Assessing the use of computer-based assessment-feedback in teaching digital accountants

ABSTRACT

Both assessment and feedback have a vital impact on students’ learning. Using computer-based assessment (CBA) with constructive and prompt computer-based feedback (CBF) reduces the attainment gap of the new generation of digital students. Action research methodology was employed to explore students’ view of utilising CBA and/or CBF in teaching and learning practice. A survey was administered to 537 undergraduate students in the Management School of a British university to collect data about their perceptions of using CBA and CBF to assess their progress. Findings from students’ survey show that students are generally appreciated the use of and benefits of CBA and/or CBF in teaching accounting modules. Findings also reveal that many participants valued working online compared to paper-and-pencil assessment and they also appreciated the timely and constructive feedback-feedforward they received. Information technology (IT), therefore, can provide an innovative type of assessment and feedback that students’ desire in an effective manner.

KEYWORDS:

• Teaching and learning
• accounting education
• computer-based assessment
• computer-based feedback
• digital accountants

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professor Alan Sangster (the Editor), Dr Steven Dellaportas (the Associate Editor), and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on previous versions. I am also most grateful for helpful support and constructive comments provided by my colleagues: Mr James O’Neill, Mr Stephen Hicks and Mrs Tracy Clewlow.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. In HEIs, a module is a self-contained course that normally lasts for one academic semester and covers just one subject (e.g. cost accounting, international financial reporting, corporate governance, digital marketing, etc.). It is assessed independently of other modules. Accordingly, the academic year is divided up into two semesters and the students need to study a number of predetermined modules. The student’s final degree qualification is based on selecting and passing a predetermined number of modules (see, QAA, 2009; Cottrell, 2013).

2. In HEIs, teaching staff refer to professional and qualified persons such as ‘Lecturers’, ‘Teaching Fellows’, ‘Tutors’, or ‘Teaching Assistants’ who are directly involved in the teaching and learning process and worked with students as a whole class in a lecture theatre, in small groups in labs/classroom, or beyond the classroom (Cottrell, 2013).

3. VLE is an online learning space provided by the University for organising learning resources (e.g. programmes/modules handbooks, lectures’ notes, tutorials’ questions, reading list, etc.) for the university, faculty or school, usually with specific space for each programme of study (Cottrell, 2013).

4. Examples of these CBA questions (e.g. multiple-choice, true/false, calculation and essay questions such as define, list, describe, classify, explain, etc.) and CBF reports (e.g. feedback on correct/incorrect answers and feedforward) are available in Appendix 2.

5. These CBAs were designed using VLE features and accessible only to students taught these accounting modules. The students had access to their CBA via VLE using their university’s usernames and passwords. Due to the big number of first-year students and the overall grade of the UG degree is based on the performance of second- and third-year only, the first-year students were taking their Accounting Principles’ CBA on/off-campus. We gave them access to their CBA anytime, anywhere and one-entry for 5 working days. While Intermediate Financial Accounting and Advanced Financial Reporting (second-and third-year modules respectively), the students were taken their CBA on campus using library labs and under the University examination conditions.

6. Cronbach’s Alpha is the most common measure of reliability scale. It essentially calculates the average of all possible split-half reliability coefficients, with an indication that the acceptable value is 0.7–0.8 (see, for more details, Field, 2013).