Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods improve accounting students' learning outcomes?

Abstract

This study investigates the association between the learning outcomes of students and two teaching models: a traditional face-to-face lecture/tutorial teaching model and a hybrid flexible delivery model. The hybrid flexible model is delivered using a combination of face-to-face seminars and electronic delivery and communication tools. It is found that academic performance is higher for students who studied under the flexible delivery model, achieved higher marks in prerequisite units, were female, or were younger. Evidence is provided that flexible delivery teaching models utilizing electronic delivery media can be used to achieve the benefits of small class sizes when teaching large student numbers. The results should be of interest to administrators and educators as they attempt to address the challenges of supplying tertiary education to an increasing number of students as well as meeting the perceived demand for flexible course delivery in a manner that can enhance students' learning outcomes.

^§Carlin Dowling and Jayne Godfrey were staff members at the University of Tasmania when most of this research was completed.

Keywords:

• flexible delivery, teaching method, learning outcomes

Acknowledgements

Comments from Peter Collett, Paul deLange, Steven Fraser, Kathy Gibson, Sue Hrasky, and participants at the 2002 Australian Accounting Association of New Zealand Conference, Perth and seminars at the University of Tasmania and the University of Melbourne are gratefully acknowledged. We thank Adriana Siely for data collection assistance. The authors acknowledge funding from a research grant provided by the School of Accounting & Finance, University of Tasmania, and from a special Flexible Delivery Development grant provided to the School of Accounting & Finance from the University of Tasmania.

Notes

^§Carlin Dowling and Jayne Godfrey were staff members at the University of Tasmania when most of this research was completed.

¹Learning outcomes are not well defined in the literature, however, as noted by Michlistsch and Sidle (2002) assessment performance is the common term used to refer to evaluating student learning outcomes.

²For example, Broad et al. (2000) compare the learning outcomes attained from a new teaching model compared with its predecessor. However, in the instigation of the new model, dramatic course content changes were made. The presence of these changes makes it difficult to interpret whether the new model or the changed course material is responsible for the reported outcomes.

³A unit consists of a coherent structure of topics in a discrete area. For example, Introduction to Accounting 101.

⁴ Accounting Information Systems was selected as the basis for this study because the unit's teaching approach was trialled by the university during the period under consideration, the teacher was willing to provide the data for this study, the same teacher taught this unit in both years, the teaching material was held constant over the period examined, and data relating to prior university results are available. This last point is important as first year university results are used in prerequisite subjects as a control variable.

⁵Most students had previously studied a unit at the university in which a resource CD was available and WebCT was used. In the previous unit, the resource CD was provided as an optional alternative and the teaching model followed a traditional lecture/tutorial format. This previous exposure reduces the probability that student novelty with the delivery tools explains the results.

⁶A survey administered to students in the final week of teaching in 2001 found that students listened to the lectures at home (75.47%), university computer labs (24.53%), work (13.21%), and other locations (0.94%). Percentages add to more than 100 because students access the lectures from more than one physical location. 5.66% of responding students report not accessing the lectures.

⁷A new edition of the textbook, Accounting Information Systems, was released in July 2001. The text is authored by Gelinas and Sutton and published by South-Western. The material covered in this unit did not differ substantially between editions. Students in 2001 were advised that they could use either the previous or the new edition. Approximately half the class used the new edition. It is not possible to determine which edition each student used.

⁸The original timetable was for seven sessions. However, it became apparent during the term that an additional seminar session was needed. An additional voluntary seminar session was held in the middle of the term. Although the material was also covered briefly in the timetabled sessions, this extra session enabled students to undertake additional work in an area with which many were struggling.

⁹There were 51 students on Campus 2 in 2000, and 35 in 2001.

¹⁰Ultimately, the cost-efficiency of a flexible delivery teaching model is a function of many factors, including the involvement of an instructional designer, teacher familiarity with, and attitude to, the course management tool, and the longevity of the Netshow presentations.

¹¹In 2001, the university adopted WebCT as the centrally-supported delivery platform. In 2000, FlexiComm, another delivery platform was used. For the purposes of this study, the platforms were used in the same way and the change in platforms is unlikely to drive the results.

¹²It is acknowledged that another goal of flexible delivery can be to reduce delivery costs. However, the focus is educational.

¹³The University of Tasmania Policy on Generic Attributes of Graduates (2002) defines generic skills as generic outcomes expected of graduates, regardless of the specific disciplines or professional courses they have studied. The policy recognizes the attributes of Knowledge; Communication Skills; Problem Solving Skills; Global Perspective; Social Responsibility as components of the generic attributes of graduates. Unit specific skills are skills obtained as a result of studying a particular unit at university.

¹⁴This is consistent with the pressures facing final year secondary students and the populist held view that a final mark is the ‘be all and end all’ to obtaining a successful future career (see, for example, the Letters to the Editor, Herald Sun, 25th January, 2002, p. 16). Mature age students, who can draw on broader life experiences, are more likely to hold a view that a successful career is possible even if they score a lesser mark than they are capable of achieving.

¹⁵The university has three campuses, and the accounting major is offered on all of them. On Campuses 1 and 2, Accounting Information Systems is offered annually, whereas on Campus 3 it is offered biannually. For comparative purposes, sample is limited to students attending Campuses 1 and 2.

¹⁶They were allowed entry into the programme on the basis of their prior experience, prior study at other institutions, or because of other extenuating circumstances. The mix of reasons for their enrolment makes it impossible to generalize from an in-depth analysis of their results.

¹⁷Drennan and Rohde (2002) found that students who studied prerequisite subjects at the university where they undertook the advanced subject performed better than students who studied the prerequisites at another institution.

¹⁸The units are two introductory accounting units and an introductory information systems unit. The average mark of the three is included rather than the units individually, as the correlation (not reported) between the average mark and the dependent variable learning outcomes (67.1%; p = 0.000) is higher than any of the three units individually (47.2%, 59.9% and 58.3%, all are significant; p = 0.000). Similar patterns are observed when the dependent variable is midterm mark or final examination mark.

¹⁹The midterm assessment comprised three separate tasks as outlined in Table 1.

²⁰To reduce skewness and kurtosis age is recoded to 30 for 16 students whose actual age is greater than 30. Thirty represents an age where students will have developed maturity and life skills that are qualitatively similar to those of older students. However, since the choice of 30 is arbitrary, it is re-tested using actual age. The results remain qualitatively the same; the only difference is age increases significance to p < 0.05 in the equivalent of model 1, Table 6.

²¹Spearman correlations (not reported) are qualitatively the same.

²²The three indicants of multicollinearity are very high R ², significant F-values and few, if any, significant t-values (Gujarati, 1995). The models reported in Table 6 report significant t-values indicating the multicollinearity suggested in the Pearson correlations is minor.

²³Empirical findings are mixed on the effect of class size on student performance. Refer to Hill (1998).