Undergraduate accounting and finance students’ perception of an individualised assignment: an exploratory case study

Abstract

It is well documented that the impact of assessments on students’ learning is profound. There have been initiatives to incorporate innovative assessments in accounting and finance education to enhance students’ learning experience in various ways. However, there is limited research investigating whether and how the students’ learning experience is affected by individualising assessments (IAs). In this paper, we investigated students’ learning experience where the design of the summative assessment includes elements unique to each individual student in a finance module delivered to accounting and finance undergraduate students. We conducted phenomenological research using a focus group interview to explore this cohort’s collective and individual experiences. The results of the IA assessment used in the case study were analysed and found to be comparable with equivalent module outcomes. The focus group participants found the IA to be more challenging in terms of their skills to construct individualised tasks compared to the common tasks inherent in conventional written assignments that the students encountered when progressing an individualised assignment. Furthermore, students highlighted how effective IA was in helping them to develop a wider range of research and employability skills needed for their future study and employment prospects. Our analysis revealed the differential emotive experience that students have encountered in progressing their IAs. Our findings suggest accounting and finance educators who are contemplating designing and using IAs to ensure that students’ prior learning is sufficiently developed. We call for further research into the emotive implications of IAs on students’ learning experience.

Keywords:

• emotive implications
• individualised assignment
• phenomenological research
• students’ perception

Reviewing Editor:

• Sammy King Fai Hui, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Subjects:

• Finance
• Business, Management and Accounting
• Study Skills
• Higher Education

1. Introduction

The most robust of the findings in the whole corpus of educational research is probably that assessment drives student learning (Eraut,1995).

Good teaching systems align teaching methods and assessments with learning activities so that all aspects of the system are supportive of students’ learning (Biggs, 1999, 2014). Well-designed assessments can motivate students and encourage development and commitment to their learning (Rust et al., 2003). The selection and deployment of assessments can enhance the learning of well-designed curricula, but the opposite is also true (Christopher, 1996). Assessments can be described as a double-edged sword where “teachers can enhance or destroy students’ desires to learn more quickly and more permanently through their use of assessment than any other tools at their disposal” (Stiggins, 2001, pp.36). In recent years, higher education (HE) has moved away from imparting knowledge to students and, instead, is focused upon developing both hard and soft skills required to function more effectively in the workplace (Kurban, 2019; Laurillard, 2012; Talbert, 2016). Therefore, those traditional assessments which do not reward a wider array of evidence of learning and/or process have come under scrutiny and should be readdressed.

Accounting and finance programmes, in response to external pressures from the accounting profession and accreditation associations, reflect that a sizable portion of the UK accounting offerings are examined by invigilated written exams (Stout et al., 2005). This remained true during the COVID-19 pandemic where end-of-semester examination was still the most prevalent final assessment task although other alternative forms of assessment (e.g.: class-invigilated assessments, multi-media presentations, viva, and debates) were evident in some situations (Hancock et al., 2022). Sangster et al. (2020) provide greater insight into accounting education in the Covid-19 world. They reported that there was considerable comment from respondents on the extent to which the change from closed-book to open-book assessment formats might improve assessment practices. In the wider pedagogic context, therefore, there remains a call for research into alternative forms of assessment which can drive learning (Mountain et al., 2022).

Subject areas, such as accounting, require students to continuously apply techniques in order to excel at applied tasks (Nnadi & Mosser, 2014). This also applies to financial courses as it is crucial for students to develop subject knowledge and skills through application. While today’s teachers provide a variety of individualised tasks and activities in their classrooms to keep students engaged, they often do not accord the same emphasis to individuality in assessment. Since an effective assessment should enable students to demonstrate that they can apply what they have learned, careful consideration is given to the nature and construct of the assessment regime. Individualised assignments (IAs) defined in this study present each student with an opportunity to develop problem-solving, critical thinking, and employability skills because they are expected to produce their own unique solutions to the questions and tasks. IAs apply the principles of “learning by doing”, thereby engaging the student more holistically in the learning process.

This paper evaluates students’ perception of a summative IA in a financial module, and how it contributes to the student learning outcome, considering the advantages and hurdles when compared with the more traditional written assignment approach. The assessment was designed as an individualised case study carried out in a final year module addressing international financial markets where the collection and analysis of real-world international markets data forms an integral part of learning, teaching, and assessment. Our study was undertaken at a business school within a British university, engaging with recent graduates who had undertaken an undergraduate programme in Accounting and Finance leading to a BA (Hons) qualification.

Facing a bespoke set of circumstances in a simulated operating environment redolent of a multi-national enterprise (MNE), each student is required to gather specific market data that relates to the risks and opportunities inherent in the particular construct of their individualised trading configuration. While the underlying theoretical content is common to the entire student cohort, the applied aspect incorporates sufficient unique elements that it requires of each student to engage personally to construct a solution particular to their specific parameters. The pedagogical design therefore isolates the student in a task that is theirs alone and, while theoretical knowledge and generic methodology can be gleaned from the learning, teaching, and peers, the final result has to be developed uniquely by each individual.

This design holds advantages from a teaching and assessment perspective, but it is the objective of this study to explore the students’ experiences of learning and performing under these conditions. The contribution of this paper is threefold: it contributes specifically to the extant literature regarding accounting students’ learning experience and the impact of deploying an IA in an accounting and finance context. It more generally reveals the motivation and engagement that students ascend when attempting IAs. While IAs offered students a degree of freedom to deploy datasets and content, it also held emotive implications for them that impinged on their experience. The findings also contribute to the process of design and inclusion of IAs into accounting and finance modules.

This paper is organised as follows: section 2 provides a critical literature review of the extant literature as it pertains to accounting and finance students’ learning experience of different types of assignment including IAs. Section 3 addresses the IA deployed in some detail. Section 4 addresses the research method and data collection for this study. The analysis and findings of students’ perceptions are presented in section 5. Section 6 concludes the paper with a discussion and outlines recommended future research opportunities emanating from this study.

2. Literature review

Apostolou et al. published annual reviews of accounting education literature between 2010 and 2022 that reviewed the six main accounting education journals including: (1) Journal of Accounting Education; (2) Accounting Education: An International Journal; (3) Advances in Accounting Education; (4) Global Perspectives on Accounting Education; (5)Issues in Accounting Education; and (6) The Accounting Educators' Journal. The authors categorised the reviewed articles following four themes: curriculum, assurance of learning; technology-enabled education; students; faculty. Apostolou et al. have included financial modules studies into the accounting education literature series. Summary data and information are presented in Appendix 1. It is worth noting that first, there are limited and fragmented research studies examining diverse types of assessment used in accounting and finance education. Out of hundreds of articles that have been reviewed each year, there have been only a few that have a clear focus on assessment. Second, the majority of past studies have investigated traditional assessments such as exam, quiz, MCQ, apart from 2013–2014 where there had a few studies engaged with technology-enabled assessment. Third, financial modules are an important part of accounting degrees but, there remains a dearth of pedagogic research with finance subjects as the base. According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (Higher Education Statistics for the UK 2014/15 HESA, 2014), the rate of growth of finance (340%) in the UK for Finance between 1996-2013 is significantly higher than any other business subject (e.g.: accounting, (140%) signalling a need to redress this lacuna of scholarly output.

