Skip to main content

University of Notre Dame

iRubric for Sakai

iRubric: ACCT 20100 Group Assignment Fall 2020 rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
ACCT 20100 Group Assignment Fall 2020 ACCT 20100 Group Assignment Company Analysis Rubric for Financial Statement evaluation and related quantitative and qualitative analysis to support decision making Rubric Code: T2X75X4 Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Accounting Type: Assignment Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Group Case Submission Descriptions
	High Hi 1 pts	High Med 0.96 pts	High Lo 0.92 pts	Med Hi 0.9 pts	Med M 0.85 pts	Med Lo 0.8 pts	Low Hi 0.75 pts	Low Med 0.7 pts
Organization & Communications 10 pts	High Hi Exceptionally neat, organized & logical; no spelling or grammar errors; uses active voice; guides the reader through the analysis; concise and clear communication.	High Med Mostly neat, organized & logical; spelling or grammar errors; uses active voice often; guides the reader through the analysis; mostly concise and clear communication.	High Lo Fairly neat, organized & logical; spelling or grammar errors; uses active voice at times; guides the reader through the analysis; reasonably concise/clear communication.	Med Hi Generally logical but occasionally skips around; few lapses in grammar or spelling; generally guides the reader, communication could be more clear or concise.	Med M Generally logical but skips around; several lapses in grammar or spelling; reader needs to work to follow, communication could be more clear or concise.	Med Lo Skips around, but addresses all the requirements; lapses in grammar and/or spelling; reader must work to follow the train of thought, communication could be more clear or concise.	Low Hi Skips around, but addresses most requirements; lapses in grammar and/or spelling; reader must work to follow the train of thought, communication could be more clear or concise.	Low Med Haphazard; challenging to follow; numerous grammar and or spelling errors; generally sloppy in appearance
Creativity 10 pts	High Hi Exceptional creativity demonstrated in financial analysis and written communication; Innovative insights or ideas shared; Went well beyond project requirements to leverage other resources	High Med Exceptional creativity demonstrated in financial analysis or written communication; Innovative insights or ideas shared; Went well beyond project requirements to leverage other resources	High Lo Creativity demonstrated in financial analysis and/or written communication; Innovative insights or ideas shared; Went beyond project requirements to leverage other resources	Med Hi Creativity demonstrated in financial analysis or written communication; Innovative insights or ideas shared; Went beyond project requirements to leverage other resources	Med M Some creativity demonstrated in financial analysis and/or written communication; some innovative insights or ideas shared; Went beyond project requirements to leverage other resources	Med Lo Some creativity demonstrated in financial analysis or written communication; limited innovative insights or ideas shared; Went beyond project requirements to leverage other resources	Low Hi Little creativity demonstrated in financial analysis and/or written communication; limited innovative insights or ideas shared;	Low Med Little to no creativity demonstrated in financial analysis or written communication; limited innovative insights or ideas shared;
Financial Analysis & Discussion 30 pts	High Hi Presents an exceptional complete and accurate financial statement and ratio analysis; provides exceptionally clear and concise graphs/charts; insightful and thorough discussion; presents persuasive arguments to fully support conclusions and recommendations and references specific elements from analysis	High Med Presents a complete and accurate financial statement and ratio analysis; provides clear and concise graphs/charts; insightful or thorough discussion; presents arguments to fully support conclusions and recommendations and references specific elements from analysis	High Lo Generally analyzes all the financial statements and ratios, but does not connect in some areas; good use of graphs/charts; discussion is good, but lacking in certain areas; conclusions and recommendations are not fully supported and/or not always persuasive and leave some work to the reader to connect the dots	Med Hi Analysis is acceptable but not fully complete or accurate; some charts/graphs are used, but not as effectively as they could have been; discussion is adequate, but lacks persuasiveness and/or insightful perspective; recommendations and conclusions are not well supported;	Med M Analysis is acceptable; charts/graphs are used, but lack effectiveness; discussion is adequate, but lacks persuasiveness and insightful perspective; recommendations and conclusions are not well supported;	Med Lo Analysis is acceptable just not fully complete or accurate; some charts/graphs are used, or are lacking; discussion is adequate, but lacks persuasiveness or insightful perspective; recommendations and conclusions are supported;	Low Hi Analysis is mostly acceptable; few charts/graphs are used, or are lacking; discussion is adequate, but lacks persuasiveness or insightful perspective; recommendations and conclusions are weakly supported;	Low Med Analysis and discussion does not meet assignment requirements; does not understand fully ratio and analysis techniques of assignment or sufficiently able to connect them to the recommendations and conclusions and evaluate them
Recommendations & Conclusions 5 pts	High Hi Recommendations and conclusions are exceptionally clear and concise and flow clearly from the analysis; they are fully supported: they are logical and reasonable; there is no hedging and no part of the conclusion is unsupported	High Med Recommendations and conclusions are clear and concise and flow clearly from the analysis; they are fully supported: they are logical and reasonable; there is no hedging and no part of the conclusion is unsupported	High Lo Recommendations and conclusions are generally clear and concise and generally flow clearly from the analysis; they are supported: they are logical and reasonable; there is no hedging	Med Hi Recommendations and conclusions generally follow from the analysis but support is not fully integrated; leaves some work to the reader; offers some unsupported conclusions	Med M Recommendations and conclusions generally follow from the analysis but support is not well integrated; leaves work to the reader; offers some unsupported conclusions	Med Lo Most recommendations and conclusions follow from the analysis, but not clearly; conclusions are "hedged" with other issues or alternatives not clearly discussed; leaves work for the reader	Low Hi Few recommendations and conclusions follow from the analysis, but not clearly; conclusions are "hedged" with new issues or alternatives not clearly discussed; leaves work for the reader	Low Med Conclusions are unsupported; they do not follow logically from the analysis; leaves a lot of work for the reader
Professionalism 5 pts	High Hi Exceptionally professional work product in all aspects; no errors or mistakes in presentation; highly effective communication and presentation; significantly exceeds project requirements	High Med Significantly exceeding professional work product in all aspects; no errors or mistakes in presentation; highly effective communication and presentation; exceeds project requirements	High Lo Exceeding expected professional work product in all aspects; no errors or mistakes in presentation; highly effective communication and presentation; exceeds project requirements	Med Hi Very professional work product in all aspects; no more than two errors or mistakes in presentation; effective communication and presentation; exceeds project requirements	Med M Very professional work product in all aspects; no more than a few errors or mistakes in presentation; effective communication and presentation; exceeds project requirements	Med Lo Professional work product in all aspects; some errors or mistakes in presentation; effective communication and presentation; meets project requirements	Low Hi Acceptable work product; some errors or mistakes in presentation; effective communication and presentation; meets some project requirements	Low Med Unacceptable work product; numerous errors or mistakes in presentation; communication and presentation is ineffective; does not meet project requirements

Subjects:

Accounting

Types:

Assignment

Discuss this rubric

You may also be interested in:

More rubrics by this author

More Accounting rubrics

More Assignment rubrics

Do more with this rubric:

Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.

Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.

Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.

Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.

Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.

Assess

Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.

Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.

Share

Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.

Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.

Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubric^tm.

n178