Group Research Assignment Acct3011 Sem2 2009 Final

ACCT 3011 Financial Accounting B, Semester 2, 2009 Group Research Assignment Handout 1.

Learning Goals

This assignment will help you achieve Learning Goals 1-5 and the acquire the ‘Research & Inquiry’ and ‘Communication’ graduate attributes described in the ACCT 3011 Unit of Study (UOS) Outline. As noted in the UOS Outline, this assignment will make up 20% of your aggregate assessment if you are taking ACCT 3011 as a 6 credit-point unit; 15% if you have gained approval to attach a two credit-point extension unit to the 6 credit-point version of this unit. 2.

Assignment Questions and Due Dates

DUE DATE FOR ASSIGNMENT: 12 midday on Tuesday 15 September

2009 The IASB and FASB’s joint project on the conceptual framework will likely influence the development of accounting standards in the future. As you know, the conceptual framework articulates the objectives of financial reporting (as well as definitions of the elements of financial statements and the desired qualitative characteristics of financial statements). However, to date, progress on measurement in accounting has been limited. As you are probably aware, measurement issues are being strongly contested at the moment within the context of the ‘fair value’ debate. This point is investigated by Geoffrey Whittington in his article Fair Value and the IASB/FASB Conceptual Framework Project: An Alternative View in Abacus, Volume 44, Issue 2, Date: June 2008, Pages: 139-168. Referring to Whittington (2008), the articles cited below and other relevant publications, respond to the following question:

Are the objectives of financial reporting sufficiently clear to assist this fair value debate? Explain your position.

Note: In 2003 Abacus (Vol.39 Issue 3 p.273-414) published a special edition on the (Australian) Accounting Conceptual Framework. When Australia adopted the IASB’s standards in 2005, in effect the IASB’s version of a conceptual framework was also adopted. The IASB framework is broadly similar to the pre-2005 Australian version but you will have to make a judgment about whether the issues raised in the Abacus special edition apply to the IASB framework. (Hint: mostly they do!). The specific articles in the Abacus special edition are:

1

ABACUS Volume 39 Issue 3 , Pages 273 - 414 (October 2003) Guest Editorial A Patch on GAAP (p i-vi) Robert R. Sterling Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00131.x Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 64K) Save Article

Original Articles Forum: The Accounting Conceptual Framework Introduction (p 273-278) Murray Wells Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00132.x Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 75K) Save Article

An Evolving Conceptual Framework? (p 279-297) Graeme W. Dean, Frank L. Clarke Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00133.x Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 185K) Save Article

The CF and Accounting Standards: The Persistence of Discrepancies (p 298-309) Janice A. Loftus Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00134.x Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 118K) Save Article

The Conceptual Framework as a Coherent System for the Development of Accounting Standards (p 310-324) Brian Booth Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00135.x Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 115K) Save Article

Reporting Performance: Comprehensive Income and its Components (p 325-339) Susan Newberry Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00136.x Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 107K) Save Article

Objectives of Financial Reporting (p 340-355) R. G. Walker Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00137.x

2

Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 148K) Save Article

Measurement: A Way Forward (p 356-374) R. G. Walker, Stewart Jones Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00138.x Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 177K) Save Article

Harmonization and the Conceptual Framework: An International Perspective (p 375-387) Stewart Jones, Peter W. Wolnizer Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00139.x Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 122K) Save Article

Implications for the Conceptual Framework Arising From Accounting for Financial Instruments (p 388397) Michael E. Bradbury Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00140.x Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 84K) Save Article

A Statement of Accounting Concepts for Level 1 of the Conceptual Framework? (p 398-414) John Staunton Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00141.x Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 398K) Save Article

You can also refer to other references such as the ones listed below if you wish. Many of the journals are available in libraries at the University of Sydney. Some examples of academic journals include: Abacus Accountancy Accounting and Business Research Accounting and Finance Accounting Education Accounting Historians Journal Accounting Horizons Accounting Forum Accounting Research Journal Australian Accounting Review British Accounting Review Contemporary Accounting Research European Accounting Review

3

Financial Accountability & Management International Journal of Accounting Journal of Accountancy Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance Journal of Business Finance and Accounting Research in Accounting Regulation The Accounting Review You may also refer to Professional Journals, that include: Charter (Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia) In the Black (CPA Australia) Financial Management (Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, U.K.)

Presentation (i)

Length of assignment: 3000 words Excessive length will be penalized. Please note that individual footnotes should not exceed 30 words, and the total number of footnotes should not exceed 8. The word count will exclude any headings, sub-headings, table of contents, figures, tables, references and appendices, but the report overall must be appropriate and balanced. Do not use the exclusions from the word count to overcome the constraints of the word limit. In particular, appendices should not be used to make points not included in the main body of the assignment. The word limit will be taken seriously by markers, so your group’s expression must be succinct and crisp. Length up to 3100 words– that is, prescribed length plus 10% – will not be penalized, but anything more will result in loss of marks.

(ii)

The assignment must be wordPresentation/Formatting/Typescript: processed/typed. It must be double-spaced, with margins of at least 2.5 cms, top and bottom, left and right. The font size is 12.

