ACCT2006 Management and Cost Accounting Sample Homework

	ASSESSMENT BRIEF
Subject Code and Title	ACCT2006 Management and Cost Accounting
Assessment	Assessment 2 (Business Analysis: Group Oral Presentation & Business Report)
Individual/Group	Group
Learning Outcomes	1. Explain the nature, importance and components of management accounting information in assisting management in undertaking planning, directing, controlling, performance measurement and decision-making. 2. Categorise various cost behaviours and examine different cost estimation and allocation techniques as well as demonstrating the need for a balance between financial and non-financial information in management accounting application. 4. Communicate effectively both orally and in writing to contribute to group performance for the analysis of real-world business settings in management accounting. Demonstrate an understanding of the organisational context and a tolerance for ambiguity when applying knowledge and problem-solving skills to specific cases.
Submission	Week 10 (Detailed information is provided below)
Weighting	25% in total for Assessment 2 Group Oral Presentation: 10% Group Business Report: 15%
Total Marks	Group Oral Presentation: 100 marks Group Business Report: 100 marks

General information of the assessment:

A group of 3-5 students must be officially registered with the lecturer by the end of week 3. After that, a case study is distributed to each group.
Group members will work together to respond to the case study questions and the ethical case questions of the assigned case study and then present their group’s answers in the group oral presentation and the group business report.
All group members will be given the same mark for this group assessment.
All group members are expected to contribute equal work and efforts to both of the oral presentation and the business report. A non-participating/uncooperative group member will be given 0 mark.
Late submission penalty is applied: An assessment is ‘overdue’ when it is not submitted by the due date or by the agreed extension date. For each calendar day the assessment is late, a loss of 10% of the total possible marks will occur up to a total of 5 calendar days, after which a zero mark will be recorded.

Instruction for the group oral presentation:

Group oral presentations are conducted in class in Week 10 (during lecture session). The duration for each group’s oral presentation is expected to be at least 15 minutes.
The PowerPoint slide of the oral presentation is required to be submitted on the Blackboard by 11:55pm AEST of the presentation day in week 10. (Turnitin report for the PowerPoint slide is not required).
Only 1 group member is required to submit on the Blackboard on behalf of the group.
The marking rubrics for the group oral presentation is provided below.

Instruction for the group business report:

Word limit: 1,500 words
A proper report format is expected (title page, executive summary, table of contents, introduction, body of the report with headings and subheadings, conclusion & recommendations, appendices, list of references)
The business report is required to be submitted on the Blackboard by 11:55pm AEST of the presentation day in week 10. (Turnitin report for the business report is required).
Only 1 group member is required to submit on the Blackboard on behalf of the group.
Students are strongly advised to avoid plagiarism or collusion in doing the assessment. General rule: If the similarity, detected and reported by Turnitin report, comes from the original assignment questions, table of contents, table of numbers and data, diagrams and charts, calculations, reference list, appendix…, then it is not an indication of plagiarism. However, if the similarity comes from the discussion or analysis or interpretation or recommendation parts of the assignment then it is an indication that the student has “copied and pasted” from the original source. This is not the student’s own work and therefore it will negatively affect the quality of the student’s answers in the submitted report.
A minimum of 3 different academic reference sources are required. Remember that Wikipedia, Investopedia and other similar websites are not academic sources and must not be used as a reference source.
The marking rubrics for the group business report is provided below.

Marking Rubrics for the Group Oral Presentation: 100 marks

Assessment Attributes	Fail (0-49%)	Pass (50-64%)	Credit (65-74%)	Distinctions (75-84%)	High Distinction (85-100%)
Knowledge and understanding of the costing system techniques used in the case study. (10 marks)	Shows very little to no understanding of how to apply the costing system technique to the case study in question. Key components of the assignment are not addressed. Demonstrates little to no capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Has answered most parts incorrectly.	Shows limited understanding of how to apply the costing system technique to the case study in question. Has answered some parts incorrectly.	Thorough knowledge or understanding of the costing system techniques relevant to the case study.	Highly developed understanding of the costing system techniques relevant to the case study.	A sophisticated understanding of the costing system techniques relevant to the case study.
Ability to use and apply the cost information generated to undertake the relevant analyses required by the case study. (10 marks)	Shows no understanding of how to apply the cost information generated to the analyses in the case study questions.	Shows limited understanding of how to apply the cost information generated to the analyses in the case study questions.	Shows good understanding of how to apply the cost information generated to the analyses in the case study questions.	Shows highly developed understanding of how to apply the cost information generated to the analyses in the case study questions.	Shows sophisticated understanding of how to apply the cost information generated to the analyses in the case study questions.
Developed recommendations in line with the evidence available in the case and generated by the costing analysis. (10 marks)	No recommendations developed.	Recommendations developed but not broadly consistent with the evidence presented and generated in the case.	Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.	Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.	Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.