The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accounting accreditation declare accounting as “a learned profession, by recognizing outstanding accounting academic units that produce excellent graduates, impactful and relevant scholarship, and sustained mutually dependent engagement between academia and professional practice” (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business AACSB Accounting Accreditation, 2022). The closed book written exam which is largely used in the accounting subject favours students who excel at memorising and writing over those who show evidence of learning in a different way (Gallagher, 2003). Harvard University believes that the universities should replace the final exam with contemporary assessment where students can apply what they have learnt in practice (No More Final Exams At Harvard? 2011). This is evidenced elsewhere where accounting educators have been devoting themselves to designing assessments which could have positive impact on students’ learning. These include innovative formative and summative assessments such as: the group assessment and cooperative learning (Akindayomi, 2015; Ballantine & Larres, 2007; Dyball et al., 2007), technology enabled computer-aided and online assessment (Aisbitt & Sangster, 2005; Marriot & Lau, 2008; Marriott et al., 2015; Turner & Baskerville, 2011); assessment promoting active and deep learning such as self-assessment, peer assessment (Hassan et al., 2014; Hill, 2016). The pedagogical benefits of these alternative forms of assessments will be discussed in the next section where we will focus on students’ learning experience in the context of accounting and finance learning.

2.1. Students’ learning experience of accounting and finance assessments

When designing the assessment for an accounting or finance module, the merits and demerits of each method needs to be carefully considered in relation to the specific learning outcomes to be met. The following methods all have their own unique peculiarities to be considered.

2.1.1. Group and teamwork assessment

Dyball et al. (2007) study aimed mainly to provide quantitative evidence to argue that group work assessment is a vehicle to develop accounting students’ transferable skills including teamwork, self-management, and planning and organising. They also revealed students’ perception of such an assessment by surveying their feelings at the beginning and the end of the project. The survey respondents felt, at the beginning of the project, that the complicated “single project” given to the whole cohort of 790 students had restricted their confidence in subject knowledge, enthusiasm and flexibilities in thought, creativity, and independence. Despite the negative experience including low participation from some group members; adverse impact on the group work assessment due to English language barriers; not enough information about the assignment, students reported significant improved feeling of knowledge, confidence, flexibility in thought, independence, competence, and enthusiasm at the end of the project. This, the authors asserted, was mainly because the assessment placed great emphasis on a real-life business case and the relevance of the topic to the students’ chosen careers. It helped to maintain students’ learning interest and enabled them to develop transferable skills. Referring to prior studies, Dyball et al., (2007) acknowledged that students could gain increased satisfaction from group-work if they choose their own topic or, specifically in relation to this subject, the business organisation to analyse. Drawing upon on the students’ learning experiences, the authors elaborated on the elements of an effective groupwork design including scaffolding, integrating group assessment into the accounting curriculum, optimal duration of the project, size of the group and, most importantly, the relevance of the topic to the students chosen career.

Progressing the assessment in a cooperative environment meant that students learned as a group under a different structure to the traditional assignment. In this study Ballantine and Larres (2007) examined students’ attitudes to group dynamics and skill development in an advanced accounting module. The survey results showed that students exhibited a high level of group cohesion and collective responsibility for completing the group task. In addition, students agreed that studying in a cooperative environment through group work enabled them to learn from their peers as well as receiving feedback to continuously improve the quality of their work. This research found that students’ attitude towards the group assessment differed according to perceived academic ability. Using a bespoke questionnaire, the study shows that less-able students found that the group work contributed more to improving their academic performance when compared to the more-able students. However, why and how students’ performance and attitude to group assessment were affected had not been addressed due to the limitations of the data collected by survey.

To address the low progression of an introductory accounting module, Hong (2022) examined the use of an in-class group assignment (IGA) which required students to work in small groups to solve a given task during the lecture. With particular focus on low-achieving at-risk students, the author tested the differences in academic performance using exam scores before and after this intervention. Statistical results support that IGA had improved the low-achieving students’ academic performance, although no evidence emerged to support the same impact on high-performing students. Further, this study provides limited information on how IGAs impact students’ experience of that learning. It is still unclear how students benefit from this intervention through independent thinking or cooperation with other group members. The limited qualitative information showed that students highly valued the opportunity to practise in a traditional class, but their experience depended heavily on group members and the complexity of the given task.

Recent innovations in group assignment assessments address the importance of achieving accountability in a teamwork setting. Akindayomi (2015) introduced a customised group initiative (CGI) assignment which involves both individual and group submissions. The main purpose of such group assessment is to build students’ teamship by achieving a shared goal. In line with the other studies mentioned above, this research provides limited explanations as to how students’ academic performance had been improved apart from the potential “mutual accountability” in such an intervention. A more recent study undertaken by Ainsworth (2021) also examined how a team-based learning approach could affect students’ accountability, engagement, and satisfaction. Similar to the CGI assignment, the team-based learning also rewarded students according to individual work and teamwork output to hold students accountable for both. Through a qualitative survey study, they posited that students would be accountable to their team members by arriving in class prepared to contribute to learning. The individual pre-class preparation was interpreted as evidence of active learning achieved through the group assignment.

2.1.2. Computer-aided and online-assessment

One of the emerging features of contemporary accounting education is the integration of technology. Information and communication technology development transformed the way teaching and assessment of higher education is delivered, supported by a virtual learning platform with computer-based and online assessment becoming indispensable. However, scholars were sceptical about the effectiveness of the use of technology in accounting education. Marriot and Lau (2008) designed a phased on-line assessment which innovatively changed the single paper-based assessment to a number of phased, on-line/paper-based assessments. It was evident that students’ performance improved through this computer-aided assessment. The focus group interview proffers an explanation. Students found it was less stressful to focus on one small area of study each time rather than on a comprehensive final exam covering a wide range of topics. They were able to better engage with the assessment as the work was spread throughout the term. This allowed them to study at their own pace with better control of their own learning. More importantly, it had a positive impact on student engagement through more opportunities to receive instantaneous and individualised feedback. Students also highlighted the importance of having clear assessment requirements. A series of computer-aided assessments gave better instruction on individual tasks rather than broad guidance on a generalised piece of work.

Taking advantage of the accessibility of computer-based assessment (CBA) and computer-based feedback (CBF), Helfaya (2019) tried to identify an effective way to meet the desire of students to receive timely feedback. Findings by Watty et al. (2013) suggested that accounting students value feedback that is individualised, detailed, constructive, and timely, and that currently they are not receiving feedback with these attributes. The National Student Survey (National student survey NSS, 2022) reported that students were less satisfied with Assessment and Feedback versus other dimensions of the NSS in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) across the United Kingdom (UK). This research showed the integration of IT not only into assessment but also into feedback enabled students to receive timely e-feedback. Based on action research and a survey, the author reported that students’ learning was enhanced through the availability of timely feedback received through a series of CBA assignments completed during a term. Furthermore, students appreciated the detailed and individual feedback which addressed their strengths and weaknesses.

