The role of extra time in the performance of students with learning disabilities in time-constrained assessment

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of providing extra time as an accommodation to students with learning disabilities (LD) in higher education institutions. The results, which are based in the setting of a South African accountancy programme, provides a unique context where time, in time-constrained assessments, are often perceived by all students as an encumberment. A quantitative approach was employed to examine student performance using 49 694 final-grade observations across various modules in an accounting specialised bachelor’s degree program and over a 11-year time-period. The results, obtained by comparing the grades achieved between students with and without LD’s, show that adopting a policy of providing relatively the same amount of extra time across all modules and over the course of a bachelor’s degree for students with LD is inadequate and an inequitable approach in the field of accountancy. Although this study was performed with a focus on time-constrained accountancy assessments, the results are far-reaching in suggesting that extra time policies and regulations be continuously adjusted and monitored for effectiveness, specifically the consideration that different undergraduate years of study may require different amounts of extra time. The results further guide the development of extra time policies by suggesting continuous revaluation of the extra time awarded to students throughout their accountancy studies.

Keywords:

• Accommodations
• accountancy
• accounting education
• extra time
• higher education
• students with learning disabilities

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Arif H Kabir, School of Education, Deakin University School of Education, Australia

SUBJECTS:

• Business, Management and Accounting
• Higher Education
• Inclusion and Special Educational Needs

1. Introduction

Various studies have examined the impact of extra time (also referred to as extended time in existing literature) on students with learning disabilities (LD). Extra time is granted to students with LD to potentially equalise the assessment conditions by compensating these students by providing them with an interventional means to achieve an expected similar performance in terms of grades compared to students without LD (also referred to as non-LD students). By awarding extra time as an accommodation to students with LD, the examination (or test) is made more accessible (Kettler et al., 2009). When an examination is more accessible, the examination (and the resulting scores obtained) will be more valid (Beddow, 2012). Duncan and Purcell (2020) investigated and summarised the findings of 32 studies on the granting of extra time and found that there is no consensus on extra time provided to students with LD. They did, however, note a pattern across all the studies, which suggests that the differences in outcome of the studies may be explained by differences in the appropriateness of the time limits imposed by each study. The practice of awarding extra time, however, remains unexplored in the accounting education literature, as is evident from Duncan and Purcell’s (2020) summary where none of the 32 empirical studies evaluated included literature on extra time awarded in the accountancy fields of study.

Limited literature exists on the effectiveness of extra time as an assessment accommodation in South Africa. A reason for the limited research in this context could be due to the historical low number of reported students with LD. Recently, however, South Africa has seen an increase in the number of students with LD which is consistent with international literature on this topic. The increase in number of students with LD in South Africa highlights the relevance of studying this phenomenon to provide policy recommendations in the South African context (Kendall, 2016). Given the importance of extra time and the policy surrounding them, this study aims to fill this gap by providing statistical evidence of the effectiveness of extra time for accountancy students with LD’s.

Based on the literature review conducted, three main research focus areas were identified. First, it was identified that limited research exists in the higher education sphere in South Africa for the effectiveness of awarding extra time to students with LD. This is problematic given the rising number of students with LD in this country. It was further identified that limited evidence exists of the progress (performance) between students with LD and their non-LD peers over more than one year. Finally, it was identified that no evidence exists for the effectiveness of the practice of awarding extra time in the accountancy fields of study where students studying towards becoming a CA(SA) in South Africa are pressured for time in their time-constrained assessments. Based on the gaps identified, this study aimed to examine whether extra time creates equal assessment conditions for all students and whether extra time results in comparable performance (when controlled for past performance), between accountancy students with LD compared to their non-LD peers at a South African university. In other words, does extra time enable accountancy students to perform equally in a module to students without LD and, therefore, validating the assumption among students with LD that they can expect similar achievement to their non-LD peers (Lin & Lin, 2016).

The main contribution of this research is to examine the effectiveness of providing extra time to accounting students with LD, in an assessment condition where examinations are written under time pressure. This study intends to add to the debate on this topic by providing specific insights into the accountancy discipline as a subset of the accountancy sciences. Furthermore, this study aimed to compare the results of students with LD (and who have been granted a fixed number of extra minutes per hour regardless of the module that the extra time is applied to) for different subjects in the accounting degree and over the course of more than 1 year. This was done to determine whether the policy on extra time should consider awarding such time in line with the type of module it is applied to, and whether the policy should include revision of extra time awarded in further years of study, as suggested by Sokal and Vermette (2017). The current system awards a ‘blanket’ number of extra time for all registered modules with no differentiation between year of study or underlying module. The research questions of the study flows from the three main research focus areas and are articulated below:

• Research Question 1 (RQ 1): On an overall mean basis, do students with LD and who qualify for extra time achieve similar grades compared to their non-LD peers without extra time?

