Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
MA611 Auditing
|
School
|
Business
|
Course Name
|
Master of Professional Accounting
|
Unit Code
|
MA611
|
Unit Title
|
Auditing
|
Trimester
|
1/2021
|
Assessment Author
|
Dr Mac Wright
|
Assessment Type
|
Assignment [Individual]
|
Assessment Title
|
A Case study in discussing the legal responsibilities of the Auditor
|
Unit Learning Outcomes Addressed:
|
a. Explain and apply the principles, practice and process of auditing to practical situations.
b. Interpret the legal and ethical requirements involved in an audit and apply them to diverse situations.
c. Compare and contrast the organisation’s and the auditor’s responsibilities for an audit.
d. Explain the importance of planning an audit and distinguish the steps involved.
e. Identify and critically evaluate the risks inherent in an audit.
|
Weight
|
20%
|
Total Marks
|
50 marks
|
Word limit
|
Not more than 1,000 words
|
Release Date
|
Week 3
|
Due Date
|
28th
April, 2021 at 5 PM.
|
Submission Guidelines
|
· All work must be submitted on Moodle by the due date (as above) along with a completed Assignment Cover Page.
· The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 11-pt Calibri (Body) font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings.
· Reference sources must be cited in the text of the Assessment Task, and listed appropriately at the end in a Reference List using APA 6th
editionfor the School of Business.https://library.mit.edu.au/referencing/APA
|
Extension
|
If an extension of time to submit work is required, an Application for Special Consideration and supporting documentation must be submitted onlinevia your Academic Management System (AMS) login:
https://online.mit.edu.au/ams.
The Application for Special consideration must be submitted no later than three (3) working days after the due date of the specific piece of assessment or the examination for which you are seeking Special Consideration. In the case of serious illness, loss or bereavement, hardship or trauma students may be granted special consideration.
|
Academic Misconduct
|
Academic Misconduct is a serious offence. Depending on the seriousness of the case, penalties can vary from a written warning or zero marks to exclusion from the course or rescinding the degree. Students should make themselves familiar with the full policy and procedure available at:http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policies-procedures-and-guidelines/Plagiarism-Academic-Misconduct-Policy-Procedure. For further information, please refer to the Academic Integrity Section in your Unit Description.
|
Assessment Task Description
In addition to the Submission Guidelines appearing on page 1, the assignment is to be completed individually. The submission into the
specific assignment drop box
in Moodle is to be made by each student individually.
This assignment is comprised is a single academic paper discussing a case, and is marked out of
50 marks and scaled back to 20%.
The marking rubric below sets out the requirements:
Principally you will be marked on five components:
(1) Critically examine what happened at Western Desert Resources, including who held primary responsibility for the shambles. (10 marks)
(2) Who was the auditor, and explain whether they should have issued an unqualified report? (10 marks)
(3) Examine in detail the key legal issues. (10 marks)
(4) Discuss critically the key ethical issues. (10 marks)
(5)
Format, Presentation Quality and Demonstration of Research
(10 marks)
As mentioned above, the assessment should be presented in an academic paper format.
A key aspect in your choice of format/layout should be to ensure you impart your key messages
effectively (i.e., complete the requirements)
and
efficiently
(i.e.,
it should be succinct and take into account the word limit).
Make sure all pages are numbered, and the text fits within the margins of your pages. Make sure to include the relevant heading.
Required:
Critically examine the failures of Western Desert Resources Limited and the issues surrounding the failure, and the responsibilities of the Audit Firm in regard to the failure in terms of the above five components.
Marking criteria:
Assessment criteria (requirements) are shown in the following table.
Marks are allocated as follows:
Assessment criteria (Requirements) to be met and assessed
|
Detailed Description of the Assessment Criteria
|
Breakdown Marks
|
Unit Learning Outcome met
|
Criteria a
|
Explain the event and the level of duty of Management
|
10
|
a-d
|
Criteria b
|
Explain the Auditor’s duty
|
10
|
Criteria c
|
Discuss relative legal responsibilities
|
10
|
Criteria d
|
Explain ethical responsibilities of the Auditor
|
10
|
Criteria e
|
Set out as an academic paper with correct grammar and spelling
|
10
|
|
Total
|
|
50
|
|
Using Technology for Assessment
Rationale
|
Activities
|
Technological tools selected
|
This assessment task aims to achieve;
a) Critically examine the failures of Western Desert Resources Limited and the issues surrounding the failure, and the responsibilities of the Audit Firm in regard to the failure in terms of the above five components.
|
This aim will be achieved by;
· Reviewing relevant materials, including homework questions.
· Checking for plagiarism.
|
The tools selected for this assessment
· Online activities on Moodle, including Forums and Chats.
· Turnitin.
|
Marking Criteria and Rubric
|
Met requirements of the learning outcomes to an excellent level
(80 to 100%)
|
Met requirements of the learning outcomes to a very good level
(70 to 79%)
|
Met requirements of the learning outcomes to a good level
(60 to 69%)
|
Met requirements of the learning outcomes to a satisfactory level
(50 to 59%)
|
Did not met requirements
(0 to 49%)
|
Part 1 (out of 10 marks)
|
Fully researched and thoroughly covered all Requirements in depth and detail
|
Soundly researched and covered all points
|
A good development of all points
|
All points were covered
|
Did not cover all points
|
Part 2 (out of 10 marks)
|
Fully researched and thoroughly covered all Requirements in depth and detail
|
Soundly researched and covered all points
|
A good development of all points
|
All points were covered
|
Did not cover all points
|
Part 3 (out of 10 marks)
|
Fully researched and thoroughly covered all Requirements in depth and detail
|
Soundly researched and covered all points
|
A good development of all points
|
All points were covered
|
Did not cover all points
|
Part 4 (out of 10 marks)
|
Fully researched and thoroughly covered all Requirements in depth and detail
|
Soundly researched and covered all points
|
A good development of all points
|
All points were covered
|
Did not cover all points
|
Part 5 (out of 10)
|
Proper structure language and grammar and full evidence of supporting research
|
Proper structure and language and good evidence of research
|
Basic structure and grammar and evidence of research
|
Readable language
Some evidence of research
|
Poor grammar and little or no research
|
Grand Total Mark (Out of 50)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit Mark Contribution (Out of 20%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark:
Overall Feedback
Assessment Cover Sheet
Student ID Number/s:
|
Student Surname/s:
|
Given name/s:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Course:
|
School:
|
Unit code:
|
Unit title:
|
Due date:
|
Date submitted:
|
Campus:
|
Lecturer:
|
Tutor:
|
Student Declaration
I/We declare that:
1. the work contained in this assignment is my own work, except where acknowledgement of sources is made;
2. certify that this assessment has not been submitted previously for academic credit in this or any other course;
3. I have read the MIT’s Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct Policy Procedure, and I/we understand the consequences of engaging in plagiarism;
4. a copy of the original assignment is retained by me and that I may be required to submit the original assignment to the Lecturer and/or Unit Co-ordinator upon request;
I have not plagiarised the work of others or participated in unauthorised collaboration when preparing this assignment.
|
MIT ID
|
Signature
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|