Some accounting educators (Marriott, 2004; Phillips & Graeff, 2014; Wynder, 2004) adopted computer-based simulation to develop or facilitate assessment in the hope of helping students to learn abstract and difficulty accounting knowledge more effectively. Marriott (2004) study explored whether and how learning outcomes were achieved through the deployment of business simulation in a Management and Finance of Small Business course. Students welcomed the computer-based simulation which helped them to relate theories learned in lectures to a ‘real’ business context. This then facilitated their deeper learning through experiential learning gained from the business simulation. The assessment presented the opportunity for students to enhance cognition and understanding of the holistic picture of a business problem through a computer-based business simulation. More importantly, it offered an opportunity to reduce instrumentality through the intrinsic enjoyment of problem-based learning. Phillips and Graeff (2014) results also evidenced that students were able to develop deeper learning through a computer-based mechanism accounting simulation. This is because this kind of computer-aided simulation helped students to increase their understanding of abstract concepts as well as enhancing their confidence in learning the subject knowledge.

2.1.3. Self- and peer-assessment

In recent years there has been increasing interest in Self- and peer-assessment of student work in the context of the dynamic and challenging business world which calls lifelong learners who can be reflective, self-directed, and original thinkers. Hassan et al. (2014) examined the accuracy and construct validity of self- and peer-assessment (SA, PA respectively) of accounting students. Although they did not confirm the validity of SA or PA compared to teacher assessment (TA), this study offered insights of students views about SA and PA. Students’ positive learning experiences were gained through better understanding of the assessment marking criteria by self-evaluation and assessing other students’ work. Students had higher motivation through knowing what their peers were doing. This contributed to the continuous improvement of the quality of their work by addressing feedback received from their peers. Negative learning experiences of SA and PA were reported around the emotional feelings that emanated such as difficulty and discomfort with judging their own work or that of their peers. In addition, students sometimes felt frustrated at not receiving clear feedback on time from their peers. This also explains that it is difficult for SA or PA to be a valid and accurate summative assessment. Hill (2016) implemented a self-assessment as a formative assessment to encourage accounting students’ self-learning rather than grade allocation. It was found that most students did not self-assess unless encouraged to do so. However, once they were exposed to self-assessment in an environment supportive of such assessment, students were positive about the process. Through practise, the exam type questions and the process of going through self-evaluation using the marking criteria (or model answers), students were able to better understand how to answer questions in a more structured manner. Hence, students felt that SA would improve their exam technique and would effectively improve their academic performance.

Pacharn et al. (2013) examined a flexible assessment system that allowed students to determine the weights allocated to each course component and to re-allocate the weights in response to achieved scores. Students had active participation in the assessment through such as system, also being able to weight the elements of the assessment reflective of their individual strengths. The survey results indicated little improvement in motivation, grades, or attitudes of learning through a flexible assessment. However, students appreciated having agency in a variety of assessment components with self-regulation or autonomy (agency) rather than being driven primarily by grades.

Wanner et al. (2021) deployed a flexible and personalised assessment where the students could choose assessment tasks, submission dates and weightings of their assignments. Students benefited from flexible and personalised assessment by feelings of empowerment compared to the structure of the assessments previously used on the courses. Students’ empowerment is not necessarily about better grades but about students gaining more input, voice and control over their learning and assessment. The study showed that students valued the opportunity of making a choice about their assignments. Having control and choice over the assessment made students feel that the learning experience was less stressful and more engaging. This was not an addressed finding but is alluded to in the results. The study also noted that not all students wanted flexibility in their assessment and learning. Instead, clear guidance and instructions of assessment was more meaningful to them. Students felt that too much control and freedom to decide about their assessment could be overwhelming, potentially disempowering for them. They were concerned that it may result in additional stress and undermine well-being. Therefore, the authors advocated “a fine balance to be achieved in attempting to promote learner control, knowledge creation, agency and autonomy by offering flexible options and choice, whilst offering guidance and structure when needed and adding value to the learning process through personalised, customised and adaptive approaches” (Wanner et al., 2021 p.14).

2.2. Individualised assignment used in accounting, finance, and adjacent subjects

Drawing upon the students’ learning experience to the recent development of the assessment in accounting education, a carefully designed IA could be a potential effective method to improve students’ learning experience. This is because of the following reasons: Similar to the SA, PA and flexible assessment discussed above, students are highly motivated to engage in active and deep learning as they have more autonomy when developing their solution using IAs (Dyer & Hurd, 2016). The primary motivation for incorporating the IA was to give effect to a constructivist learning environment (Wilson, 1996). The processes involved in the IA design sought to engender responsibility-taking by the students where they have the control and ownership of assessments. The integrated theoretical and practical nature of assessment, together with the individualised parameters, provided an opportunity for the students to engage in deep learning. As discussed above, students appreciate the assessments with real life context and implications. Hence, an IA with a real-business problem setting would allow students to develop transferable skills, which ultimately help them to be a lifelong learner. The principal objective, besides the summative assessment requirement, is to provide feed-forward, promoting understanding where improvements could be made in future endeavours. In light of the importance feedback plays in students learning, the IA was seen to provide personalised feedback, targeting those unique aspects presented by the students.

Fincher et al. (2006) proposed that IAs could be deployed to effectively engage students in their learning whilst preserving academic integrity. Students are often found to seek solutions of other students and then to proceed to submit these as their own. IAs offer a solution to collusion as each student is expected to develop a unique piece of work. Rowlett (2022) examined a partially-automated individualised assessment used in a mathematics course. Whereas the main motivation to employ such an IAs was to mitigate collusion, students were found to value the positive learning experience gained from developing solutions independently. This prevented other students to copy their answers.

Hamilton (2009) discussed how the use of a unique automated paper‐based individualised accounting assignment was deployed to provide students with immediate formative and timely summative feedback. The unique paper-based individualised assignment created an unlimited set of numerically unique problems covering the same materials. Hamilton believed that, when feedback is provided to students in a norm-referenced manner comparing the individual’s performance with that of others, who perform poorly, tend to attribute their failures to the lack of their own ability. They expect of themselves to perform poorly in the future. This was demonstrated to diminish motivation on subsequent tasks. Blayney and Freeman (2008) reported a similar conclusion that individualised questions are more likely to encourage deeper approaches to learning, especially when feedback went beyond correct/incorrect signals. Individualising feedback for the marginal student played a part in their increased motivation to do better on subsequent assessments.

To address the challenge of maintaining student motivation and promoting students’ ability and desire to learn, particularly in relation to assessment, Chalupa (2021) explored the use of IAs in a language course. There were two IAs comprising a written and spoken work cycle project, and a course portfolio which assessed students overall learning. Students had the option to choose their own topics and types of assessment. Using qualitative data collected from student reflective statements, the author argued, firstly that, students were motivated to focus closely on course content and to learn creatively because of the autonomy to decide on their own assessment topics and types. These choices improved students’ desire to learn the course materials according to their personal learning interests and preferences. Moreover, students developed improved confidence in relation to the knowledge through personal achievement in the assessment chosen by themselves. The portfolio, which includes personal reflection, allowed students to understand their own strengths and empowered them as learners.