• Research Question 2 (RQ 2): In which academic year’s modules are students with LD achieving statistically different mean scores compared to their non-LD peers without extra time?

• Research Question 3 (RQ 3): In which extra time categories are students with LD, based on mean scores, achieving a mean score of less than the required pass grade of 50%?

2. Literature review

2.1. Extra time policy in South Africa

Limited research exists in the South African context on awarding extra time to students with LD. Students with disabilities make up roughly less than 1% of the total student population, as reported by 15 higher education institutions in South Africa (Foundation of Tertiary Institutions of the Northern Metropolis [FOTIM], 2011). The FOTIM (2011) report already alluded to an increase since Crous’ (2004) study, which reported that less than 0.5% of student populations at three higher education institutions were represented by students with LD. Most South African universities align their disability policies with the South African Strategic Policy Framework on Disability for Post-School Education and Training System, where inclusivity and fairness to all are emphasised, together with the instruction that disability units at higher education institutions must facilitate access to students with LD through accommodations such as extra time (Department of Higher Education and Training [DHET], 2018). The latter policy alludes to the notion that when reasonable accommodations are denied for students with disabilities, disability discrimination exist (DHET, 2018). This policy, therefore, promotes accessibility, but the question remains whether the application of the policy by higher education institutions meets the objective of fairness; that is, whether the extra time awarded to students with LD in South Africa leads to equal performance in assessments.

For purposes of this study, LDs are codified as a physical (such as motor disability), learning disability as identified by an educational psychologist or a mental/psychotherapy condition (such as ADHD) which is not being treated effectively for which medical evidence, provided by a medical professional, is available that would result in a reasonable person to conclude that extra time is required for time-constrained assessment (Stellenbosch University, 2023). Poor performance in a module without substantiated medical evidence is not viewed as an LD. Each individual application for extra time is assessed on its own merit, after which extra time is awarded based on various inputs, of which one is the medical professionals suggested extra time. There is, therefore, discretion in the extra time awarded for the same LD. For this reason, the cause of the LD has not been further analysed as part of this study. The effect of background knowledge will be evaluated through controlling for previous performance when results are analysed.

2.2. Extra time as an examination practise in assessments

Accommodations, such as extra time, are used to ‘level the playing field’ by removing the construct-irrelevant variance created by disabilities and giving students with LD an opportunity to demonstrate their true abilities (Fuchs et al., 2000; Sireci et al., 2005). Scott et al. (2014) goes as far as stating that it is critically important that appropriate accommodations are available to students with special needs. Awarding an accommodation creates the assumption among students with LD that they can expect similar achievements as their non-LD counterparts in an examination (Lin & Lin, 2016). It is, therefore, no surprise that students with LD perceive examination accommodations as beneficial (Lovett & Leja, 2013). Awarding extra time to students with LD is among the most common examination accommodations requested, provided and researched (Bolt & Thurlow, 2004; Lovett, 2010; Stretch & Osborne, 2005; Zuriff, 2000). The practice exists to make the examination a more accurate measure of the student’s level of achievement (Thurlow & Bolt, 2001). Furthermore (and perhaps contrary to the initial goal of fairness), one of the consequences of extra time awarded to students with LD is that they use the extra time, even though they might not need it, because it reduces anxiety (Lovett & Harrison, 2021) and provides psychological support (Slaughter et al., 2022). Elliot and Marquart (2004) also suggest that extra time gives students with LD a more positive examination experience by reducing examination anxiety, while Tai et al. (2023) more recently noted that an accommodation such as extra time is helpful in alleviating stress. However, Gregg and Nelson (2012) conducted a meta-analysis and found that whether or not students with LD were given extra time, they still underperformed academically compared to non-LD students and that the extra time did not erase the disability.

