AC216: International Corporate Financial Reporting
Henley Business School
Undergraduate Assessment Brief
| Module Code and Title | AC216: International Corporate Financial Reporting |
| Module Convenor | Dr Ekililu Salifu |
| Type of Assessment | ☐ Essay ☐ In-Class Test ☐ Report ☒ Group Report ☐ Project ☐ Group Presentation ☐ Practical Skills Exercise ☐ Portfolio Other: Click or tap here to enter text. |
| Weighting of Assessment | 25% |
| Submission Deadline | 4 December 2020 |
| Submission Point (Blackboard/Turnitin/Other) | Blackboard |
| Items to be Submitted | Group Coursework |
| Individual or Group Assessment | ☐ Individual ☒ Group |
| Module Convenor Office Hours/Opportunities for advice and feedback | Office hours are by appointment only |
1. What is the Purpose of This Assessment?
The following table shows which of the module learning outcomes are being assessed in this assignment. Use this table to help you see the connection between this assessment and your learning on the module.
| Module Learning Outcomes Being Assessed |
| 1, 3, 4 and 5 |
2. What is the Task for this Assessment?
| Task (attach a separate briefing document if required) | The following extract is from ‘Comments of Leonard Spacek’, in R.T. Sprouse and M. Moonitz, A Tentative Set of Broad Accounting Principles for Business Enterprises, Accounting Research Study No. 3, AICPA, New York, 1962, reproduced in A. Belkaoui, Accounting Theory, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. A discussion of assets, liabilities, revenue and costs is premature and meaningless until the basic principles that will result in a fair presentation of the facts in the form of financial accounting and financial reporting are determined. This fairness of accounting and reporting must be for and to people, and these people represent the various segments of our society. Required: Discuss the extent to which the IASB conceptual framework satisfies the above definition of fairness. |
3. What is Required of me in this Assessment?
| Guidelines/Details of How to Prepare Your Submission | |
| The assessment criteria to be used for marking this piece of work | Refer to the marking criteria rubric at the end of this document. |
| Self-Regulation: Make sure That You… | |
| Three Key Pieces of Advice Based on the Feedback Given to the Previous Cohort who Completed This Assignment | Not applicable. |
| For Group Work Only: | Elements of Group Working: ☒ Classroom briefing by Module Convenor ☒ Regular meetings of all team members ☐ Record and keep evidence of meetings (agenda/minutes) ☐ Record attendance and member contributions ☐ Team reflection document ☐ Submit Peer Assessment required |
| Formatting Guidelines | Times New Roman 12- point font on A4 paperAt least 1.5 line spacingMargins of at least 2.5cms on both sides and at the top and bottom of each pageInclude a cover sheet displaying the coursework title, group number, and the word count.Each page is numbered and includes your group number in either the header or footer of each page. |
| Word Limit/Guidance and Penalty Applied | 2,000-word limit for the group assignment |
| Referencing Style | Strictly Harvard Referencing style |
| Guidance on Academic Misconduct (including using Turnitin practice area) | The work you produce must be your own or that of members of your group if it is a group assessment. You should ensure that the work you produce adheres to the University’s statement on academic integrity and to the regulations regarding academic misconduct (such as plagiarism and cheating). You can find information about this at: http://www.reading.ac.uk/internal/exams/Policies/exa-misconduct.aspx You are encouraged to put a draft of your work through the Turnitin practice area to satisfy yourself that the work is your own original work. You can find this in your module area on Blackboard. You can seek advice from the Module Convenor or your Programme Administrator. |