2.3. Research gaps

The extant research associated with past empirical work on individualised assignments used in accounting and finance courses is limited and fragmented as discussed in the subsection 2.2. The individualised assignment is not new. They have been found to be popular amongst statistics, engineering, and computing science subject areas (Hunt, 2010; Lancaster & Clarke, 2010; Rosser, 2008). Recently, the benefits of using individualised assignments in accounting have been discussed with the focus mainly on mitigating collusion and improving feedback. Finance courses are predominantly examined by multiple choice questions, closed book exams, and similar timebound techniques (Stout et al., 2005). However, this type of assessment is not proficient at encouraging deep learning. They do not help students to develop personal capabilities such as problem solving, critical thinking, nor time management. Alternative assessments and formal evaluation of these are urgently needed.

Furthermore, the limited studies which explored the use of IAs in accounting and finance subjects predominantly focus on providing evidence to show academic improvement achieved through particular assessments using statistical methods. Apostolou et al. (2015) argued that studies of students’ experiences are important because they provide insights into the current successes and opportunities for improvement in preparing the next generation of practitioners and academicians.

The literature review above suggests accounting and finance students could achieve a positive learning experience of a particular assessment derived from their control/accountability for the assessment, timely feedback, it’s applicability to a real business setting, and emotive factors such as self-regulation, confidence, comfort, and empowerment. The authors of this study took these factors into account when designing the IA for the accounting students to study the financial course. However, there is little or no evidence to show how students’ learning experience can be impacted by this method of assessment. However, there remains a dearth of research into the use of the individualised assessment in financial courses, specifically taking the students’ perspective. Following this gap in the literature, we responded to Apostolou et al. (2017) study where they point to the urgency surrounding the need to identify causes of observed and known outcomes rather than those that merely replicate prior work in new settings without incremental benefit to the knowledge base in accounting education. The focus in this study is, therefore, to investigate how students' learning experience would be impacted by IAs.

In addition, there remains a tension between the desire to set tasks that can be easily marked and the motivation to set tasks that are educationally beneficial. Blayney and Freeman (2008) point out that individualisation places extra work on the instructors and examiners, particularly in large classes. In order to fully evaluate the benefits and hurdles of using individualised assignments, it is crucial to understand students’ perception of them and to factor in their emotive and experiential misgivings. Researchers often deal with students’ perception and learning experience by deploying a survey. Surveys generally result in averages and the most observed factors but cannot reveal why and how each student’s performance and attitude differs for a given assessment. This study, therefore, opted for in-depth understanding of these lived experiences through the medium of a focus group, the design of which we address in the subsequent section 3.0.

3. Individualised assignment design

The IA forms part of the assessment regime of an undergraduate final year elective module that partly fulfils how the learning outcomes of the undergraduate programme were assessed. Pedagogically, the assessment was designed to evaluate key learning outcomes including critical thinking, problem-solving, data analysis & application techniques, and research skills. The primary motives for the deployment of the IA were to impart a sense of agency and ownership, providing the student with a bespoke set of data unique to them; to encourage a degree of independence and self-directed learning; and to inculcate the deployment of key skills and knowledge to successfully execute the assessment. The International Financial Markets module combined academic learning with practical exploration. It incorporated an applied component where the deployment of a Professional Database and Trading System (PDTS) offered a feature-rich stimulating environment within which a wide range of real-time financial data is available for scrutiny and analysis. This provided the student with access to data used in real-world decision-making in important areas such as financial management, macroeconomic policymaking, central banking, portfolio management, equity and debt provisioning, insurance, foreign exchange hedging, risk analysis, and the deployment of financial instruments to manage those risks. Furthermore, it served as a powerful platform which enables students to carry out analytics, obtain news and qualitative data in order to support their own decision-making. The module integrated with a PDTS which does not only enhance students intuitive understanding of financial concepts/theories, but also equips them with data analytic skills demanded by many employers. Embedding a PDTS into finance teaching provided students with anecdotal opportunity and evidence to better understand abstract and difficult finance concepts. It helps to bridge the gap between financial theories and real-world applications.

The IA addressed a business scenario where a large multinational corporation (MNC) is planning the rollout of a new product that is manufactured in their domicile country (country A). Input resources were sourced internationally from a supplier located in a country that operates a different currency from country A (country B). The MNC planned to sell the new product into a country that operates a third currency regime (country C).

Deploying an automated randomising technique, each student was assigned a product type and a set of countries such that no student has a configuration identical to any other student. In so doing, each student had a unique trading situation where the characteristics of the product could potentially have significant treatment differences in the various jurisdictions where it is sold (e.g.: trading barriers; customs duties) and where the impact of currency exchange rates, economic trading differences, and political complications all have a bearing on the trading conditions. Students were required to gather quantitative currency, interest rate, and inflation data using the PDTS and to analyse that data to establish quantitative risks. The students then combined this quantitative information with qualitative observations, derived from the PDTS, and devise an appropriate risk management strategy using financial derivative instruments in the most cost-effective manner possible, given available information.

All the individual assignments inculcate a common set of activities, steps, techniques, and theoretical and practical knowledge. These elements were made explicit to the students in the form of a grading rubric that guides their understanding of how their work is to be graded. The grading process deployed the grading rubric to guide the marking. The style, structure, and format of the assignment (i.e.: in the form of a report) was a commonality with which the students are generally familiar and that aligns with assessments undertaken elsewhere on the programme. Forming part of the grading process, each student was provided with individualised feedback and feedforward with the purpose of drawing their attention to areas that were well executed, those areas that did not fully meet expectations, and to highlight to them how to go about improving their performance in future academic assignments and/or to inform workplace tasks.

The assignment was introduced at the very beginning of the twelve-week tuition period owing to the mid-term deadline for the submission of the assignment. This deadline also constrained the extent of the content to be covered by the assignment within the module content to that range that could be covered in the teaching prior to the submission date. A complicating factor relating to the AI was the expectation that basic statistics and spreadsheet skills were well within the competencies of the students, with the expectation that they had been previously acquired in earlier study years prior to and during the undergraduate programme. The focus group members indicated that, to a significant extent, those basic skills were not present for the majority of the students undertaking the module.

In practice, during the early weeks of the tuition period, corrective action was taken to remedy these knowledge gaps and comprehensive video recordings were provided to guide the students as to what specific steps they needed to take with regards to the statistical and spreadsheet activities.

4. Research method and data collection

Qualitative research is contingent upon the philosophical roots of the study (Johnson et al., 2006) and is widely accepted in general education and accounting research as a valid means of gathering qualitative date (Marriot & Lau, 2008). The qualitative research method chosen, in this study, recognises the complex pedagogic learning environment in which the research was conducted and informed our decision for the selection of the research method (Rowlett, 2022). The primary aim of this research was to explore and understand the meanings, emotions, attitudes, and feelings that informed the graduates experiences in relation to the IAs. Appreciating the learning experience nature of the module topic, we drew on the Heideggerian phenomenological tradition that would enable us to explore the lived experience of the IA as was experienced by the graduate participants (Smith et al., 2009). We took a phenomenological approach where the hermeneutic process enabled us to address the cognitive, non-cognitive, the discursive texts, along with the non-verbal cues that could inform the lived experiences of the graduates.