Studies on the effect of extra time awarded to students with LD range from primary to post-secondary level and include various fields of study. No studies were found in the accountancy field. The closest field of study (in the examination accommodations sphere) to accountancy is considered to be mathematics, as accountancy also relies heavily on calculations, as well as other concepts such as critical thinking applied within mathematics. Elliot and Marquart’s (2004) study focused on Grade 8 students with and without LD (97 students in total) and concluded that these students benefited equally from extra time in a mathematical examination; therefore, not supporting the differential boost (in other words, the performance of students with LD increased in the same ratio as non-LD students). Cohen et al. (2005) had a similar finding to Elliot and Marquart (2004) when they concluded that the difficulty level of the subject itself, for Grade 9 mathematics students, caused differences between the groups of students (1250 with extra time because of their LD and 1250 with no extra time) rather than the extra time accommodation awarded (or not). Fuchs et al.’s (2000) study conducted among 400 Grades 4 and 5 students agreed that there is no differential effect on conventional mathematics examinations; however, differential effects were noted for more complex mathematical problem solving.

At a higher education level, Alster (1997) reported that the performance of students with LD increased significantly when awarded extra time, which suggests that the differential boost is supported for mathematics at this level. Alant and Casey (2005) underline this finding when they state that (extra) time is more important in a subject where the speed of doing calculations is crucial; more so than in a subject where knowledge is transferred. It, therefore, does seem that the differential boost is supported when the topic under investigation is in the mathematics domain at post-secondary level. However, the possibility of all students benefitting from extra time in higher-order thinking examinations should not be disregarded (Birkhead, 2018; Brye et al., 2005).

2.3. Quantifying extra writing time awarded

The amount of extra time awarded to students with LD varies across studies (Duncan & Purcell, 2020). Alster (1997) found that the algebra scores of 44 students with LD at a community college, who spent 25% more time on the examination than non-LD students, did not differ significantly from 44 non-LD students who wrote under timed or extra time restrictions. Lewandowski et al. (2013) found that 50% more than standard time gave an advantage (albeit not significant) to 26 students with LD compared to 50 students in the non-LD group at standard time, and a significant advantage at double time. Spenceley and Wheeler (2016) aligns with Lewandowski et al. (2013)’s suggestion that smaller (less than 50%) increments of extra time need to be considered when college students with LD are accommodated. Spenceley and Wheeler’s (2016) sample consisted of 1093 occurrences by 187 individuals in one calendar year. Holmes and Silvestri (2019)’s finding supports Lewandowski et al. (2013) and Spenceley and Wheeler (2016) when they found that two-thirds of students with LD completed their tests/exams in standard time when given 50% extra time indicating that less than 50% extra time should be sufficient to accommodate students with LD. Sokal and Vermette (2017) also agree with 25% to 50% more than standard time as an examination accommodation to students with LD when they summarised the findings of more than 8000 examinations for students with LD at two institutions across all programmes (undergraduate, graduate, and professional) offered. Most recently, Harrison et al. (2022) conducted a review of available literature on extra time in post-secondary settings and attested to the fact that it would only be in exceptional situations that more than 25% extra time is supported. Only one study (Sokal & Vermette, 2017) was identified where the progress (performance) over more than one year was evaluated and compared between students with LD and their non-LD peers. Sokal and Vermette (2017) identified a trend that suggests that students use more extra time as they move through their first 3 years of post-secondary study.

2.4 Extra time in time constrained accountancy assessments

This study focuses on assessments that are time based where most students studying towards their CA(SA) designation are pressured to complete them within the allocated time. This is confirmed by SAICA in their policy for special concessions in examinations set by them (SAICA, 2022b). The policy notes that time is a ‘critical success factor’ for all candidates (SAICA, 2022b, p. 4). Therefore, in a course where time is crucial (such as the students in this study), it is paramount that all students (with or without LD) are given a fair opportunity to demonstrate their ability. If not, the accommodations are not awarding appropriate access to students with LD and are not necessarily valid. At the university where this study is conducted, successful applicants for extra time are awarded between 5 and 30 min extra per hour, in addition to certain other accommodations such as using scribes or writing on an electronic device instead of by hand. This practice also applies to students studying towards their CA (SA) designation. This designation is awarded by the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) if students have successfully completed, amongst others and as a first step, a Bachelor of Commerce degree or equivalent degree at a SAICA accredited university (SAICA, 2022a). Students studying towards this designation at the SAICA accredited university where this study is undertaken, typically enrol in an undergraduate Bachelor of Accounting (BAcc) degree in the Economic and Management Sciences Faculty. Summative assessments for undergraduate BAcc students are time-constrained and written assessments. The standard time awarded for BAcc students to complete summative assessments is 1.8 minutes per grade. The extra time awarded to students with LD studying towards their BAcc degree therefore ranges from 8% (5 min per hour) to 50% (30 min per hour), in addition to the 180 min standard time for an assessment with a total grade of 100. Staff at the Disability Unit of the university where the study was conducted award a fixed amount of extra time (per hour) to successful applicants, which will apply to all subjects that the student is registered for and, in most instances, throughout the undergraduate¹ study period. The amount of extra time awarded in the BAcc programme is, therefore, in line with suggestions by existing literature in that the amount of extra time ranges from 8% to 50% above the standard time. This study also proposed a comparable sample size to that of the existing literature. It adds to the existing body of knowledge in that it observed student performance over an extended time period and for multiple modules in an accountancy domain (i.e. the BAcc programme).

