accounting

Re-Assessment Brief (Essay) 1. Module code and title

AC6020 Corporate Financial Reporting

2. Module tutor

Chris Wiltshire

3. Tutor with responsibility for this Assessment

Chris Wiltshire This is your first point of contact.

4. (Element number), Weighting, Type and Size of Assessment

002: 30% Coursework: Standard: 2,500 words or equivalent) You will be penalised according to the Academic Regulations for Taught Provision if you exceed the size limit.

5. Submission deadline

27th July 2015 (although earlier submission is encouraged) Your attention is drawn to the penalties for late submission; see Academic Regulations for Taught Provision

6. Arrangements for submission

This is an electronic submission using via Student Records Online.

You are advised to submit your work by midday (British local time) to ensure that technical support is available should you encounter any issues with the electronic submission process.

The maximum size for an individual file to be uploaded is 5MB.

You should use the following convention for naming your file: 'Bloggs_J_s0123456_AC6020_A2' (for example, Joe Bloggs – student number s0123456 – submitting a file for AC6020 assessment task 2). You are also advised to add this information to the header section of your submitted document.

All files must be submitted as a Word document (*.docx or *.doc)

Information about electronic submission, including a set of Frequently Asked Questions, is available at https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/departments/adu/ema/Pages/emast udents.aspx

Enter the following text ‘AC6020 2014 Reassessment Essay’ in the 'Please enter the subject of your assignment' box.

7. Date and location for return of work

via Student Records Online.

8. Disabled students

Alternative assessment arrangements may be made, where appropriate, for disabled students. However, these will only be implemented upon the advice of the Disability Advisor. Disabled students wishing to be considered for alternative assessment arrangements must give notification of the disability (with evidence) to the Disability Advisor by the published deadlines.

AC6020 Re-assessment Brief (Essay) 2014/15 1

9. University Regulations for Assessment

All assessments are subject to the Academic Regulations for Taught Provision. These include regulations relating to Errors of Attribution and Assessment Offences. In exercising their judgement, Examiners may penalise any work where the standard of English, numeracy or presentation adversely affects the quality of the work, or where the work submitted exceeds the published size or time limits, or where the work fails to follow normal academic conventions for acknowledging sources. See endnote

10. The requirements for the assessment You are required to prepare an essay of approximately 2,500 words on the following topic:

“Consider to what extent the regulatory framework, together with the various codes and guidelines, encourages companies to report non-financial information in their annual reports, and assess the usefulness of such information to shareholders”

For the purposes of illustration in this essay, you should draw on [but not exclusively] the material used to support the original presentation and the company chosen by your group for the group presentation. Your essay must also include a literature review of relevant texts on developments in this area. The extent of your bibliography will be considered as part of the overall assessment of your work. 11. Assessment criteria Your essay will be marked against the attached UGBS Level 6 assessment grid out of a total of 100% and this will represent 30% of your overall module marks. Endnote Your attention is drawn to the University Regulations for Assessment – Section 7 Careful referencing of sources is vital when making use of the work of others. You are expected to employ the referencing conventions recommended in the Course. These conventions apply to information taken from internet sources, as well as books, journals and lectures. If you are unsure of the way to reference properly, seek advice from a member of staff before you submit the assessment. These are some of the points you should check before submitting your work: • are all direct quotations, from both primary and secondary sources, suitably

acknowledged (placed in quotation marks or indented)? • have you provided full details of the source of the quotation, according to the referencing

convention used in the Course? • have you acknowledged the source of ideas not your own, even if you are not quoting

directly from the source?

AC6020 Re-assessment Brief (Essay) 2014/15 2

• have you avoided close paraphrase from sources? (Check that you are not presenting other people’s words or phrasing as if they are your own.)

• if you have worked closely with others in preparing for this assessment, is the material you are presenting sufficiently your own?

A Harvard referencing tutorial can be found at : http://ist.glos.ac.uk/referencing/harvard/ The tutorial should take approx 20 minutes to work through and includes lots of examples of different types of resources. It is based on the “Cite them right” book (Richard Pears and Graham Shields (2008). Cite them right: the essential referencing guide. Newcastle upon Tyne, Pear Tree Books.) available on Amazon and copies in the Learning Centre.

