ACCT1102 assignment: how does the peer factor change marks?

Direct answer: The ACCT1102 assignment is the group component of ACCT1102 Introduction to Management Accounting, a 2-unit course taught in person at UQ's St Lucia campus from 27/07/2026 to 21/11/2026. It needs ACCT1110 first and assesses learning outcome 3, working in a group to prepare a draft budget.

None of the top five results from a web search for the ACCT1102 assignment on 2026-10-31 was the UQ course profile. One is lecture-note material attributed to QUT, one advertises a writing service, one is a Melbourne subject with a different code, one is a blank group-form template and one lists files on a sharing site. The UQ electronic course profile for Semester 2, 2026 is the page that answers the question, and it is not open to Bachelor of Advanced Business (Honours) or Bachelor of Advanced Finance and Economics (Honours) students.

Source: UQ electronic course profile for ACCT1102, Semester 2 2026, read 2026-10-31.

For the ACCT1102 assignment the group must have exactly 4 students. An extension can run to 14 days in multiples of 24 hours. A late submission loses 10% of the maximum mark for every 24 hours, up to 7 days, and scores 0 after that. The wider subject is management accounting, which assumes the recording skills taught in ACCT1110.

Direct answer: In published data, enough to change a grade band. Fermelis et al. (2007) found 21 of 39 architecture teams (64 of 117 students) had marks individualised, and in the largest case a tutor mark of 63% became 38%, 69% and 82% for different members.

For the ACCT1102 assignment, UQ's profile says each student completes a form on "their perception of the relative contribution of each of their group members" (The University of Queensland, 2026). The profile text read for this guide does not quote the conversion formula, so the arithmetic below is an illustration written by MAAS and not UQ's method.

Suppose the report earns a group mark of 70. Teammates rate one another out of 5, and the average ratings received are 5.0, 4.0, 4.0 and 3.0, so the group average is 4.0. Dividing each average by 4.0 gives factors of 1.25, 1.00, 1.00 and 0.75, and the individual marks become 87.5, 70, 70 and 52.5. The gap between the highest and lowest is 35 marks even though everyone submitted the same document.

In the architecture strand of Fermelis et al. (2007), 21 of the 39 teams saw their marks individualised, covering 64 of 117 students, and the widest spread turned a tutor mark of 63% into 38%, 69% and 82%. They worked with 1406 entries, 359 of them left blank, and report an average spread in the factor of 0.275, with a maximum of 0.688. In a business communication cohort, 72 of 185 teams had a spread above 0.3, 35% of on-campus and 59% of off-campus teams. They also found 29 teams were individualised by up to 20%. The study is not about accounting, but it shows how the same peer assessment mechanism behaves in large cohorts. Keep dated notes of who produced which schedule, because a rating is easier to defend when you can point to it.

Direct answer: Students support it more than they trust it. Wandel and Willey (2011) found 100% of on-campus students favoured different marks for different contributions, yet only 50% thought the marks fair. Hassan, Fox and Hannah (2014) and Sridharan, Muttakin and Mihret (2018) report mixed accounting results.

Wandel and Willey (2011) surveyed engineering students and report that only about half of the respondents (50% on campus, 49% distance) agreed that the process allocated individual marks fairly. Every on-campus respondent (100%) supported differentiated marks, as did 84% of distance students, 40% in both groups said they tried to contribute more equally after the first round, and 75% on campus and 62% at a distance wanted anonymity.

Herbert (2006) examined a software team course. In 2004, 129 students rated 7 pieces of work, and 453 of 903 ratings (50%) gave teammates equal scores, though only 42 of 189 teams (22%) did so across the whole team, falling to 15% in 2005. Teams made up only of international students gave equal scores 76% of the time in 2004 and 58% in 2005. Herbert (2006) concludes that equal scores rarely cover a whole team, so a rating that looks lazy is not necessarily neutral.

Inside accounting, Hassan, Fox and Hannah (2014) concluded that self- and peer-assessment appear neither accurate nor valid, although students felt positively about the learning experience. Sridharan, Muttakin and Mihret (2018) found that students who thought the allocation appropriate also saw less free riding, and Cadiz Dyball et al. (2007) found large-cohort students saw assessed group work as a way to develop transferable skills.

Direct answer: Yes for the report, no for the exams. The group report is an open assessment where notes, documents and "other tools, including AI" are allowed, while both exams are secure. The report assesses LO3 only, so its skills reach the exams only if you rebuild them by hand.

The mismatch between the ACCT1102 assignment and the exams is visible in the profile's learning outcome lists. The report covers LO3, which reads "Work in a group to prepare and professionally communicate a draft budget" (The University of Queensland, 2026). The in-semester exam covers LO1 and LO2, and the final exam covers LO1, LO2, LO4 and LO5, so budgeting practice done with a tool is not examined directly. The exams do share costing and cost-volume-profit work under LO2.

Both papers give 90 minutes plus 10 minutes of planning and permit a Casio FX82 or a UQ-approved calculator. A conversion routine for the ACCT1102 assignment that fits those conditions has three steps. After the group submits, each member redoes one schedule alone on paper with the notes closed. Next, set a 40-minute timer and write one paragraph explaining what the schedule means for a manager. Finally, check the arithmetic on the calculator you will carry into the exam room.

Past formats help you read advice critically. In Semester 1 of 2025, the task was a group assignment with a presentation component, while the current task is a written report. Guides that tell you to rehearse a presentation describe the older task, so rely on the profile for your own semester and on your tutor for group questions.

Direct answer: Because everyday wording makes the same calculation easier to recognise. Johnson and Sargent (2014) tested students at eight US universities and found that those without instruction did as well as instructed students when problems used everyday language or supplied formulas.

Johnson and Sargent (2014) studied Introduction to Financial Accounting and Managerial Accounting students and report that participants without instruction did as well as instructed students when problems were in everyday language or formulas were provided. The practical reading is that a formula you memorised is least useful exactly where an exam hides the structure of the question.

Here is a worked cost-volume-profit example written by MAAS. A product sells for $20 with $12 of variable cost per unit, and fixed costs are $24,000. The contribution margin is $8 per unit, so the break-even point is 3,000 units. The same answer in sales dollars is $60,000, because the contribution margin ratio is 40% and 24,000 divided by 0.40 is 60,000. If the question asks for a $16,000 profit, divide 24,000 plus 16,000 by 8 to get 5,000 units. If expected sales are 4,000 units, the margin of safety is 1,000 units, or 25%.

The three questions use identical numbers, yet students often answer in units when dollars were asked. Underline the unit in the question before you calculate. A later UQ course uses the same tools at greater depth, and it has its own ACCT2522 guide.