Unsurprisingly, various studies raise questions about the value and relevance of timed examinations and suggest that ‘most of the time most students can benefit substantially from extended examination time’ (Stretch & Osborne, 2005, p. 5). Sireci et al. (2005) also found from their review that extra time appeared to improve the performance of all students, those with and without LD. These studies therefore underline what Elliot and Marquart(2004, p. 349) reported that ‘time is actually more of a test management issue than a construct to be measured in learners’. Birkhead (2018) summarised a literature review on nursing education and concluded that examinations where higher-order cognitive skills are examined increase examination anxiety and could lead to all students needing more time to complete examinations (not only students with LD). This finding echoes the finding by Brye et al. (2005). Brye et al.’s (2005) study focused on science students, which found that student performance (for all students) did not increase significantly when given more time on conceptual-based questions, but that all students benefited greatly from extra time given for calculation-based questions where problem solving was paramount.

2.5. Validity and fairness of assessment

Overall, it seems that the literature agrees that whatever the amount of extra time awarded, the validity of the examination and fairness to all students remain the ultimate goal. Fuchs and Fuchs (2001) are of the opinion that when the scores of students with LD and their non-LD peers increase similarly when accommodations are awarded, it might cast doubt on examination validity. Or, put differently by Stretch and Osborne (2005, p. 5) and Lindstrom (2010, p. 6), where these studies both cite Phillips’ (1994) study as follows: ‘one important indicator that an accommodation serves to level the playing field between students with and without LD is the differential boost. A differential boost is seen when an accommodation increases the performance of students with LD more than the accommodation increases the scores of students without LD’. When the differential boost is supported, the suggestion is that the accommodation is fair (and, therefore, ultimately promotes examination validity; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001). The validity of examinations is also discussed by Beddow (2012) in the accessibility theory realm where he acknowledged the challenge posed by accommodations considering that the goal of accommodations is to increase access, but without invalidating the scores obtained for the examination. Kettler (2012, p. 63) summarised the concepts of access, accommodation, and validity as follows: ‘To believe an accommodation will be appropriate is to believe that it will improve access for a student with a certain functional impairment in such a way that it would not change the experience of any students without that functional impairment. Accommodations that raise the scores of students who should not need them fail the differential boost test and are usually not appropriate.’

3. Method

The effectiveness of extra time was examined following a positivism paradigm. The positivism paradigm was selected as it allows the researchers to empirically answer the research questions using a quantitative dataset. The study further utilised a deductive approach which is based on understanding a phenomenon using a theoretical underpinning which could form the basis of understanding the effects of extra time for students with LDs. Using archival secondary data, descriptive analysis of the dataset was performed and followed by statistical analysis in order to answer each of the three research questions. To evaluate the difference in variance of the groups (RQ 1, RQ 2 and RQ 3), Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) and ordinary least square means were calculated using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical analysis test. These statistical methods allow different groups as identified in the research questions to be compared between each other, in order to identify if there are statistical differences in the final grades achieved in the respective modules. A 95% confidence level was used and all items with p-values of <.05 were deemed statistically significant. Levene’s examination for homogeneity of the variance was performed without exception.

This study followed all ethical standards for research of the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee at the relevant university, which granted full approval for this research.