Our choice of the focus group was to enhance the opportunity to gain both individual and collective accounts of their experiences (Flood, 2010). Examining the graduate participants’ lived experience of the IAs in this manner, we expected to gain a deeper insight into how they subjectively lived the process of undertaking the assignment and how that could further inform or even redirect our understanding of their experience with a view to enhancing that lived experience (Neubauer et al., 2019). The focus group interview allowed the researchers to gather rich qualitative data through informal probing of the issues and observation of participants' responses, interactions, and behaviours (Osgerby & Rush, 2015). It proved particularly useful for exploring students’ knowledge and experiences, not only to examine what they were thinking but how they were thinking and why they thought in that way. Through group interaction we were able to clarify the participants’ views in ways that would be less easily accessible in a one-to-one interview construct.

We recognise that a small sample study of this nature, with only one point of data collection in a singular focus group, there would be limitations in respect of its generalisability beyond the participants. Sampling one cohort, and their experience of one IA assessment, is too narrow to inform experiences across accounting and finance in general. The culture and style of learning at a single learning institution will also have a bearing on the student lived experience that may not be comparable with the student experience more broadly in higher education in the UK. Our intention, therefore, was to gain deeper knowledge of the student lived experience of this particular cohort with a view to informing future larger studies across multiple cohorts and situations. The aim was to highlight the student experience with a view to informing pedagogic design and practice involving the deployment of IAs more holistically. It is our hope that this additional knowledge will inspire others to engage in the deployment of IAs where appropriate and/or to engage in further research for its application to accounting and financial education.

4.1. Selecting focus group participants

The participant sample was drawn from a thirty-five-person strong cohort that had enrolled on the first iteration of this newly implemented elective module and had recently graduated from this specific cohort that had chosen the elective module in a finance pathway at a UK university. An invitation was sent out to all member graduates via email for them to participate in a focus group discussion. The researchers were both directly involved in teaching the cohort from whom the focus group members were purposively drawn. Having the benefit of hindsight, specific feedback from individuals, and the final grades obtained after completion and graduation, participants were selected from respondents to ensure that a range of viewpoints were represented. Criteria for selection were based on the nature of the topic, the participants’ recent experience of the situation, and was cognisant of diversity considerations, members representing a range of academic achievement levels, and the participants’ willingness to engage in open forum to discuss their learning experiences (Symon & Cassell, 2012).

A total of 8 graduates agreed to participate in an online focus group given the prevalence of the COVID-19 lockdown in force at the time. Seven graduates turned up and participated on the day. The participant group was comprised of 2 males and 5 females and was representative of the diversity within the cohort. The range of final grades for the module and for the programme covered all outcomes from distinction to third-degree and this range was represented in the focus group. There were no participants that represented a failed grade, given that the only student who had failed the module was engaged in a process of retaking the assessments for the module and therefore had to be excluded on the grounds of ethical considerations. When addressing the limitations of deploying the focus group, the prevailing context had to be considered. Face-to-face meetings could not be devised because of the limitations of social distancing imposed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the focus group was conducted online with graduates that had recently graduated from the UK university. This presented its own complications, requiring each participant to have reliable Internet connectivity available, and also being in a position to engage in the forum within the setting of their home context (Joinson, 2001; Opdenakker, 2006) where they could have privacy and quiet time at the designated meeting time. Despite the loss of face-to-face level of interaction and, to a large extent the absence of complete body language, the small on-screen focus group proved practical and conducive to the environment where all participants were visible simultaneously on the videoconferencing system (Friesen, 2014). The visibility of all participants simultaneously, and all the participants having spent a significant amount of time together prior to the pandemic, provided a sufficiently trusting atmosphere in which frank discussion could take place (Nyumba et al. 2018).

4.2. Ethical Approval

Ethical consent to undertake this research was granted by the College Ethics committee, and participants were made aware that their participation in the study was voluntary and that their responses in the focus group would be anonymised to everyone outside of the focus group and the researchers.

4.3. Data Collection

The participants were invited to comment freely on anything that they felt was pertinent to the IAs and to express their feelings about how they experienced the process, both positive and negative, and on any aspect they wished. The moderator posed open ended starter questions that got the discussion underway, and then provided linking questions to the next topic when the debate appeared to have run its course on an issue. Questions are seen in Appendix 2. Three broad areas were explored namely: (i) the graduates’ learning experience of undertaking the IA, covering the motivation, and learning aspects of the experience; (ii) how the graduates would describe their learning experience, having to work on an IA assigned to each of them individually; (iii) and how the integration of the practical application of financial data, using the PGTS, may have contributed to their potential future work prospects. Additional ‘filler’ questions were prepared and were on hand but were not deployed due to the degree of active engagement by the participants in the focus session, making full use of the time available.

As seen in Table 1, there were 35 students on the module, and the overall performance of the individualised assignment was very satisfactory. There were 5 students who scored 70% and above. Twenty-three out of 35 students achieved 60% above.

5. Findings

The focus group proceedings were digitally recorded, after having informed all the participants that the soundtrack would be required for transcription purposes. All the participants agreed that the recording could take place. The recording was transcribed verbatim and placed in a table format that facilitated line numbering and columns either side of the data where initial noting and comments were recorded and, in the opposite column, emergent themes could be placed. Storage of the transcript and recording was done in according with the College regulations.

The transcript was carefully read and reread multiple times and with each iteration, additional observations and insights were added. Provisional emergent themes were identified and with each iteration these were updated and extended. The emergent themes were identified based on their potency of experience and not on frequency of occurrence. They were subsequently clustered together according to the pattern of their applicability to each other, and that process ultimately resulted in the identification of five superordinate themes as follows:

5.1. Individualised assignment is focused on individualised effort

The style of IA assessment was novel to the student cohort. This elective module had not run before and so precisely how well prior learning had prepared the students for the requirements had not been tested yet. The students encountered the IA during the first week of the term and were required to complete the assignment by week seven.

A participant expressed their understanding of the difference between the IA and the style of assignment that they had undertaken so far on their undergraduate programme.

I think it was quite unfamiliar really, I don’t think I’d come across an assignment like that in the rest of my undergraduate studies, certainly not where I’d been to…I’ve done assignments before where it had been something like you get to choose the company you want to work on, or you’ve chosen your own parameters, but not something where the lecturer has chosen parameters or the specific to me as individualised like that. So certainly, more of a challenge.

Individual, and rather personal feelings of a role reversal radiates to the fore, illuminating the student’s discomfort at feeling stripped of their agency to choose and their usual role. There are many negative elements in this passage e.g.: quite unfamiliar, I don’t’ think…certainly not…not something…., pointing to the student’s discomfort with having to take on the task alone. Feeling out of sorts, the loss of agency, and the inverted situation surrounding the assignment’s configuration was experienced so uncomfortably, almost as if feeling ‘attacked’ and having to take evasive action. The assignment appears pushed into the background and the arrangements surrounding it appear more poignant and disconcerting than the assignment itself.

The account pointed to the novelty of IA on the programme and that this represented a degree of complexity that was not expected. The account did illuminate that the programme overall incorporated degrees of agency that the participants had come to appreciate in the end. However, being assigned a specific set of parameters unique to each individual was disconcerting at first.