More details about referencing, including a quick referencing guide and a tutorial about plagiarism, details of how to reference sources such as websites, online journals, newspaper articles, and official publications, are available at:

http://insight.glos.ac.uk/departments/lis/resources/Pages/referencing.aspx If you are unsure of the way to reference properly, seek advice from a member of staff before you submit the assessment. In submitting your work for assessment you are making a statement that it is your own work, it has not been submitted for any other assessment, and it does not infringe the ethical principles set out in the University’s Research Ethics: Principles and Procedures.

AC6020 Re-assessment Brief (Essay) 2014/15 3

UGBS Generic Level VI Grade Descriptors Mark Knowledge Understanding Application Analysis Critical Evaluation Synthesis 0 - Fail Plagiarism, name

only None None None None None

1-9 Fail

Little expressed, no adequate content

No understanding No significant product

Effectively none None None

10-19 Fail Few relevant facts, and/or major errors

Muddled and very limited

Not effective, few working components

Effectively none None None

20-29 Fail

Not adequate, poor

Restricted information, limited, errors, little reading, or too short

No real explanation, summarisation or interpretation of facts or evidence

Cannot adequately apply theory to concrete application, incomplete, errors, very poor

No significant analytical ability, errors, unclear, no structure

No effective judgement, does not appraise or evaluate

No effective synthesis of ideas

30-39 Reassess Not adequate for credit but recoverable

Inadequate range and level of content, some errors, some reading but inadequate amount or relevance , mechanical notes

Errors of understanding, poor explanation & summarisation, vague, unconvincing, inconsistent

Inadequate, does not meet spec. Some essential elements do not work, poor design and/or poor implementation

Fails to correctly identify components of arguments, processes or communications, little structure or logic

Inadequate, no criteria used, no clear views developed, identifies few issues, merely descriptive

No significant evidence of creating new patterns or arguments from elements, no independent thinking

40-49 Pass D Class 3

Adequate for credit. Fair but with limited conceptual ability, analysis and evaluation

Satisfactory but not complete, evidence of some reading, little research, mostly secondary sources, some errors, some barely adequate references not well presented, English adequate

Satisfactory understanding, explanation & summarisation but variable, areas of weakness, mainly descriptive, not complete, lacks depth and perception

Successful but basic realisation of abstraction in concrete form, may be variable and incomplete, deliverables meet basic requirements, some significant errors, not elegant or aesthetically pleasing

Correctly identifies some component parts of a communication, artefact, argument, theory or process with fair discussion, some structure to argument, not always logical, makes few links

Criteria not adequate, not clear, judgement may be flawed or not clear in places, variable and not comprehensive, identifies either major strengths OR weaknesses, limited critical appraisal

May attempt some combination of elements into new patterns arguments or products but limited or only partially satisfactory, weak, little evidence of independent thought

50-59 Satisfactory C Class 2.2 Satisfactory with some conceptual ability

Good range of info and use of terminology but not complete and/or some errors, evidence of relevant knowledge from some good sources which may not be recent, competent English, adequate referencing

Demonstrates understanding by translating, reorganising, rephrasing, coherent description of theory etc., not always lucid, some areas may be weak or not complete

Demonstrates correct application of techniques and methods in reasonably complete & adequate product which meets major elements of specification satisfactorily, some evidence of good design, some errors, adequate aesthetics

Adequate breakdown of subject but not comprehensive, some ability to discern and discuss components of models, issues, problems, theories, artefacts or communications, clear structure, generally logical & clear argument

Some expressions of judgement but not always effective or clear. Some criteria expressed but not always well explained or developed. Adequate but not wholly convincing, weak attempt, identifies some major & minor issues, evaluates major issues

Some evidence of combining elements to produce new patterns or arguments, not very effective or wide ranging, limited and/or with some errors or lack of clarity, fair attempt, some limited independent thought, a little imagination evident