3.1. Data collection procedures and sample rationale

Data for the study were obtained based on the extra time allocated to individual students as well as their grades obtained in the various modules of the program. The student information was obtained from the university student records system after institutional permission was granted. The privacy and confidentiality of student information was maintained through the anonymisation of data. This was done by replacing identifiable information with non-identifiable labels as well as not including any identifiable personal information in the research output. The data were collected, collated and processed by the researchers into a quantitative dataset. The sample was limited to modules in the second- and third-year BAcc programme for the 2011 to 2021 academic years. In addition, in order to be included in the sample, three additional conditions were applied. First, students of other bachelor’s degrees (therefore, not studying towards a CA(SA) designation) were removed from the sample. This was done to ensure that the sample was focused on an accountancy related program and to exclude students who potentially opted in for a module as an elective. Second, the students had to have been registered for a BAcc-related module in the preceding year of the observation so that the preceding year’s grade could be used as a covariate to consider prior performance in the statistical analysis. This was done to compare performance year on year, so that prior performance can be controlled for as part of the variance analysis of students. For all second-year modules, this is first-year Financial Accounting, and for all third-year modules, it is the equivalent second-year module. Finally, the students had to achieve a valid final grade for the observation. First-year undergraduate students were excluded from the scope of this study as the researchers believed more relevant data would be obtained from senior students who had decided, beyond their first year at post-secondary level, to continue with the BAcc programme, versus first-year students who tend to change bachelor’s degree focuses or cease their studies. Table 1 summarises the modules included in the study, as well as the covariate module used as a control for previous performance in the statistical analysis. It should also be noted that all students in both the LD and non-LD groups have met the minimum entry requirements for their academic program and had access to all academic offerings and opportunities. This study did not aim to understand the specific learning disability of the students in order to be granted extra time, and instead relied on the current process at the university to grant extra time to students given that practitioners/specialists also provide inputs. This is consistent with existing literature and protect students with LD’s privacy (Sokal & Vermette, 2017). For further analysis, the population (where appropriate) was classified into eight groups in Table 2 based on the amount of extra time afforded to the students by the institution. Each student can only be classified into one group. The different groups were needed in order to disaggregate and compare the results so that recommendations can be made in terms of the amount of extra time awarded per module and/or per undergraduate year of study. These group classifications indicate that smaller increments of extra time (8% to 33% above standard time) are awarded by the institution and are, therefore, in line with Lewandowski et al.’s (2013) and Spenceley and Wheeler’s (2016) findings that less than 50% extra time above standard should be sufficient to still report valid results that also support the differential boost.

Table 1. Modules included in the sample.

Module	Academic year^2	Covariate module	Number of observations
Auditing	Second year	First-year Financial Accounting	4637
Auditing	Third year	Second-year Auditing	4244
Business Ethics (first semester)	Second year	First-year Financial Accounting	2245
Financial Accounting	Second year	First-year Financial Accounting	4605
Financial Accounting	Third year	Second-year Financial Accounting	4495
Information Systems (first semester)	Second year	First-year Financial Accounting	2740
Information Systems (second semester)	Second year	First-year Financial Accounting	2758
Information Systems (first semester)	Third year	Second-year second semester Information Systems	2017
Management Accounting	Second year	First-year Financial Accounting	4561
Management Accounting	Third year	Second-year Management Accounting	4368
Mercantile law (Accounting)	Second year	First-year Financial Accounting	4215
Taxation	Second year	First-year Financial Accounting	4476
Taxation	Third year	Second-year Taxation	4333

Source: Calculated from student registration records from 2011 until 2021.

Table 2. Categories of extra time afforded to students and frequency of observations in each extra time category.

Extra time category	Accommodation awarded	Number of observations
Group 1	No extra time	47 459
Group 2	Non-time-based accommodation only	9
Group 3	Five additional minutes extra per hour	99
Group 4	Six additional minutes extra per hour	27
Group 5	Ten additional minutes extra per hour	1862
Group 6	Fifteen additional minutes extra per hour	214
Group 7	Twenty additional minutes extra per hour	21
Group 8	Thirty additional minutes extra per hour	3
Total of Groups 2 to 8	Total students with accommodations	2235

Source: Calculated from student registration and grade records from 2011 until 2021.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Descriptive analysis

A total of 49,694 observations were included as part of the dataset, which were split between the various modules as shown in Table 1. The average number of students with extra time over the 11-year period under review amounted to 4.50% of the total population. This percentage highlights the importance of such research in that although it may appear to be a small percentage of the total group, it is a significant increase since the last FOTIM (2011) report, where it was noted that students with LD make up less than 1% of the total student population of the participating institutions.

Table 2 summarises the different categories of extra time awarded as well as the frequency of observations in each category. It is evident from Table 2 that the majority (83.31%) of students with LD were awarded 10 min of extra time per hour, as per the existing extra time policy. Although this study did not explore the reasons for the granting of the extra time, it is clear that 10 additional minutes per hour (17% above standard time) is the default extra time awarded at this institution.

