say "it's sustainable" — run it through Environmental (what impact?), Economic (who benefits?), and Social (who was displaced?) for a genuinely analytical response.
All three blog entries share common criteria. The field visit entry adds criteria for verbal narration, multimedia, and audience engagement. Click a tab to explore each entry type.
| Criteria | Below Expectations | Meets Expectations | Exceeds Expectations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Content Development | 0–5 pts Some ability to organise content, but lacking critical analysis. |
6–8 pts Logical, concise, and cohesive. Sound critical analysis with clear supporting evidence. |
8–10 pts Creative and compelling. Strong critical analysis. Evidence is well-integrated and persuasive. |
| Presentation & Engagement | 0–2.25 pts Poorly presented. Lacks engaging elements for the audience. |
2.5–3.5 pts Reasonably engaging. Sound use of headings, images, and multimedia. |
3.75–5 pts Visually pleasing and highly engaging. Draws the reader in and sustains interest. |
| Sources & Evidence | 0–2.25 pts Little evidence of research. |
2.5–3.5 pts Sound use of varied, relevant sources. Mostly accurate APA referencing. |
3.75–5 pts Good use of scholarly and varied sources. Accurate APA referencing throughout. |
| Syntax & Mechanics | 0–2.25 pts Meaning is unclear in places. Some errors evident. |
2.5–3.5 pts Clear language, appropriate style, minimal errors. Evidence of proofreading. |
3.75–5 pts Expressive and engaging language. Reads with clarity and draws the reader forward. |