One of the participants in the focus group pointed to their inability to leverage peer-to-peer cooperation and comfort by observing the work others were doing.

Whereas I think with other assignments there might be a tendency to look at what other people are doing and it’s easier to incorporate that in what you are doing as well. Whereas in this sense you can’t do that, so it’s focused more on your individualised efforts.

Peering through a lens of comparison with other assignments, the loss of collaborative team effort is keenly felt by the participant. This double sense of loss is experienced by the unfamiliar territory that the student had to traverse firstly, as an inward facing experience with an emphasis on their own individual knowledge and resources; and secondly, as a break from the social endeavour of learning. They also alluded to a prescriptive element (“you can’t do that”) as opposed to something that they were able to do relative to other assignments. That seemed to constrain their agency, an uncomfortable experience for the participant as they came to terms with the personalized effort required.

In this passage, the participant confirms that the objective of focusing the students on their own effort and reducing, to some extent, their ability to depend upon each other represented a break with their normative learning style. It required of them to turn inward and to find their own way through the application of the task. It also highlighted the social nature of learning and how students come to depend upon each other during the preparation of assignments.

5.2. Having to dig deep

One of the key features that remained prominent for them many months after completing the module was the limitations on their ability to share every detail with each other to complete the task. Instead, they had to resort to peer learning at the theoretical level, and then they had to separately carry out the applied side of the task.

and I think it also meant that it became more challenging for us to sort of collaborate …. for us to sort of collaborate, but it also enhanced our sort of learning capacity in the sense that we had to collaborate, but you had to collaborate on an understanding of the principles rather than sort of ‘oh I’m doing this, are you also doing this’, because it wouldn’t matter otherwise.

As if experiencing a bittersweet sensation, simultaneously bridging the knowledge divide, and having to let go of how things were usually done, this participant spoke of adapting to a new way of working. It was initially perceived as a challenge for the participant. However, this was outweighed by the feeling that their learning experience was enhanced. Collaboration took on a new meaning and a changed contour in relation to collaboration for the participant.

The extent to which they had become accustomed to relying upon each other to develop their solutions to assignments was evident across the focus group responses. In this passage, the graduate repeats, with some hesitation, the notion that students collaborate, but almost as if not wanting to disclose how they go about their tasks. The passage does unveil their ingenuity, recognising that they could still ‘collaborate’ at the theoretical level. Therefore, to be able to carry out the application components of the task, the IA encourages them to focus on the theoretical underpinning that informed the application.

Another graduate had a somewhat more positive experience with the IA. Naming the various practical skills that they needed to complete the task, and with which several participants had some difficulty, this graduate embraced the positive challenge head-on.

I’d say that I’d agree with all the points that J raised, …. Excel, …. regression analysis, pursuing my own sort of learning curve in terms of the instruments available. But I think the greatest, probably the greatest thing I learnt from this course is probably just having to dig deep.

Deploying a powerful metaphor “having to dig deep” the student articulated just how much of a test to their grit and resilience this assignment was. The degree of the challenge posed made them search amongst their inner abilities and resources that perhaps they did not even know they had, and in the process became self-reliant. Reiterating the need for self-reliance and execution of this task, they were not only directed to the theoretical elements enshrined in the module curriculum, but they had to draw on their knowledge and skills of tools and techniques that they had been taught in earlier modules and that they had to apply in the execution of this IA assessment. The requirement to become self-reliant was stressed along with the need to engage in deeper learning.

5.3. Forced to be hugely independent

Aligning with one of the defining principles enshrined in IA is the principal objective of enhancing learning by empowering the individual to take ownership of their task. A participant highlighted the impact of them being awarded a greater degree of autonomy to address the task according to their own preferences. Whilst not all the participants found the process engaging, this participant seemed to find strength and opportunity in undertaking and individualised work.

… you know when things aren’t quite sort of given to you as much as the other courses are where the brief is quite explanatory and it’s quite simple to follow it. We were sort of given a free rein to sort of say “well this is a brief summary of it, now this is up to you”. And although there was instruction, I think that helped me a lot in terms of my personal development in terms of pursuing things which are difficult. And I think I learnt more from that experience than sort of the core skills, if you see what I mean. We were sort of given a free rein to sort of say ‘well this is a brief summary of it, now this is up to you’.

Grappling with the apparent gap between the nature and style of assessment that they had grown accustomed to, and the principal-based guidelines enshrined in the IA, this participant appeared to embrace the freedom they were accorded to pursue the solution to the brief on their own terms. However, the task was perceived to be more difficult than that encountered previously which then necessitated them drawing on their core skills learnt on the programme.

The participant recognised the need to adapt to a more individual-centric learning style and to draw upon their own resources to complete the task. This sense of freedom was not shared by all the participants in the focus group, but this account does represent the sense amongst some that they were given more freedom to decide how to go about the task.

Commenting on the contribution that the learning in the module made to their daily task, one of the participants explained how, in the real world, they were working under pressure.

And then they challenge me sometimes with questions and I’m like ‘OK’. So you have to go back, research for it, …[…]… but of course it’s limited to the time they have, I have to do it in my role because it’s quite….the role I’m doing is quite timely based, so it’s like de-de-de….like the entire day I don’t have no time, I have my lunch at my desk because of that timing. But I guess with that assignment it’s forced us to be hugely independent, it prepares you for the world, if that makes sense, for the actual real world of the core skills, if you see what I mean.

Contrasting his experience of two worlds: his day-to-day structured experience of a time-bound job to the independent, freehand, nature of the assignment, the student reflects on his assignment as preparation for the “real world”. It was as if the role, in the real but structured world they are in is informed by the complexity of the IA that was associated with the module. Describing their day job and the pressure that they find themselves under, this account reflects the sense of pressure that the student was under during the preparation of the assignment and how they had to become self-reliant rather than depending upon others to advance their output. The sense of agency and independence contributed to their preparedness for the “real world”. Some of the participants did recognise the importance of embracing the principle of self-directed learning.

5.4. Gives me an edge

The role that the IA played in the participants’ preparedness for the workplace was identified in a number of passages throughout the focus group session. This account summed up their sense of usefulness of the techniques and skills that they had uniquely advanced while doing the IA. Faced with the challenge of having to deal with the less developed countries in the world and, consequently less well-defined data directly available on the PDTS, some levels of complexity of the assignment challenged the participant to become entrepreneurial in the way that the data was sourced and applied.

I think I found myself in a situation with 3 countries without a strong currency, and the amount of research that could be done around those countries I thought was umm…limited. And it’s great as a challenge and the reality is that I find myself currently in the same situation at work, so I think it was extremely useful.

The contrast between the feeling of being challenged by the uncertainty that they could step up and carry out the research successfully and the elation felt that they could transfer that positive experience to a work scenario was palpable in this passage. Now a graduate, they were able to mirror the experience and learning gained in the IA with that related to the workplace, making a direct connection between the level of learning enshrined in the IA.

This same sense of learning from the IA was seen by another participant to apply in their postgraduate studies.

I feel like the assignment was…it was actually the most helpful assignment I have ever done. Like the skills and everything that I gained from it I still use and need up until now. Obviously, I’m doing my Masters [degree] at my university now, I still use [PDTS], we still do regression, we do currency exchanges, so basically like this gives me an edge because I already know, like it’s so much easier for me.