4.2. Results and discussion of research questions

The starting point to analyse whether students with LD (and therefore with extra time) achieve similar grades were an overall analysis of the entire period and for all modules.

RQ 1: On an overall mean basis, do students with LD and who qualify for extra time achieve similar grades compared to their non-LD peers without extra time?

Statistically the results reveal that students without LD, and therefore with no extra time, (mean score of 59.31%) were observed to achieve higher final grades on an overall mean basis compared to those students with a LD and who received extra time (mean score of 56.52%). These results are consistent when adjusting for the previous year’s covariate grade, where students with no LD achieve a mean score of 59.52% versus 57.81% for students with a LD and extra time. In other words, adjusting performance for achievement in the previous academic year produces consistent results that students with LD and extra time underperform compared to their non-LD peers in written time-constrained examinations. It is suggested that the underperformance by LD students with extra time is due to the relative unequitable pressure of time constraints in completing time-based assessments, consequently resulting in lower grades. These results are graphically depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. No extra time versus extra time students.

Source: Calculated from student registration and grade records from 2011 until 2021.

The finding that those without extra time achieve higher grades is consistent with the finding by Gregg and Nelson (2012) and suggests that the extra time afforded to students with LD does not equalise the assessment conditions in time-intensive modules. This finding is novel considering that limited previous research exists to support or oppose the practice of awarding extra writing time to higher education accountancy students in South Africa.

The results indicate that accessibility for students with LD are not supported (from a statistical point of view) and it could be viewed that these students are treated unfairly, which opposes the South African national disability policy (DHET, 2018). Further analysis per academic year revealed that the non-LD students performed on average better than students with LD for eight of 11 years in the scope of the study; with the only exceptions being the 2011 and 2015 academic years. This observation suggests that the results are consistent over a longitudinal period even with unmeasured changes in the related assessment.

This finding also aligns with the trend that was identified by Sokal and Vermette (2017) that students use more time as they move through their undergraduate years of study and highlights the importance of considering and re-evaluating the extra time awarded on a regular basis throughout a student’s academic career, perhaps on an annual basis. This furthermore reiterates Beddow (2012)’s challenge that accommodations should increase a test-taker’s access to a test, but without invalidating the scores obtained.

In addition, the practical consequence of this result is that students with LD are not afforded equal opportunity to showcase competence in their respective modules. This could potentially result in them not getting accepted into post-graduate studies or completing the programme. This result is then in defiance of the goal of accessibility to students with LD in South Africa, suggesting that the accessibility theory is not supported (DHET, 2018).

Although the results for the extended period and all modules indicate that, on average, students without LD and, therefore, with no extra time performed better than their peers with extra time, further analysis is needed to better understand in which module and in which academic year statistically significant differences were reported. This has led to RQ2:

RQ 2: In which academic year’s modules are students with LD achieving statistically different mean scores compared to their non-LD peers without extra time?

The analysis in RQ 2 could potentially indicate if there are specific academic years or modules that may result in different performance for LD (with extra time) and non-LD (no extra time) students. The results, as presented in Table 3, suggest that for all second-year modules there are no statistically significant differences between the two student groups except for one non-mainstream module namely, Information Systems, in the second semester of their second-year. These results suggest on a second-year level that the majority of students enjoy equal conditions in terms of the ultimate outcome of achieving similar grades.

Table 3. Mean scores per module in the BAcc degree programme.

Module	Academic year	Mean score of students without extra time	Mean score of extra time students	P-value of variance	Notes
Auditing	Second year	56.57	57.00	0.63	Not statistically different
Auditing	Third year	56.27	54.69	0.00	Statistically different and lower
Business Ethics	Second year	66.01	64.36	0.15	Not statistically different
Financial Accounting	Second year	56.98	57.77	0.45	Not statistically different
Financial Accounting	Third year	57.25	55.99	0.04	Statistically different and lower
Information Systems	Second year	68.66	67.82	0.36	Not statistically different
Information Systems	Second year	68.09	70.92	0.05	Statistically different and higher
Information Systems	Third year	70.68	69.21	0.08	Not statistically different (approaching statistical significance at 5%)
Management Accounting	Second year	57.35	57.60	0.79	Not statistically different
Management Accounting	Third year	56.53	56.07	0.37	Not statistically different
Mercantile Law (Acc)	Second year	58.53	58.45	0.93	Not statistically different
Taxation	Second year	57.16	57.98	0.40	Not statistically different
Taxation	Third year	56.40	55.29	0.03	Statistically different and lower

Source: Calculated from student registration and grade records from 2011 until 2021.

