Week 2 assignment

profileStephaniearpi
Week2assignmentrubics.docx

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction

7 to >6.0 pts

Excellent

The paper thoroughly introduces the change in standard, an overview of the standard setting body, potential implications of the change, and the goals of the assignment.

6 to >5.0 pts

Good

The paper includes detailed descriptions for most of the following items but a few could have been explained more fully: the change in standard, an overview of the standard setting body, potential implications of the change, and the goals of the assignment.

5 to >4.0 pts

Fair

The paper includes descriptions for most of the following items but a few are missing or all could have been explained more fully: the change in standard, an overview of the standard setting body, potential implications of the change, and the goals of the assignment.

4 to >3.0 pts

Poor

The paper includes only brief descriptions for most of the following items or a few items were not discussed: the change in standard, an overview of the standard setting body, potential implications of the change, and the goals of the assignment.

3 to >0 pts

Unacceptable

The paper does not introduce the change in standard, nor does it provide an overview of the standard setting body, the potential implications of the change in standard, and identifies the points that the assignment will address.

7 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis

20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent

This section thoroughly identifies and details the change in standard, discusses the implications of the change, and fully analyzes the impact of the change on the profession, managerial decision making, and on financial reporting.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good

This section mostly identifies and details the change in standard, discusses the implications of the change, and generally analyzes the impact of the change on the profession, managerial decision making, and on financial reporting.

15 to >13.0 pts

Fair

This section somewhat identifies and details the change in standard, discusses the implications of the change, and provides limited analysis on the impact of the change on the profession, managerial decision making and on financial reporting.

13 to >11.0 pts

Poor

The paper inadequately identifies and details the change in standard, discusses the implications of the change, and provides limited analysis on the impact of the change on the profession, managerial decision making, and on financial reporting.

11 to >0 pts

Unacceptable

The paper does not identify nor detail the change in standard, the implications of the change, and provides no analysis on the impact of the change on the profession, managerial decision making, and on financial reporting.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary and Conclusion

7 to >6.0 pts

Excellent

The paper effectively summarizes the key points, and provides a conclusion that is based on a thorough analysis of the facts in the paper.

6 to >5.0 pts

Good

The paper effectively summarizes the key points, and provides a conclusion that is based on an analysis of the facts in the paper, with minor error.

5 to >4.0 pts

Fair

The paper summarizes most of the key points, however, the conclusion is not fully based on the analysis of the facts presented in the paper.

4 to >3.0 pts

Poor

The paper does not fully summarize the key points, and the conclusion is not based on the analysis of the facts presented in the paper.

3 to >0 pts

Unacceptable

The paper does not summarize key points, and the conclusion is not presented.

7 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessionalism

8 to >7.0 pts

Excellent

The paper is well organized, contains correct spelling and grammar, and has a minimum of three properly formatted references in APA.

7 to >6.0 pts

Good

The paper is mostly organized, contains minor spelling and grammar errors, has largely formatted references in APA, and includes an overall impact.

6 to >5.0 pts

Fair

The paper is somewhat organized, contains a few errors in spelling and grammar, has a few improperly formatted references in APA, and/or includes a partial overall impact.

5 to >4.0 pts

Poor

The paper is less organized, contains several spelling and grammar errors, has a few improperly formatted references in APA, and/or includes a very brief overall impact.

4 to >0 pts

Unacceptable

The paper is unorganized, contains many spelling and grammar errors, has many improperly formatted references in APA, and does not include an overall impact.

8 pts

 This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMSAC.PLO-C: Analyze new and existing regulations and standards.

threshold: 3.0 pts

4 pts

Excellent: This paper provides thorough detail on the standard discussed, and thoroughly evaluates the impact on the standard for the profession and financial reporting.

3 pts

Good: This paper provides mostly thorough detail on the standard discussed, and evaluates the impact on the standard for the profession and financial reporting.

2 pts

Fair: This paper provides limited detail on the standard discussed, and provides a limited evaluation of the impact on the standard for the profession and financial reporting.

1 pts

Poor: This paper provides little detail on the standard discussed, and provides a limited evaluation of the impact the standard has for the profession and financial reporting.

0 pts

Unacceptable: This paper provides no detail on the standard discussed, and provides no evaluation about the impact on the standard for the profession and financial reporting.

4 pts

 This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMSAC.PLO-D: Apply accounting research regarding technical, tax and audit issues to managerial decision-making.

threshold: 3.0 pts

4 pts

Excellent: The paper applies appropriate research to effectively evaluate the impact of the technical, tax or audit issue on managerial decision making.

3 pts

Good: The paper applies appropriate research to mostly evaluate the impact of the technical, tax or audit issue on managerial decision making, with limited error.

2 pts

Fair: The paper applies limited research to evaluate the impact of the technical, tax or audit issue on managerial decision making.

1 pts

Poor: The paper applies little research and does not effectively evaluate the impact of the technical, tax or audit issue on managerial decision making.

0 pts

Unacceptable: The paper does not apply research and does not evaluate the impact of the technical, tax or audit issue on managerial decision making.

4 pts

Total Points: 50