60-69 Good B Class 2.1 Good analysis, grasp of theory some synthesis and judgement

Detail and overview of factual information is good, comprehensive, mainly error free, evidence of wide gathering of information from good and recent sources, competent English & fluent writing, good referencing

Demonstrates comprehensive understanding of most relevant models, theories, representations summarises, extrapolates, condenses, some areas less clear, answers most of question to high standard

Professional approach, good product, integrates theory into practice, evidence of good design & aesthetics, efficient and effective product, self criticism of product and process, main elements all correct but some marginal errors or weak design

As above but effective and comprehensive and sensitive breakdown with good recognition of hierarchies and relationships. Analysis based on some evidence. Well developed arguments, logical, links topics to make points

Effective judgement based on some reasonable criteria, some problems or not comprehensive or fully explained, identifies & evaluates major & minor issues, identifies strengths & weaknesses of materials

Constructs generalisations and effectively combines elements to produce new patterns structures or arguments, clear evidence of independent & imaginative thinking, some new ways of looking at things

AC6020 Re-assessment Brief (Essay) 2014/15 4

70-79 Excellent A Class 1 Very good work with good balance of concepts analysis, judgement and synthesis, comprehensi vely good without serious flaws

Comprehensive, detailed, well organised, structured review of factual information with correct emphasis, evidence of very wide reading of good & recent research, error free, cites good work, makes good use of factual evidence to support argument, well sustained effective style of writing, very good referencing

Demonstrates comprehensive grasp of issues, theories, methods and models, scope and scale of problems, limits of models and methods. Demonstrates detailed understanding of most pertinent theory and literature as appropriate, a complete answer to the question, demonstrates very good grasp of complexity or abstraction

As above but evidence of elegance in design, comprehensively excellent product, all criteria met, clear application of principle in design, strong evidence of initiative, resourcefulness, originality, autonomy, creativity and adaptability, products well organised and documented, good integration of product components, very good aesthetics

Highly effective identification of even subtle sub-structures with weighting of evidence, comprehensively deconstructs arguments, theories and structures, very good analytical arguments effectively based on thorough review of evidence, very well developed arguments and effective linking of topics

Applies and develops criteria, very effective judgement, strong personal perspective, good self criticism where appropriate, recognises limits of own judgement and knowledge, very strong statement of personal position, excellent critical thinking, evaluates subtle points in material, wide ranging judgement, excellent response to complex problems

Ability to create abstract relationships, can classify or explain abstract phenomena, constructs generalisations based on evidence, suggests improvements to methods, approaches to topics etc, develops arguments and constructs based on quantitative or qualitative material, frequently generates new ways of looking at things

80-100 Outstanding A Class 1 Consistent excellence

As above but extremely wide range of recent research sources used, excellent use of primary sources where appropriate, very well written with distinct writing style, excellent use of references

As above and reader never in any doubt as a result of lucid & error free discussion, articulate explanation of all relevant theory, totally comprehensive, expands the bounds of the question

As above but products are resilient, gone beyond limits of set task, wider considerations applied in design and implementation, excellent aesthetics & well documented engineering approach

Complete understanding of possible scope of analysis, authoritative understanding of principles, exceptional clarity & logic, elegance in argument,

As above but highly consistent and errors free, original approach, develops novel criteria or approach to evaluation, exceptional perception and judgement of even very obscure points

Can deduce new symbolic representations, original approach, construction of new theories, artefacts, approaches or methods, exceptionally creative, independent & imaginative

AC6020 Re-assessment Brief (Essay) 2014/15 5

AC6020 Re-Assignment (Essay) 2014/15 - PDP Review

To be submitted with your module assignment form

Module: AC6020 Assignment: Essay (Re-assessment) The things that I consider:

- Are the best about this piece of work

- I am most proud of are as follows: The things that I consider:

- Are the weak points in this piece of work

- I am least proud of

- areas where I think I could have done better are as follows: Areas where I would most like feedback:

AC6020 Re-assessment Brief (Essay) 2014/15 6