4. What Resources Might I Use to Prepare My Work?
| Task 1 The following types of resources could be drawn on: Published peer-reviewed academic articles (for list of journals you could draw from, consult the module handbook);Professional reports from reputable bodies such as OECD, CiMA, ICAEW, government bodies, and non-governmental organisations;Reports from reputable news organisations;Academic textbooks. Generally, resources from bodies without reputable editorial policies should not be used. These include non-peer-reviewed academic articles, Investopedia, Wikipedia and others within their ilk. |
| Point of Submission : Blackboard for group assignment Late Submission Penalty: ☒ The University standard penalty apply ☐ Other: Click or tap here to enter text. |
| Plagiarism: ☒ The University’s standard policy on Academic Misconduct applies ☐ Other: Click or tap here to enter text. |
| Timing of feedback: ☒ Within 15 days of submission deadline ☐ When examinations marks are released ☐ Other Click or tap here to enter text. |
| Type of feedback: ☒ Mark ☒ Generic Feedback ☐ Individual Feedback ☒ Comments written on the assessment ☐ Audio Feedback ☐ Video Feedback ☐ Breakdown of Mark ☐ Other: Click or tap here to enter text. |
| Location of Feedback: ☒ Blackboard ☐ Turnitin ☐ RISIS ☐ Other: Click or tap here to enter text. |
6. Feedback Arrangements
| GRADE BANDS | FIRST CLASS | 2:1 | 2:2 | 3RD (THRESHOLD) | FAIL | ||||||||
| ASSESSMENT CRITERIA | 80+ OUTSTANDING | 70 – 79 EXCELLENT | 60 – 69 VERY GOOD | 50 – 59 GOOD | 40 – 49 SATISFACTORY | 39 AND BELOW | |||||||
| Criterion 1: Introduction | Provides a novel and outstanding overview of what the coursework, with an excellent signposting. | Provides an excellent overview of what the coursework, with an excellent signposting. | Aims and objectives are clear with some rationale offered, with coursework signposted. Insufficiently rounded to be a distinction. | A good introduction necessarily introducing the coursework with some signposting, but with limited cohesion | A poorly written introduction, showing a poor understanding of the purpose of the coursework and with little signposting | A poorly written introduction, with little indication of the objective of the coursework, and without any signposting | |||||||
| Criterion 2: Research, conceptual Knowledge and understanding | High level of scholarship and understanding of relevant key accounting concepts, frameworks and contexts demonstrated. Literature is critically evaluated and excellently supported by references. | High level of scholarship and understanding of relevant key accounting concepts, frameworks and contexts demonstrated. Literature is critically evaluated and well referenced from the extant literature. | Good level of scholarship and understanding of relevant key accounting concepts, frameworks and contexts demonstrated. Some critical evaluation of current literature. Coursework is well supported with references. | Adequate level of scholarship and understanding of relevant key accounting concepts, frameworks and contexts demonstrated. Little critical evaluation of current literature. Coursework is adequately referenced. | Limited level of scholarship and understanding of relevant key accounting concepts, frameworks and contexts demonstrated. Limited critical evaluation of current literature. Inadequately supported by references. | Poorly researched, with little critical evaluation of literature. Weak scholarship and understanding of relevant key accounting concepts, frameworks and contexts demonstrated. | |||||||
| Criterion 3: Critical discussion, synthesis and evaluation | Evidence of excellent understanding and synthesis of scholarly material and application of theories. Appraises the evidence in light of the critical review of current knowledge / theories. Provides innovative, novel and convincing ideas and supports discussions with current development. | Evidence of excellent understanding and synthesis of scholarly material and application of theories. Appraises the evidence in light of the critical review of current knowledge / theories. Provides innovative and convincing ideas and supports discussions with current development. | Demonstrates good synthesis of scholarly material and application of theories. A coherent argument is presented linking practices to theory supported by some current developments. Some original ideas presented. | Demonstrates adequate synthesis of researched material and application of theories. May be descriptive. Reasonable appreciation of the relationship between theories and application in practice. Some discussion with few original ideas presented. | Limited discussion and synthesis of the researched material, limited application of theories. Too many errors. May repeat points made elsewhere without additional insight. No clear links made to preceding parts of the coursework. | Poorly synthesised discussion, with weak critical discussion and evaluations. Too many errors. May repeat points made elsewhere without additional insight. No clear links made to preceding parts of the coursework. | |||||||
| Criterion 4: Structure and presentation | Coherently argued coursework with an excellent structure, with arguments presented with an excellent level of clarity. Referencing is excellent. | Evidence that the student has an excellent command of the material and has been able to organise and present this to good effect. Referencing is good. | Clear structure with a logical flow. Reasonably well written. Referencing is generally good. | Evidence that the material has been organised but the relationships between sections (and with the assessment requirements) may be weak. Referencing acceptable. | Student has not appreciated the importance of structure. May be poorly written and inadequately referenced. | Badly written, with insufficient clarity of expression. Insufficient care taken over a major piece of work. | |||||||
| Criterion 5: Reasoned Conclusion | Excellent conclusions drawn from the supporting critical discussions. Provides innovative and convincing conclusions to the assessment’s requirements. | Excellent conclusions drawn from the supporting critical discussions. Provides convincing conclusions to the assessment’s requirements. | Good conclusions drawn from the supporting discussion. Conclusions are reasoned and addressed to the coursework requirements. | Relevance of some parts of the conclusion may be unclear. May lack focus/clarity. Conclusions not entirely supported by discussions. Addresses some of the assessment requirements. | Presents an inappropriate conclusion and/or badly misrepresents the supporting discussions. No clear links made to preceding parts of the coursework. | Absent or very limited. Has not understood the case or purpose of the coursework. |
Note: Student coursework must adhere to the University of Reading policy on Academic Misconduct.
Further information is available at: https://www.reading.ac.uk/exa-misconduct.aspx