National External Moderation Summary Report for 2008, Semester 1

Prescription: 100/400 Accounting Principles

Introduction

This report provides a national perspective on the moderation of 100/400 Accounting Principles.

Assessment materials from 33 Tertiary Education Organisations (TEOs) were moderated for this prescription.

Of the 14 submissions for 100 Accounting Principles , six submissions (43%) met the national standard. Of the 19 submissions for 400 Accounting Principles , nine submissions (47%) met the national standard.

The following is a reference from the 2005 National External Moderation Summary Report for 100 Accounting Principles :

The lack of detail in marking schedules, in terms of evidence required or mark allocations, [was] the major reason for not meeting the standard. Occasionally suggested solutions were provided with no marking schedules.

Limited improvement has been made in this area over the intervening three years; improperly prepared marking schedules continue to be the main reason for not meeting the standard. This also led to inconsistencies in the marking of students' work.

The 2005 National Moderation report also noted that a number of submissions featured dated resources for use by students. It recommended that 'suggested resources should be recent'. A small number of prescription 400 materials still refer to older resources originally listed in the 100 Accounting Principles prescription. Resources should include relevant and updated websites. TEOs should also ensure that resources are listed with the appropriate referencing style to set a good example to their students. This is partially why a relatively high number of submissions (12) did not meet current industry practice. A number had solutions that suggested students are not being assessed against what is labelled Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP).

Areas where the national standard was not met included the following, with numbers of submissions affected shown in parentheses:

learning outcomes not assessed (10)
assessment outcomes not assessed at an appropriate level (9)
prescription weightings not adhered to (5)
lack of clear assessment instructions (10)
assessments not consistent with good industry practice (12)
marking schedules not allowing for a range of responses (10)
insufficient detail in marking schedules to enable consistent marking (10)
marking schedules not consistent with requirements (9)
inconsistent marking of student work (10).

Of the 18 submissions not meeting the national standard, 12 did not meet four or more of the above requirements.

Presentation of assessment materials

Nine of the submissions (27%) did not include all of the required materials. In most cases this contributed to not meeting other requirements and/or the overall standard.

Assessment grids

The standard of assessment grids has improved since the last moderation round for 100 Accounting Principles . Only three submissions had an inadequate assessment grid. Not having a properly planned assessment grid may have led to the number of submissions not meeting the requirement for all learning outcomes being assessed.

Learning outcomes

Note that the new prescription requires that all learning outcomes and key elements be assessed. The learning outcome is the primary requirement, with the key elements specifying the assessment coverage.

The most common issues were:

Outcome 1 key element b, The accounting cycle: Many confused this with the business cycle.
Outcome 1 key element d, Function of internal control: This was often not assessed.
Outcome 2: Some elements of accrual accounting need to be assessed.
Outcome 2 key element b, Accounting policies: Not all policies were assessed.
Outcome 3 key element d, Recommendations: A number of submissions considered that an "explanation of an outcome" was the same as "making a recommendation". Students need to be able to recommend areas for improvement.
Outcome 4 key element b, Preparation of a simple trading budget: Some submissions used a cash budget rather than a trading budget.
Outcome 4 key element c, Report on variances: There must be some reporting on the variances (favourable, unfavourable being the minimum acceptable).

The following should be noted for future deliveries of this prescription:

Outcome 2 key element a, Statements should be prepared from a list: Complete statements need to be prepared from balances supplied.
Outcome 2 key element b: There should be recognition of impairment in relation to non-current tangible assets.
Outcome 2 key element b: The determination of net realisable value, in relation to inventory, should take into account an allowance for selling costs as well as selling price.
Outcome 2 key element b: A number of submissions confused accounting policies relating to inventory (valuation), and accounting for inventory (perpetual or periodic). The learning outcome is aimed at policies and it is First In First Out, Weighted Average Cost or other similar methods that should be assessed.
Outcome 1 key element f, and Outcome 3 key element b: The focus of this course is on a sole trader or small company. Therefore care should be taken to ensure that students are not expected to calculate sharemarket ratios (EPS, dividend yield etc). They may, however, be expected to explain the meaning of these ratios.

Level of assessments

Four of the submissions for 400 Accounting Principles did not meet the standard due to inappropriate level. While one of these related to inappropriately high levels of assessment, three had dropped below the new level four. The main reasons for this included:

too much assistance given to students
excessive preparation of accounts or calculation of ratios required
awarding of marks too generous.

Prescription weightings

Prescription weightings were generally well adhered to. It appears that most TEOs have grasped the notion of 10% variance. Issues relating to prescription weightings usually related to inadequate assessment grids.

Assessment conditions and instructions for students

Assessments are required to be fair to students sitting the assessment. The student needs to be able to read and understand the questions presented. A number of submissions had assessments that had particularly poor presentation, and it was doubtful whether or not students could understand the requirements of the question. Spelling, typographical and grammatical errors were common within these assessments.

Consistency with industry practice

In addition to the note above in regard to industry practice, it was observed that very few submissions made any reference to financial reporting standards. Students should be aware of the existence of the relevant standard and the basic concepts/definitions/policies contained within them.

Marking schedules

Refer to the note in the introductory section above in regard to improperly prepared marking schedules and the resulting effect on marking of student scripts.

Conclusions

There were a large number of submissions (33) for this round. The number was slightly less than the previous round (37) and there was a slight improvement in the number of submissions which met the standard. As with the previous round the quality of submissions was highly variable and this resulted in the high number of submissions not meeting requirements.

It was noted that many TEOs continue to meet the needs of their students by using innovative tools.

Page updated: 27 January 2009