(iii) Group Allocation: You must complete the assignment as a member of a group of three (to four) ACCT 3011 students. Group members MUST come from the SAME tutorial class. Penalties may apply for failure to meet this requirement. (iv) Working in Groups: Groups should not make unreasonable demands on individual members, for example, by scheduling meetings at times or places that make attendance impossible. (A group chat room, or email communication may avoid or mitigate such problems.) Many excellent suggestions about group work are available at http://learning.econ.usyd.edu.au/groupwork/index.html. Note, however, that if there is any discrepancy between such suggestions and the formal requirements of this assignment, the formal requirements will prevail and must be followed.

4

“Exception Reporting” of how your group is functioning: If you consider that your group is not functioning well and that you are concerned that any member of your group has not made a fair and equal contribution, you and your group members can request a meeting with a member of staff to discuss and document this fact. In other words, the reporting of the performance of the group to a staff member is on an exception basis only when one group member feels aggrieved that the group work is not being shared fairly and equally among group members. All group members must be present when this is discussed with a member of staff. However, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your case. It is recommended that all groups keep records of their activities, including group meetings. Under the circumstances it may be in everybody’s interests to have regular formal meetings where minutes (records of proceedings at the meeting) are kept and duly signed as accurate by all members present. For example, the number of times the group meets and how the group decides to allocate tasks will be relevant in the event of reporting to a staff member that your group is not functioning well. As a result of the meeting that any such group holds with staff, it may be agreed that particular group members should be awarded less that 100% of the assignment’s raw mark. If you are affected by illness or other adverse circumstances you should apply for special consideration. Submission of Assignment and Submission Checklist: Assignments must be submitted both in hard copy and electronically by 12 midday on Tuesday 15 September 2009. An assignment box will be allocated for this purpose on level 1 of the Economics and Business Building (H69). Penalties for late submission are 10% per day as stated in the UOS Outline. Weekend days and public holidays are included in the penalty calculation. Hard copy submission: You are required to submit the following hard copy paper documents to the ACCT3011 Assignment Locker on level 1 of building H69 before the deadline: 1. Group assessment cover sheet (see checklist or project folder on Blackboard for website link) 2. Blank Group Research Assignment Feedback Sheet - see p.10 below (i.e., print off and attach this document ready for the markers to complete for you) 3. Group assignment 4. Completed submission checklist – see p.11 below (i.e., print off, complete and attach it to the assignment) Electronic submission: You are required to just submit your ‘Word’ group assignment electronically (i.e. just item 3 above) using the assignment ‘dropbox’ facility on blackboard according to the new Faculty Policy. You should clearly indicate the names of each of the three (to four) group members on your group assignment. You will also be required to give a name to your submitted file and we request that you name it as your three surnames in alphabetically order (for example, “ChanJonesSmith.doc”). Obviously you will not be able to have any penned notations on your electronic submission 5

and so, for example, no signatures are required on the electronic version of your assignment. Plagiarism: The Faculty’s plagiarism policy will be strictly enforced (see UOS Outline). Evidence of plagiarism (depending on its extent) can seriously affect marks awarded even if content is of high standard. To avoid this possibility you should cite sources used in your group’s assignment. Follow the referencing guidelines in Appendix 5, pp. 23-31 of the Writing in the Discipline of Accounting document available on Blackboard. Note that citation is required both in the main body of the assignment (‘in-text referencing’) and in a reference list/bibliography at the end of the assignment. SafeAssignment is a function available to you in Blackboard to assist with correctly referencing your project. It’s a useful function that provides you with feedback on the references you have put into your project report. The way it works is as follows: - you upload a draft of your project via the SafeAssignment function in Blackboard at least 24 hours before the project deadline - over the next 24 hours SafeAssignment performs a search throughout the Web on all of the phrases you have used - at the end of this period, you go back into SafeAssignment, click ‘OK’ to view the results and a report will be waiting for you. This report will tell you every phrase and sentence in your paper that matches with published material on the web. You can then assess whether you have correctly cited your sources. You can access the SafeAssignment function by clicking on “Assessment” and then clicking on “View/Complete” under the “Quick SA” title. From here, you will be able to upload a draft of your project report. Please note that it is only a draft of your report that you use and we will not be viewing any of the reports that are uploaded there. Group Research Assignment Feedback Sheet and Marking Guide The Group Research Assignment Feedback Sheet and Group Research Assignment grade descriptors follow. The Group Research Assignment Feedback Sheet indicates how the assignment will be marked.

ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE

Group research assignment grade descriptors Developing: is intended to describe performance that is not yet at the basic level of expectations. Features may be present but not enough to pass (below 50).

6

Functional: is intended to describe learning attainment that meets the basic requirements and can be carried out in part without support, as there is a high degree of reliance on authority for guidance in decisions making and little translation or integration of concepts. It would correspond to a pass mark (between 50 and 64). Proficient: is a desirable standard for most students to reach and strongly exhibits independence, translation, integration, and application. It would correspond to a credit (between 65 and 74). Advanced: is performance beyond core expectations that is highly independent, creative, critically reflective, generative, and transformative. It would correspond to a distinction or high distinction (between 75 and 100).

