The impact of collaborative learning approaches on assessment outcomes in an accounting theory class

ABSTRACT

The study explores how collaborative based exams (CLBE) affect specified learning outcomes in an Accounting Theory course for final year ‘accounting major’ students. The study proposes Accounting Theory as an avenue to improve the qualitative and problem-solving skills of accounting students and collaborative learning (CL) as a mechanism to enhance students’ teamwork skills. The study uses a mixed-methods approach, applying a quantitative method in analysing the relationships and then using focus groups to gain insights about students’ reaction to CL and collaborative based exams (CLBE). The results confirm that collaborative based exams (CLBE) after a CL mechanism significantly and comparatively improves students’ qualitative and problem-solving based exam scores, reduces pre-exam anxiety and enhances knowledge retention. Both low performing and high CGPA students benefited from CL and collaborative based exams (CLBE). Students, even though appreciative of the visible benefits of CL, contested a group-based grading system, and female students revealed gender biases within group dynamics. This study is the first application of inter and intragroup dependent exam constructs within collaborative based exams (CLBE).

KEYWORDS:

• Accounting theory
• collaborative based exams
• collaborative learning
• exam scores
• focus groups
• knowledge retention
• pre-exam anxiety

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 A typical accounting undergraduate degree is a four-year study spanning level 100 to level 400. Level 400 students therefore represent final year undergraduate students.

2 Tharapos and Marriott (2020), Ellis et al. (2016), Gan et al. (2015), Talib and Cheung (2017), Bloom (1976), Cooper et al. (1988), Whipple (1986), Gabbert et al. (1986), Johnston and Johnston (1981) and Skon et al. (1981) suggest that CL improves higher level skills of analysing, synthesising, evaluating, and conceptualising.

3 See Sheridan et al. (1989) for a discussion of various approaches to CL.

4 Coles (1985); de Volder and de Grave (1989); Schmidt et al. (1987) provide evidence that CL promotes knowledge retention.

5 These responses are currently the basis for another study by the author.

6 For the traditional group, not all students had the opportunity to participate in a presentation due to the large student number. Therefore the average of one (1) is actually a rounded-up number of 0.57.

7 Most institutions set a minimum age of 21 years to be accepted as a matured student

8 Note B[x], will represent

GROUP B1 in the case study to GROUP B2;

GROUP B2 in the case study to GROUP B3

GROUP B3 in the case study to GROUP B4

9 See the appendix for the semi-structured questionnaire for the focus group discussions.

10 Ability is proxied by the average mid semester score, per student, in percentage terms, for all subjects in the prior semester.

11 No formal roles were assigned to students in this study. The discussion about formal roles generated from a suggestion by one of the students that formal roles will have been helpful.

12 See results from focus group discussions for evidence that students overlooked the challenges after a brief period of contentions to focus on achieving mutual goals.

13 This was supported by an earlier exercise, depicted on the flip charts; ‘I like CL exams because …  … .’

14 This was supported by an earlier exercise, depicted on the flip charts; ‘The main challenge I have with CL exams is …  … ’.

15 This represents the cumulative mean scores across all semesters.

16 ‘A’ represents MID SEM A take home assignment (Problem solving skills test)

‘B’ represents MID SEM B Test (Qualitative skills test)

‘EXAM’ represents Final Exam (Knowledge retention test)