The results for third-year modules, as shown in Table 3, are, however, in contrast to those of the second-year modules and suggest that final-year modules are the reason for the overall finding of students with LD underperforming versus their non-LD peers. For all the third-year modules, students with LD and with extra time achieved lower mean grades compared to their non-LD peers. Three of the five third-year modules, namely Auditing, Financial Accounting, and Taxation, had statistically significant differences and one module, namely Information Systems, had a difference that approached the level of statistical significance.

These results suggest that the extra time afforded to second-year and third-year students should be critically assessed to determine if the level granted to students with LD is appropriate. It is notable from the results that the year of the module could have a significant impact on the challenges faced by students with LD’s and the extra time required to achieve equitable assessment conditions (especially when considering an increased credit load as a module progresses from 1 year to the next). Students in their third (and final) year of undergraduate studies need to obtain minimum entry requirements into post-graduate studies which further adds to the pressure of passing a module in this year.

The results of RQ 2 are consistent with RQ 1’s results, which suggest that the accessibility theory is not supported for students with LD. The practical implications of RQ 2 are, therefore, similar to RQ 1 where students with LD are potentially excluded from post-graduate studies and completing their accountancy programs. Based on the results of RQ 2, the recommendation is that extra time should be increased for students with LD from their second to their third year of study. However, it is unclear how much more extra time should be awarded to these students while still ensuring that the test remains valid and therefore further investigation is warranted. This has led to RQ 3, which evaluates the impact of the different amounts of extra time awarded to students on their grades.

RQ 3: In which extra time categories are students with LD, based on mean scores, achieving a mean score of less than the required pass grade of 50%?

To further understand the appropriateness of extra time, an analysis per extra time category was performed to identify which groups achieved grades under 50% on average for their modules. The results, as shown in Table 4, indicate that the modules with groups performing on average below a grade of 50% were both third-year modules (Financial Accounting and Taxation).

Table 4. Analysis of grades per module and per classification group.

Category	Category Description	Auditing Second Year	Auditing Third Year	Business Ethics Second Year	Financial Accounting Second Year	Financial Accounting Third Year	Information Systems Second Year (Semester 1)	Information Systems Second Year (Semester 2)	Information Systems Third Year	Management Accounting Second Year	Management Accounting Third Year	Mercantile Law Second Year	Taxation Second Year	Taxation Third Year
		Mean Grade	Mean Grade	Mean Grade	Mean Grade	Mean Grade	Mean Grade	Mean Grade	Mean Grade	Mean Grade	Mean Grade	Mean Grade	Mean Grade	Mean Grade
Group 1	No extra time	56.57	56.27	66.01	56.98	57.25	68.66	68.09	70.68	57.35	56.53	58.53	57.16	56.40
Group 2	Non-time-based accommodation only	75.66	55.96	N/A	71.24	47.99	N/A	N/A	77.23	71.07	61.39	N/A	78.01	48.62
Group 3	Five additional minutes extra per hour	62.31	54.36	72.26	62.87	56.31	70.17	76.45	78.63	61.27	52.31	61.60	63.03	56.57
Group 4	Six additional minutes extra per hour	52.32	N/A	N/A	56.55	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	57.64	54.88	52.69	58.50	N/A
Group 5	Ten additional minutes extra per hour	56.26	54.94	N/A	56.47	56.44	67.13	71.13	69.03	56.48	56.31	58.06	56.76	55.72
Group 6	Fifteen additional minutes extra per hour	57.46	53.11	63.15	60.62	52.08	70.58	69.94	67.39	62.08	54.14	60.30	59.50	50.21
Group 7	Twenty additional minutes extra per hour	59.66	59.51	67.08	66.91	62.04	62.60	55.16	63.21	53.96	66.68	62.14	63.51	56.37
Group 8	Thirty additional minutes extra per hour	N/A	11.01	N/A	N/A	14.64	N/A	N/A	66.25	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Source: Calculated from student registration and grade records from 2011 until 2021.

Furthermore, within the different amounts of extra time categories, only two groups are highlighted, namely Group 2, which comprised students who received only non-time-based accommodations, and Group 8, namely those who received an additional 30 min per hour (i.e., 50% more than standard time). Groups 2 and 8 contains only a few observations (combined 12 out of the total 2235), which shows that these are not representative of current practice.