7

Attributes 1. Knowledge & understanding (30 marks)

Developing (<50) Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge. Inaccurate reproduction of text and lectures. Cannot discuss concepts in own words

Functional (50-64) Encyclopaedic knowledge and can reproduce accurately required facts and definitions. Has adequate breadth, but limited depth of understanding of basic concepts

Proficient (65-74) Exhibits breadth and depth of understanding concepts in the knowledge domain. Can use terminology accurately in new contexts and has transformed the ideas so that they can express them appropriately in their own words. Demonstrates an appreciation of the limits of their own understanding.

2. Reasoning and analysis (30 marks)

Personal and anecdotal

Rule based and descriptive, derived largely from authority (texts, lecturers, authority figures). Mostly ‘black and white’ thinking. Limited capacity to identify the complex factors within a larger idea or context. Little interpretation or translation.

Can recognise competing explanations and can identify the relative merits and limitations of an argument or position. Can describe and defend their view or position. Can break large ideas, situations or problems down into components and explain each using the theoretical ideas and concepts of the discipline.

Advanced (>75) Exhibits accurate and elaborated breadth and depth of understanding of concepts in the knowledge domain. Knows how particular facts came to be. Demonstrates an appreciation of the limitations and temporary nature of conceptual knowledge in the field. Can generate and justify principles, and hypotheses. Use principles to formulate a position or an argument. Can articulate the limited nature of their argument and can challenge to boundaries of disciplinary understanding. Analysis is sophisticated with a balance of theory and personal reflection.

8

Attributes

Developing (<50)

Functional (50-64)

Proficient (65-74)

3. Information literacy (10 marks)

Uses immediately available information with little discrimination. Cannot independently seek out and locate required information.

Can seek out and locate required information with minimal support. Does not always discriminate effectively between sources of information.

Can independently seek out and locate required information. Is selective, effectively discriminating between source of information.

4. Use of academic conventions (10 marks)

Absence or inaccurate use of referencing and citation conventions. The submission checklist is not attached or incomplete and/or supporting documents missing.

Use of academic conventions such as referencing and citation is accurate, consistent and appropriate for the field of study. The submission checklist is attached with no omissions and supporting documents attached but with one error/omission.

5. Writing skills and presentation grammar (10 marks)

Does not demonstrate an understanding of what is expected in presentation of learning products. E.g. fails to use spell checker, some sentences fail to have verbs, poorly punctuated, written in note form, and paragraphs have one sentence. The assignment is not integrated. Different parts of the assignment have no relationship to each other.

Basic referencing and use of a reference list. Sometimes lacks consistency, but nevertheless is a reasonable acknowledgement of the sources of information. The submission checklist is attached with one or two errors/omissions and/or supporting documents missing. Adheres to most basic expectations regarding the formatting and presentation of work. E.g. titles name on work, introduction, conclusion, and reference list. Have correct sections for the study. Spell checked and grammatically correct. The assignment follows a structure but different parts of the assignment bear little relationship to each other.

6. Cohesiveness (10 marks)

Adheres to all expectations and conventions with all expected attributes present. Some translation and interpretation of the conventions to suit personal style and the specific execution of the task.

The assignment has a structure and different parts of the assignment have a moderate relationship to each other.

Advanced (>75) Independently seeks out and locates required information. Is selective and discriminates between sources of information. Use of academic conventions such as referencing and citations is accurate, consistent and appropriate for the field of study. The submission checklist plus supporting documents are attached and are accurate and complete. All expectations and conventions with all expected attributes present but have been creatively interpreted to suit personal style and specific execution of the task. A unique but appropriate presentation of work. The assignment is wellstructured and different parts of the assignment have a high relationship to each other.

9

ACCT 3011 (Semester 2, 2009) Group Research Assignment– Feedback sheet CONTENT (60 MARKS) 1. Knowledge and understanding (30 marks) Comments:

2. Reasoning and analysis (30 marks) Comments:

WRITTEN EXPRESSION AND PRESENTATION (40 MARKS) 3. Information literacy (10 marks) Comments:

4. Use of academic conventions (10 marks) Comments:

5. Writing skills and presentation, grammar (10 marks) Comments:

6. Cohesiveness (10 marks) Comments:

Total (out of 100): Less ‘other’ deductions: Final total (out of 100): Any other remarks?

10

ACCT 3011 Financial Accounting B, Semester 2, 2009 Group Research Assignment – Submission checklist

Submission list 1.

Faculty Group Assessment Coversheet (containing academic honesty declaration)

2.

Paper copy of group assignment

3.

Electronic copy of group assignment (no signatures are required for this) The Group Research Assignment Feedback Sheet (ready to be completed by markers)

4.

1.

Tick here

Instructions The Faculty’s Group Assessment Coversheet is to be attached to the paper copy of your assignment and is available from: http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/content.php?pageid=2138

2.

Retain a copy of the assignment for your own records

3.

The Group Research Assignment Feedback Sheet (ready to be completed by markers) is to be attached to the paper copy and is available at p.10 of this document)

4.

Please attach this Submission Checklist to your paper copy of the assignment

11