“Giving me an edge” is a significant metaphor deployed by this participant to signify the extent to which they positively differentiated themselves from peers. Placing themselves ahead of others (e.g.: “I already know”) denoted self-confidence and illuminated the extent of the learning that the IA provided. This exemplifies how the content and application were embedded in the learning, but also the transferability of that learning into the postgraduate realm.

5.5. I was on my own

The focus group forum provided a fitting medium through which the students shared their learning but also their emotional and psychological experiences. These selected passages are representative of the more emotive sentiments that the participants expressed. The assignment brief, along with in-class exemplars that did not match exactly with the scenario that they faced with their unique set of parameters, left them rudderless. Accustomed to ‘clear instructions’, the exemplars deployed in the lectures and workshops prepared them at the theoretical, principle, and broadly representative application level, but did not address the data challenges that related to their individual bespoke scenarios.

I [felt] I was on my own; we did not have like a set of clear instructions. Obviously, as I said, because like [our assignments were] we’re all different. And it was the first time we’re dealing with something like this, like [PDTS] Excel analysis. I feel like maybe we should have done a trial with the same countries for all of us, then we could like do our own thing. Because doing it for the first time when we are all different it was like really, really, really challenging.

The passage juxtaposes the degree of difficulty (“really, really, really…challenging”) and the sense of helplessness experienced by the participant, as if sinking in deep water, when their perception of receiving ‘clear instructions’ was not fulfilled. They could not resort to other students for collaborative support at the detail level either. This sense of loneliness and depth of the challenge experienced brings poignancy to the experience and a sense of vulnerability. It also highlights an over-dependence on the lecturer to provide detailed information ahead of the assignment and on other students to know what steps to take next. A degree of entrepreneurial shyness at finding alternative solutions to self-gather data/information and complete the assignment independently is observed.

Highlighting the distinction between expectation and reality, one of the participants explored the level of preparedness that was required and the actual level prevailing when they joined the module.

I think [lecturer] thought that we knew a lot about Excel; [lecturer] thought that we had a lot of knowledge about [PDTS], when it was literally the first time that we’d touched on it the way that we were supposed to with this assignment. So, I found myself quite lost. And I feel like everyone can agree that we had like little breakdowns because it was just like we all want to achieve the highest grades that we can, and we thought that this was going to bring it down massively.

Exposing tensions between what the students wanted to achieve (i.e.: “highest grades”), what the lecturer presumed the students had covered in the previous year syllabus, and what the students actually knew, the student felt that they were caught in a knowledge gap that made them feel “lost”. The participant’s focus seemed to be on achieving the highest possible marks rather than on acquiring the required knowledge that would have given support to those higher marks. A sense of helplessness seemed to have led to a form of ‘rebellion’ (“we had little breakdowns”) as if to highlight their sense of helplessness or catch the lecturer’s attention. The psychological impact of not having detailed guidance, beyond the theoretical and principle, level left the participant feeling confused and vulnerable.

6. Discussion and Conclusion

The findings from the focus group interview aligned with prior literature in relation to the effect that IAs have on student learning (Hassan, 2014; Hill, 2016). The study also revealed new observations which have not previously been recognised within extant literature. Through the open questions as seen in the Appendix, the interviewee accounts uncovered nuances informing the understanding of how the participants’ learning experience affected them during and after they attempted the IA.

The students described how undertaking the IA had caused them discomfort. They accorded the discomfort to the IA being a new type of assessment which placed greater focus on individual effort than other assignment constructs they were more familiar with. This aligns with the findings of Hamman-Fischer and McGhie (2023) where they observed that approach and style of learning and assessment are prior experience and context influenced. Therefore, changes can influence the student experience in unpredictable ways. The stress and discomfort that students felt at the beginning of a project/assessment is not exclusive to IA format assessments. As Dyball et al. (2007) showed, students perceived group work negatively because it looked complicated and constrained the scope of their thinking, creativity, and independence.

Interestingly, students were not motivated by the prospect of the IA at the beginning. They did not appreciate the flexibility and ownership of the assignment that it could give them. They felt that the challenge came from the individual parameters they were each given. To them, this meant that they could not collaborate with their peers. Students seemed to like to find out what and how others were doing (Hassan et al., 2014) so that they could learn different perspectives and get motivated by other’s inspiration. Compared to the group assessment, peer assessment or any ‘single project’, IAs requires higher self-direction and individual accountability as the students could only collaborate with others on the theoretical level but not the actual assignment content. This led to another question querying whether grades or self-regulation/self-learning were more important.

The extant literature reflects that students place greater importance on self-regulation and agency rather than being primarily driven by grades (Pacharn et al, 2013). Our findings show the opposite. We found that students wanted to achieve the highest possible grade rather than acquiring the knowledge that could lead to them achieving a higher mark. Our study reflected that the students sought peer learning at theoretical level which helped with developing an understanding of theories underpinning the assignment. This required of them to prepare for the assignment by collaborating with each other on a higher level to confirm their understanding. This individual preparation can be regarded as evidence of active learning that enhanced academic performance outcomes (Akindayomi, 2015). With a good understanding of the theories, students reported feeling more confident to deal with the practical applications enshrined in the IA independently. It was during the latter phases of the assessment that the negative feeling about IA were outweighed by the satisfaction gained from deep learning and personal achievement (Chalupa, 2021).

The principal design of the IA used in this case study required students to use and analyse real-world business scenarios. Students highly valued the opportunity to develop information technology driven sources of data, and related analytic skills based in actual business settings. This confirms previous findings that students would be able to develop transferable skills through real live business based problem-solving tasks (Marriott, 2004; Dyball, 2007; Graeff, 2014). There is significant evidence from our study that IA fostered students’ personal skill development. However, past research has shown that academics do not place the same level of importance on personal (soft) skills development when compared to the level accorded by accounting professionals and students’ (Abu Asabeh, et al., 2023). Instead, academics tend to champion theoretical and analysis skills. The treatment and impact of the emotive consequences of the IA were not identified as material elements influencing the choices at the design stage of the assignment. This study highlights the importance of taking into account the personal experiences students will encounter when undertaking assessments.

Our findings suggest that the IA enhanced students learning experience by empowering them to take ownership of their own situation. Similar to the flexible and personalised assessment designed by Wanner et al. (2021), the empowerment of IA does not come from the pursuit of grades but the control, autonomy, and freedom to execute the assignment in their own ways. These freed them to focus on their individual effort to solve issues encountered independently. Students appreciated that the independence accorded them would prepare them for the ‘real world’. However, our findings do not align with Wanner, et al. (2021) observations that students felt less stressed by a personalised assessment where they had greater control and flexibility. We found the opposite. This cohort of students in our study said that they were more stressed by the presence of the IA. The study evidenced students’ observations for there to be more detailed instructions and guidance that they felt would have greatly improved their phycological and emotional reaction to the IA.