The results from Group 8, which consisted of student who were awarded 50% more than standard time, shows that more extra time may not always be a sufficient intervention to level the assessment conditions among students. This result aligns with Harrison et al. (2022) who stated that 25% extra time or more should only be made in exceptional cases.

These results suggest that policy should be developed in cognisance of the fact that there is a efficiency curve of extra time as well as a potential tipping point where extra time awarded may be excessive and not supportive to accountancy students in time based assessment. The findings thus suggest that appropriate resources be allocated to the development of extra writing time policy as well as the assessment of the effectiveness of the time awarded. This could be done by a committed special purpose committee or department within a university.

5. Limitations

Although this study adds to the discourse on extra time awarded to students with LD’s, it is not without limitations. First, this study was performed at one university, and this may impact the generalisability of the results and findings. It should however be noted that the study was conducted using a large sample across an extended time period which may aid the generalisability of the study to other accountancy programmes. Different results may, however, be observed when analysing students at other higher education institutions or for other bachelor’s degree programmes. The standard time of 1.8 min per grade for undergraduate students studying towards a BAcc degree was not investigated; only extra time awarded for students with LD. This study did not differentiate between the type of disability that granted a student the extra time. Reliance was placed on the method employed by the university on the granting of extra time. This is consistent with existing literature where the privacy of students with LD are protected (Sokal & Vermette, 2017).

6. Conclusion and summary of recommendations

Academia has attempted to create an environment where students are afforded equal assessment conditions through the provision of extra time. Even though the broader topic of assessment accommodations has been researched extensively internationally (Bolt & Thurlow, 2004; Lovett, 2010; Stretch & Osborne, 2005; Zuriff, 2000), no evidence existed in the South African accounting education sphere about the effectiveness of extra time awarded to students with LD per academic year and evaluating various amounts of extra time granted. Although this study is not without limitations which may impact generalisability, the study provides important insights for policy makers on the awarding of extra time. First, in response to RQ 1, it was noted that, on an overall basis, accountancy students with LD in South Africa were not placed in an equitable position based on current practices. Student with LD were performing statistically significantly worse than their peers without LD between 2011 and 2021. Second, in response to RQ 2, this study highlighted that the provision of a specific amount of extra time for accountancy students with LD, which was predominantly 17% more than the standard time for the 11-years under review, may need to be reassessed per academic year. The results strongly suggest that the provision of the same amount of extra time over various academic years during the course of a bachelor’s degree is inadequate and an inequitable approach. These results align with the trend that Sokal and Vermette (2017) identified and emphases the fact that students with LD need more extra time as they move through their undergraduate years of study. The practical implication of this result is that students with LD are potentially unable to complete the undergraduate program or are denied access to post-graduate studies based on the fact that they might not be obtaining minimum entry requirements in their third year of study. The evidence therefore suggests that the accessibility theory is not supported. The study has noted several recommendations, such as the need to re-assess the amount of extra time awarded per academic year to students with LD’s requiring extra time. This assessment must consider the specific need of different levels of modules, such as second-year and third-year modules, from which it appears that more extra time may be required as the module becomes more advanced. Finally, this study agrees with existing literature that excessive extra time should not be awarded. 50% more than standard time should only be awarded in exceptional circumstances. Sufficient resources should be committed to the establishment and review of policies regarding extra time, instead of following a one size fits all approach where a common measure such as 10 extra min per hour is awarded. It is evident that examining the effectiveness of extra time in developing countries such as South Africa requires urgent attention to ensure equitable outcomes for all students. This study highlighted the need for future research on the provision of extra time in time-based and written assessments. Future research should evaluate the amount of extra time required for written assessments on an individual student level, as well as aim to promote the creation of extra time policies that considers the need for, and effectiveness of, extra time on individual student level.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Juan Mendelsohn Ontong

Juan Ontong is financial accounting senior lecturer within the School of Accountancy at Stellenbosch University. He has an interest in accounting education, with specific reference to enhancing teaching and learning practices as well as policy surrounding these practices.

Mareli Rossouw

Mareli Rossouw is financial accounting senior lecturer within the School of Accountancy at Stellenbosch University. She has an interest in accounting education, with specific reference to enhancing teaching and learning practices as well as policy surrounding these practices.

Notes

1 Undergraduate period refers to the three-year standard time to obtain a bachelor’s degree.

2 All modules listed take place over two semesters, with only one final-grade outcome at the end of the second semester, with the exception of the Business Ethics and Information Systems modules, which take place over the period of one semester.