Ethical/moral reasoning (recognises ethical and moral issues within a discipline and is able to reason based on these principles). (10 marks)	Difficulty in formulating own opinion and lack of recognition of ethical principles and competing interests. Does not clearly demonstrate moral- ethical reasoning.	Difficulty in justifying conclusions based on moral-ethical principles but recognises different viewpoints.		Conclusions are justified based on moral-ethical principles.		Formulates and justifies conclusions based on moral- ethical principles. Can recognise the competing interests in arguments and identify ethical issues embodied in them.		Uses ethical principles to identify competing interests and views. Sophisticated understanding of the ethical and moral positions. Well-articulated viewpoint based on moral-ethical reasoning.
Effective communication with sufficient and proper oral presentation skills (40 marks)	Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence. Audience cannot follow the line of reasoning. No eye contact is maintained with all the audience.	Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical. Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow. Little eye contact is maintained with all the audience.		Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments. Line of reasoning is easy to follow. Little eye contact is maintained with all the audience.		Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented; the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence. Demonstrates cultural sensitivity. Some eye contact is maintained with all the audience.		Expertly presented; the presentation is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments. Engages and sustains audience’s interest in the topic, demonstrates high levels of cultural sensitivity
								Effective use of diverse presentation aids, including graphics and multimedia.
								Eye contact is maintained with all the audience most of the time.
Team work demonstrated in the preparation and the conduct of the group oral presentation (15 marks)	Does not participate effectively in a team environment. Places individual goals ahead of the group responsibility. Hinders the group process and upsets the schedule.		Participates effectively in teams. Identifies team and individual goals, tasks, responsibilities and schedules. Contributes to group processes. Supports the team.		Contributes to small group discussions to reach agreement on issues. Works together with others towards shared goals. Renegotiates responsibilities to meet needed change.	Understands group dynamics and team roles. Facilitates team development. Renegotiates responsibilities, tasks and schedules to meet needed change.	•	Builds team’s identity and commitment. Leads teams. Evaluates teams’ outcomes. Implements strategies for enhancing team effectiveness.
Use of academic and discipline conventions and sources of evidence. (5 marks)	Poorly written with errors in spelling, grammar. Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are mistakes in using the APA style.		Is written according to academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary) and has accurate spelling, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction. Demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.		Is well-written and adheres to the academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary). Demonstrates consistent use of high quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.	Is very well-written and adheres to the academic genre. Consistently demonstrates expert use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop appropriate arguments and statements. Shows evidence of reading beyond the key reading. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.		Expertly written and adheres to the academic genre. Demonstrates expert use of high-quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows extensive evidence of reading beyond the key reading. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.

Marking Rubrics for the Group Business Report: 100 marks

Assessment Attributes	Fail (0-49%)		Pass (50-64%)	Credit (65-74%)	Distinctions (75-84%)		High Distinction (85-100%)
Knowledge and understanding of the costing system techniques used in the case study. (20 marks)	Shows very little to no understanding of how to apply the costing system technique to the case study in question. Key components of the assignment are not addressed. Demonstrates little to no capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Has answered most parts incorrectly.		Shows limited understanding of how to apply the costing system technique to the case study in question. Has answered some parts incorrectly.	Thorough knowledge or understanding of the costing system techniques relevant to the case study.	Highly developed understanding of the costing system techniques relevant to the case study.		A sophisticated understanding of the costing system techniques relevant to the case study.
Ability to use and apply the cost information generated to undertake the relevant analyses required by the case study. (20 marks)	Shows no understanding of how to apply the cost information generated to the analyses in the case study questions.		Shows limited understanding of how to apply the cost information generated to the analyses in the case study questions.	Shows good understanding of how to apply the cost information generated to the analyses in the case study questions.	Shows highly developed understanding of how to apply the cost information generated to the analyses in the case study questions.		Shows sophisticated understanding of how to apply the cost information generated to the analyses in the case study questions.
Developed recommendations in line with the evidence available in the case and generated by the costing analysis. (20 marks)	No recommendations developed.		Recommendations developed but not broadly consistent with the evidence presented and generated in the case.	Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.	Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.		Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Ethical/moral reasoning (recognises ethical and moral issues within a discipline and is able to reason based on these principles). (25 marks)		Difficulty in formulating own opinion and lack of recognition of ethical principles and competing interests. Does not clearly demonstrate moral- ethical reasoning.	Difficulty in justifying conclusions based on moral-ethical principles but recognises different viewpoints.	Conclusions are justified based on moral-ethical principles.		Formulates and justifies conclusions based on moral- ethical principles. Can recognise the competing interests in arguments and identify ethical issues embodied in them.		Uses ethical principles to identify competing interests and views. Sophisticated understanding of the ethical and moral positions. Well-articulated viewpoint based on moral-ethical reasoning.
Use of academic and discipline conventions and sources of evidence. (15 marks)		Poorly written with errors in spelling, grammar. Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are mistakes in using the APA style.	Is written according to academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary) and has accurate spelling, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction. Demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.	Is well-written and adheres to the academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary). Demonstrates consistent use of high quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.		Is very well-written and adheres to the academic genre. Consistently demonstrates expert use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop appropriate arguments and statements. Shows evidence of reading beyond the key reading. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.		Expertly written and adheres to the academic genre. Demonstrates expert use of high-quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows extensive evidence of reading beyond the key reading. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.