Students had to each work on an individual scenario. Hence it became critical that they had a very clear idea about the requirements of the assignment. More importantly, the study highlighted that the students should have had the necessary prior knowledge and skills to inform the expected initial preparation necessary to undertake the task. Some interviewees felt confused and vulnerable as they did not fully understand the assignment or did not have the requisite skills needed to execute the assignment. What accounted for the perceived higher level of anxiety and stress appeared to be the students’ lack of confidence in their prior skill preparedness combined with their low level of exposure to working independently. These findings reflect the recent calls for further research to focus on the design of assessment at a programme level so that educators could construct scaffolding and integrate various assessments into the accounting modules based upon the programme-level curriculum learning outcomes. The deployment of IAs at earlier levels within the programme, with lower levels of summative impact found in the first year of study for example, could prepare students to embrace the tenets of self-directed learning. In so doing, it could enhance deep learning at an earlier stage of the higher education learning cycle. There is thus scope to further study, in greater depth, what role context plays and how that influences student emotive experiences.

Our participants agreed that the IA required of them to actively develop their own learning. They were very pleased with the final outcome of this assignment despite it being more challenging than the traditional written assignment with which they were more familiar. They found that they had to become more self-reliant in order to develop their own outputs. Notably, our participants felt that it helped them gain learning beyond what was possible from a traditional assignment. Students particularly cited the benefits gained from completing such an assignment in terms of developing research and employability skills needed for their future prospects. One of the main reasons attributable to their sense of achievement was the observation that the IA offered them independence and a strong sense of ownership in the end. Notwithstanding the limitations of this work, the findings suggest that the students did perceive being assessed by way of IA as having beneficial merits for them in the areas of learning, grade achievement, and particularly in respect of future opportunity enhancement.

An interesting finding which has not been documented in the literature, to the best of our knowledge, is the psychological challenges students felt at the beginning of the process. Our study posits that individualised assignments can be intimidating to students, mainly because it was a relatively new type of assessment for accounting and finance students; and secondly, our participants felt that they could not turn to each other for learning support. Wagner, et al. (2023) found that overcoming the experience of feeling lonely, whilst learning and preparing for assessments, could not be addressed by introducing active learning interventions. This emphasises the importance of cohort collegiality and interdependence in the learning process. Accordingly, we suggest that supportive entry interventions, and clear signposting, are essential to ease students’ anxiety towards the individualised assignment. Subsequent interventions such as ensuring that students have prior knowledge of facilitating skills (e.g.: spreadsheet skills, research capabilities, statistics competencies), have developed a level of trust with the lecturer/tutor. A greater sense of psychological safety is now present, facilitating willingness to seek help. This is also facilitated by the students having enhanced quality access to enabling technologies (e.g.: Excel, SPSS, STATA, Language Lab software) that further help to reduce anxiety levels.

Finally, IAs need to be designed and set up in the context of the overall learning outcomes of the programme. This is to ensure that the prior-knowledge and skills, required to produce an exceptional piece of work, have been taught and inculcated before students join the module where an IA is present. The presence and complexity of the arrival of artificial intelligence (AI) is set to further complicate the preparation and undertaking of assignments. Further research is required to ascertain the suitability of IA to counter the negative impact on assessment outcomes of AI.

This exploratory study relates to a single cohort of students at one institution and so is limited in scope and generalisability. We recognise the criticism that research must expand to include studies that cross institutional and geographic boundaries to assess whether an innovation that works in one context is effective in other contexts. The authors plan to extend their study of IAs to other levels of the degree programme, other business-oriented programmes, and if possible, to other institutions. Responding to this call, further research will be carried out through the medium of a student’s perception questionnaire(s) to extend the research to a larger population of accounting and finance students in an effort to make the findings more generalisable. Moreover, we suggest that further research be conducted into the increasing influence of IAs in other disciplines given that each subject has distinctive characteristics and differential ways of learning.

While the IA did enhance deep learning for some of these level 6 (third-year undergraduate) accounting students, we continued to observe that surface learning prevailed amongst others. This is congruent with research into accounting and finance courses where students consistently fail to critically interpret the meaning of financial constructs. The authors are particularly interested, therefore, to find out how the introduction of individualised assignments earlier in the undergraduate programmes could influence students’ learning behaviour. In particular, the authors are interested to explore the breadth and depth of students’ engagement in deep learning if individualised assignments could be introduced at level 4 (first-year) of undergraduate degree programmes.

Disclosure Statement

There are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to report.

Table 1. Students’ performance comparison across equivalent level modules

Module		Financial Reporting	Management Accounting	Investment Management	International Financial Markets
No. Students		62	62	63	35
Lowest Grade		40	55	65	55
Highest Grade		88	82	94	94
Average Grade		70.26	66.94	82.49	76.94
	Fail
	First - 1	41	18	58	30
Grades	Upper Second - 2:1	10	32	5	4
	Lower Second - 2:2	10	12	0	1
	Third - 3	1	0	0	0

Appendices

Appendix 1

Summary of Accounting Education Literature Review

Table

	Assessment related research in Accounting and Finance
2010-2012 291 articles 104 instructional cases	Formative vs summative MCQ Flexible assessment Exam colour and exam performance Gender affects performance on alternative assessment
2013-2014 256 articles	MCQ Alternative strategies for assessment (5) Effect of clickers in assessment (2) individualized problem-solving tasks (for assignments or exams) in Excel individualized set of accounting questions using an Excel spreadsheet. an e-assessment system that permits the grading of online free-form responses. computer-based assessment
2015 97 articles	Alternative quiz formats to motivate learning Create unique assignments with a 10-digit code Customized Assessment Group Initiative
2016 76 articles, 10 instructional resources, and 22 cases	Cross-disciplinary scaffolding assessment MCQ Peer assessment strategies Online testing Student self-assessment
2017 103 articles	Exam performance affected by question format Online MCQ
2018 101 articles	Oral presentations Rubric assessment Peer assessment Time to complete an exam and performance on exam
2019 81 articles	Computer-based assessment and feedback Learning style and preferred assessments
2020 88 articles *	Computer-marked assignments Use of Nearpod for quizzes Assessment question placement and learning outcomes
2021 112 articles *	Student self-generated MC questions
2022 109 articles *	Multiple-choice test-taking rules Group assessment best practices Collaborative versus traditional exams

Source: compiled from Apostolou et al. (2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022) Accounting Education Literature Review articles.

Appendix 2

Focus Group Questions for International Financial Markets Research Project

Research focus: to explore students’ perceptions of individualised projects in a financial-data-systems learning environment.

1. What differences did you encounter between a regular assignment and the individualised assignment that you undertook in the International Financial Markets module, and how did you feel about them?

2. How would you describe your learning experience having to work on an assignment that is individualised to you?

3. How would you describe your motivation having to work on an assignment that is individualised to you?

4. Compared with assessments that are common to all students in your cohort, how would you describe the unique challenges that you faced with an individualised assignment?

5. How would you describe the role and usefulness of the industry-standard market data service relative to your individualised assignment?

6. How would you describe the benefit of the individualised assignment to your future career and work prospects?

7. How would you describe the benefits of the industry-standard market data service to your future career and work prospects?

8. What aspects of the individualised assignment would you like to see more of?

9. What aspect of the individualised assignment would you like to see less of?

10. What would you recommend be included in the assignment over and above the existing facilities?