IUullialuliy) APPENDIX 2 ASSESSMENT 2: GROUP ASSIGNMENT : 4 November 2016 by 23.00 hours Due date Weight: 30% Word limit : Approximately 3000 + 10% words (excluding references) Purpose: to enhance students' team-working, research, analytical and written communication skills. Group Group ssignment should be undertaken groups of maximum five students. Tutor will allocate students to groups. You should consider appointing a group leader who will distribute the work to group members, monitor progress and submit the work. Avoid splitting the up the assignment questions to work on individually without collaboration. A better approach is for each member to individually prepare a draft answer for all questions. That is to say, all students are expected to work together for each question. You should consider developing a Page 11 clear plan for the assignment that includes tasks, responsibilities and milestones. All team members will be awarded the same mark for the written part of group assignment. If the group has an issue they need to inform the lecturer-in-charge via email and the tutor early in the semester The task Each group will be allocated a case which concerns a real life corporate scandal. For each allocated case, students should answer the following questions: Mark available Mark allocated WNNN What was the scandal? How did they do it? When did it take place, and who was involved? Who were the stakeholders in this situation, and what was the impact of this violation on the stakeholders? What accounting principle(s) they violated? How did the misdeed affect the stock price? Who were the auditors, and what role the auditors played in this incidence? What were the lessons learned? Format and presentation (physical layout, spelling, referencing TOTAL 3 2 2 ANNNN 2 2 20 Grade descriptors that will be used to grade the assignment: Descriptors Development of arguments and use of evidence DI CR Demonstrates Demonstrates high standard good of insight and understanding originality. of major Solid concepts. arguments Arguments with excellent with support reasonable support HD Demonstrates exceptionally insightful and interesting arguments. A comprehensiv e and highly- structured response to the task Exceptional analytical and evaluative skills NN Fails to address the question posed. Little or no support PA Fair knowledge of the subject matter. Arguments with acceptable support Critical thinking and analysis Evidence of analytical skills Little or no evidence of analytical skills Barely sufficient evidence of analytical skills Evidence of reasonable support Evidence of Highly developed analytical and evaluative skills Evidence of excellent support Evidence of substantial Use of evidence Evidence of good support Evidence of exceptional support Evidence of extensive Little or no support to arguments Little or no evidence of Research Evidence of adequate some Page 12