Classroom playbook 03 · Accounting
A graded team assessment with assigned teams.
Students think privately, test their judgement together and submit one answer for a declared shared mark—with roster, attendance and attempt records supporting the result.
The assessment challenge
A shared mark needs a clear learning purpose and a traceable process.
A graded team task can assess professional discussion and collective judgement, but students need to know in advance how the mark works, who is eligible to receive it and what happens after an incorrect attempt.
Assigned teams, confirmed attendance and a recorded attempt path make the process clearer. Think First gives every student a starting position without turning private responses into hidden individual marks.
Before the assessment
Declare the rules before students enter the room.
Participation
Use the class roster and pre-assigned teams. Tell students that attendance must be confirmed for the shared mark to be awarded.
Roster only · Assigned teams · Attendance requiredStudent experience
Allow each student to join and require a private first response. Only the verified controlling device can commit the team answer.
Member devices on · Think First onQuestions and scoring
Use five to eight judgement questions, delay explanations until completion and publish the reducing-mark rule in advance.
6 · 4 · 2 · 0 marks per questionDuring the assessment
Six stages students can understand and staff can monitor.
The private response prepares the discussion. The recorded submission and mark always belong to the team.
- 01Confirm
A representative opens the assigned team.
One present team member enters the team code, checks the roster and confirms who is in the room. Only confirmed, assigned students take part in the team result.
- 02Join
Each present student joins on their own device.
Students use the same team code. One verified device controls the answer while the other devices follow the question and team progress.
- 03Think
Every student commits privately before discussion.
Students interpret the IAS 37 evidence and choose an initial treatment. These responses prepare the discussion but do not create separate individual marks.
- 04Decide
The team agrees on one defensible answer.
Students compare the obligation, likelihood and measurement evidence. The controlling student records the team choice only after the team is ready.
- 05Retry
Feedback prompts a second attempt at the reasoning.
An incorrect scratch reduces the marks still available without revealing the answer. The team must diagnose its reasoning and decide again.
- 06Complete
The shared result is attached to confirmed attendance.
After the final question, students review the explanations. Present, confirmed members receive the team result according to the declared assessment design.
Example question · Financial reporting
Uncertainty does not always mean disclosure only.
IAS 37 · Provisions and contingent liabilities
At 31 December, Mhlabeni Appliances faces a customer claim arising from a defective heater sold in November. Its legal advisers conclude that the incident created a present legal obligation and that there is a 65% probability that the company will have to pay. R2.4 million is the best reliable estimate of the settlement, although the customer is claiming R5 million. What is the most appropriate treatment at 31 December?
- A
Disclose a contingent liability only, because the outcome and final amount are not certain.
- B
Recognise a R2.4 million provision and, if material, disclose the nature of the obligation and the key estimation uncertainty.
Best supported - C
Recognise a R5 million provision because that is the amount claimed by the customer.
- D
Recognise nothing until the court reaches a final decision or a settlement is signed.
Reveal teaching answerHide teaching answerCheck the supported option and feedback sequence
After an incorrect attempt
Not yet. 4 marks remain.
TAIF confirms that the attempt is incorrect without identifying the answer. The team reconsiders whether recognition requires certainty and which amount represents the best estimate.
Explanation after completion
Why B is best supported
A provision is recognised because a past event has created a present obligation, an outflow is probable and the amount can be estimated reliably. R2.4 million is the best estimate; the claimant’s R5 million demand is not automatically the measurement of the provision. Related disclosure is subject to materiality.
- Why A was tempting
- The outcome is uncertain, but a provision does not require absolute certainty when the recognition criteria are met.
- What mattered
- The present obligation, probable outflow and reliable best estimate support recognition rather than disclosure only.
After the assessment
Review marks, attendance and learning together.
First-attempt success
See which questions teams could resolve before receiving correctness feedback.
Eventual correctness
Identify where discussion and retry improved the final result—or where teaching follow-up is still needed.
Attendance-linked export
Export the shared team marks for students confirmed present and resolve any flagged attendance exception before release.
Keep the evidence boundaries clear: private Think First choices show participation, not individual attainment. Use the team result only for the declared team component of the course.
Adapt the format
Change the logistics without changing the published rules.
Only one device per team?
Turn off member devices and Think First. Keep the assigned roster, attendance confirmation and one shared submission for the same published team mark.
Want lower pressure first?
Run the same structure as a low-stakes tutorial before using it for credit, so students experience the process and retry rule.
Need an individual mark?
Use a separate individually assessed task. Private Think First responses are intentionally not designed as verified evidence of individual authorship.
Use with judgement
Best when collaboration is part of what you intend to assess.
Use this format for
- Applied questions with defensible alternatives
- Professional judgement and peer explanation
- A declared team component within a broader course
- Assessment designs that permit retries for reducing marks
Choose another format when
- You must verify individual authorship
- Students may not discuss the assessment
- An individually invigilated result is required
- Institutional policy does not permit a shared team mark
Experience the team assessment