Simulated audit engagement: An authentic profession-relevant assessment

If we want students to think and act like auditors, we should assess them in ways that require them to be auditors.

One of the perennial challenges in accounting education is bridging the gap between what students learn in lectures and what they are expected to do in professional practice. Auditing, in particular, can feel abstract to students: full of standards, assertions and technical language, yet difficult to visualise as a professional activity.

Over recent years, I have been increasingly interested in how we can move beyond traditional exams, towards assessments that more closely resemble the realities of professional work. This article reflects on a simulated audit engagement developed for a Master’s level auditing module at Queen’s Business School, co-designed and delivered with Grant Thornton. The assessment places students in the role of senior auditors and asks them to complete a realistic audit task from start to finish.

The intention is simple: if we want students to think and act like auditors, we should assess them in ways that require them to be auditors.

Authenticity as a design principle

A key concept underpinning this assessment is authentic learning. Authentic assessments are designed to resemble real-world tasks, require judgement rather than rote learning, and involve complex, ill-structured problems. In auditing, this means students must deal with ambiguity, incomplete information, and professional scepticism – rather than simply applying mechanical procedures.

Several features were deliberately built into the assessment to enhance authenticity:

• Realistic documentation: students work with audit-style Excel workpapers, lead schedules and financial statements.
• Professional roles: students are explicitly positioned as senior auditors, not students completing an assignment.
• Client interaction: the simulated client meeting forces students to formulate relevant questions and interpret responses.
• Professional communication: the final deliverable is an oral briefing to a partner, rather than a written report.

Crucially, the assessment was co-designed with practitioners from Grant Thornton, ensuring that the tasks, language and expectations closely reflected real audit practice. This partnership was essential in moving beyond a purely academic simulation towards something that genuinely felt “profession-relevant”.

From classroom to client: the assessment design

The assessment is framed as a simulated audit of a fictional retail client, a women’s fashion business operating across Ireland with both physical stores and a growing online presence. Students are told to assume the role of senior auditors on a Grant Thornton audit team and are provided with a detailed client briefing, trial balance, and financial statements for the year under review.

Each student group is allocated one key audit area – fixed assets, bank, trade receivables or trade payables – and receives a set of audit workpapers prepared by a (fictional) junior team member. Their task is to review this work critically, assess whether it appropriately addresses the relevant audit assertions, and decide whether further procedures or audit adjustments are required.

The structure of the assessment mirrors a real audit workflow:

1. Partner briefing – students attend a session where the “audit partner” outlines the engagement and expectations.
2. Audit fieldwork – groups analyse workpapers, perform analytical review, and identify issues.
3. Client meeting – each group has a short, time-limited meeting with the “client” to ask follow-up questions and obtain explanations.
4. Partner presentation – students present their findings, proposed adjustments, and audit implications to the audit partner.

The entire exercise takes place within a single intensive “audit assessment day”, simulating the time pressure, teamwork and professional communication demands of practice.

What do students actually learn?

Student feedback has been one of the most compelling indicators of the assessment’s value. Over 80% of students reported that they would like to see more assessments of this type across the accounting curriculum. 

Several recurring themes emerged.

1. Professional scepticism

Many students commented on the challenge of not simply accepting client explanations at face value. One student noted:

The importance of professional scepticism, especially with the client meeting.

This is a core auditing skill that is often discussed theoretically but rarely experienced in practice. The simulation forces students to confront the tension between client narratives and audit evidence.

2. Communication with clients

Another student reflected:

The main takeaway for me was in the client interaction where I realised that they are not always going to be helpful and you need to learn how to deal with this.

Learning how to ask effective questions, manage limited time, and handle vague or evasive responses is a form of professional competence that cannot be learned from textbooks.

3. Applying theory to practice

Students also highlighted how the simulation helped them see the relevance of technical content:

. . . how the theory learned in class is actually applied in practice and how the audit procedures are performed.

Concepts such as assertions, materiality, and audit risk move from abstract ideas to practical decision-making tools.

Benefits for employability and professional identity

Beyond technical learning, the simulation supports broader employability outcomes. Students develop:

• critical analysis and judgement
• teamwork under time pressure
• professional communication skills
• confidence in interacting with senior stakeholders
• understanding of audit workflows and documentation

In effect, the assessment functions as a form of professional socialisation. Students begin to see themselves not just as learners of accounting, but as future professionals capable of performing meaningful audit tasks.

From an academic perspective, this aligns with the idea of developing students’ professional identity – helping them transition from “student” to “accountant-in-training”.

A surprising benefit: reducing inappropriate AI use

An unexpected but important outcome of this assessment design is its resistance to inappropriate use of generative AI because the task is:

• time-bound
• in-person
• interactive
• based on live questioning and presentations

It is very difficult for students to outsource meaningful elements of the work to AI tools. While students may use AI for preparation or revision, the core assessment requires human judgement, communication and real-time problem-solving.

In this sense, authentic assessment may offer a constructive response to current concerns around AI and academic integrity. Rather than policing technology, we design tasks that cannot easily be automated.

Challenges and practical considerations

While the benefits are substantial, this type of assessment is not without challenges.

1. Resource intensity

Simulations require significant preparation: creating realistic workpapers, coordinating client meetings, and managing multiple groups in real time. They are more demanding than traditional assessments for both staff and students.

2. Student uncertainty

Some students initially find the open-ended nature of the task uncomfortable. They are used to clear instructions and model answers, not professional judgement and ambiguity. Formative support and clear expectations are essential.

3. Scalability

One of the main practical challenges is scalability. While simulations work well with moderate class sizes, they become more difficult to manage as cohorts grow. Coordinating client meetings, providing meaningful feedback, and ensuring an authentic experience for all students requires careful timetabling and often limits how large the cohort can be. This raises important questions about how such approaches can be adapted for large undergraduate programmes without losing the very authenticity that makes them effective.

Advice for others considering similar approaches

Based on this experience, three practical lessons stand out:

1. Build industry partnerships early: Practitioner input is critical for authenticity, relevance and credibility.
2. Prepare students for ambiguity: Students need support in developing professional judgement and confidence in open-ended tasks.
3. Start small and iterate: Pilot with one module or one simulation before scaling up.

Reflections

This simulated audit engagement represents a shift away from assessing what students know, towards assessing what they can do. It treats assessment not as a measurement exercise, but as a learning experience in its own right. For auditing in particular, this approach feels especially appropriate. Auditing is not about memorising standards; it is about judgement, evidence, communication and scepticism in messy, real-world contexts.

If our goal is to prepare graduates for professional life, then authentic, practice-based assessments should not be the exception – they should be the norm.

And perhaps most importantly, students seem to agree.

Brenda Clerkin

Brenda is a senior lecturer of Practice in Accounting and a qualified accountant with extensive experience working with the Big Four professional services firms. She has a keen interest in modern technologies and how they can be applied to businesses.

Brenda is passionate about improving how businesses are run and views a dynamic combination of effective leadership and digital technologies as critical to organisational success. She brings leadership and accounting theories to life through the application of real-world experience and insight

Part of the Pedagogy series

Join the Accounting Cafe community

© Accounting Cafe

How to cite this article: Clerkin, B. (2026) ‘Simulated audit engagement: An authentic profession-relevant assessment’, Accounting Cafe, 3 February. Available at: https://accountingcafe.org/2026/02/03/simulated-audit-engagement/ (Accessed: [insert date])