Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

Asian Review of Accounting

The effect of a change in teaching structure on student performance


Kevin M. Baird, Venkateshwaran Narayanan,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Kevin M. Baird, Venkateshwaran Narayanan, (2010) "The effect of a change in teaching structure
on student performance", Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 18 Issue: 2, pp.148-161, https://
doi.org/10.1108/13217341011059408
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13217341011059408
Downloaded on: 06 August 2018, At: 22:56 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 20 other documents.
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com


The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1793 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2008),"Factors associated with student performance in advanced accounting and auditing: An empirical
study in a public university", Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 21 Iss 1 pp. 16-32 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/10309610810891328">https://doi.org/10.1108/10309610810891328</a>
(2014),"Factors contributing toward student performance in a distance education accounting
degree", Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 22 Iss 2 pp. 211-223 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
MEDAR-08-2013-0032">https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2013-0032</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:478474 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1321-7348.htm

ARA
18,2 The effect of a change
in teaching structure
on student performance
148
Kevin M. Baird
Division of Economic and Financial Studies, Macquarie University,
Sydney, Australia, and
Venkateshwaran Narayanan
Faculty of Law and Management, School of Accounting,
La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of a change in teaching structure
in improving the performance of students in an introductory management accounting subject at an
Australian institution. The change in structure involved a shift in the balance between lecture and
tutorial face-to-face contact hours with increased emphasis being placed on tutorials in an attempt to
enhance the benefits of cooperative learning.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper evaluates the success of the new approach by
comparing the performance of students across the two teaching structures. Specifically, the paper
compares the performance of students on exam questions covering five key management accounting
topics.
Findings – The results revealed that the new teaching structure (a two-hour workshop-based tutorial
and a one-hour lecture each week) improved student examination results significantly in comparison
to the previous “traditional” approach.
Practical implications – This paper demonstrates the benefits of teaching and learning conducted
in a small class size setting with the use of cooperative learning. Such an approach could be adopted
more widely in the teaching and learning of accounting to enhance the generic and analytic skills of
students.
Originality/value – This paper provides empirical evidence to support largely normative claims
that cooperative learning when combined with greater focus on small class teaching can improve
student performance.
Keywords Learning, Teaching, Students, Management accounting, Accounting education, Australia
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
This paper examines the impact of a change in teaching structure on the final exam
performance of students enrolled in an introductory management accounting subject at
an Australian tertiary institution. The change involved a shift in the focus of the weekly
contact hours with increased emphasis being placed on the tutorials as opposed
to lectures. Specifically, the three face-to-face contact hours were altered from
a two-hour lecture and one-hour tutorial per week to a two-hour tutorial and one-hour
Asian Review of Accounting lecture each week. Tutorials were conducted using a cooperative learning workshop
Vol. 18 No. 2, 2010
pp. 148-161 approach under both teaching structures. Cooperative learning practices are widely
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1321-7348
advocated by the accounting education literature (Ravenscroft et al., 1999; Lightbody,
DOI 10.1108/13217341011059408 1997; Ciccotello et al., 1997; Ravenscroft, 1997; Peek et al., 1995; Cottell and Millis, 1992)
with Baird and Narayanan (2005) providing evidence of students’ satisfaction with this Change
approach. Accordingly, the major purpose of the change in teaching structure was to in teaching
increase the duration of tutorials in an attempt to maximise the benefits associated
with the cooperative learning approach. The increased emphasis on tutorials as structure
opposed to lectures is also supported by the literature advocating teaching in small
classes.
While the educational benefits of cooperative learning approaches are numerous 149
including improvements in generic, interpersonal, problem-solving and communication
skills, this study attempts to observe if placing greater emphasis on this approach via
changes in the teaching structure can lead to improvements in the performance of
students in the final examination. The study therefore focuses on providing
a comparison of the performance of students across the two alternative teaching
structures. The research contributes to the accounting education literature by observing
if student performance can be enhanced by better utilising face-to-face contact hours so
as to place greater emphasis on small classes (tutorials) involving a cooperative learning
environment rather than the larger lecture setting (passive learning environment).
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

The paper is structured as follows. First, we provide a detailed explanation of the two
different teaching structures and the motivation for implementing change. Specifically,
we discuss the literature on cooperative learning and the literature advocating teaching
in small classes as opposed to the traditional lecture approach. Second, we provide
a discussion of the methodology used to compare the performance of students subjected
to the different teaching structures. The “Results” section then provides a detailed
analysis of the performance of students under each strategy. The “Results” section
compares performance under each teaching structure, while comparisons are also made
based on the differing levels of student ability. Finally, a summary of the results and
conclusion in relation to the impact of the current teaching structure (i.e. the two-hour
workshop) on student performance is provided.

2. Alternative teaching structures


The two different teaching structures adopted in an introductory management
accounting subject are described below:
(1) The first teaching structure consisted of a one-hour cooperative learning-based
tutorial and a two-hour lecture per week. While the one-hour tutorial and
two-hour lecture teaching structure had been adopted since the inception of the
unit, prior to semester 2, 2003, the tutorials had focused on going through
the solutions to the weekly assignment questions. However, in semester 2, 2003,
a significant change was made to the manner in which we conducted tutorials,
with a shift towards a cooperative learning (workshop) based approach.
Specifically, we introduced a more interactive approach in which students were
required to attempt questions in class and work in groups to discuss issues and
solve problems. This approach also enabled students to interact more with their
facilitator and each other. Hence, we refer to this teaching structure as the
“one-hour workshop” approach.
(2) At the commencement of semester 1, 2005, the structure of contact hours was
changed to place greater emphasis on the cooperative learning (workshop) based
tutorials. Specifically, the structure of the three hours of face-to-face teaching
was altered to a two-hour tutorial and one-hour lecture per week; whereas,
ARA previously it was the other way around. This change was made so as to maximise
18,2 the benefits associated with the workshop-based approach to conducting
tutorials. This approach is referred to as the “two-hour workshop” approach.

Hence, there have been two major changes to the teaching approach adopted in this
subject in recent years. First, there was a change in the teaching strategy adopted with a
150 shift to the cooperative learning (workshop) based approach to conduct tutorials.
Second, there was the change in the teaching structure with a shift in the focus of the
face-to-face contact hours to place greater emphasis on the number of tutorial hours as
opposed to lecturing hours. The above changes to the teaching strategy and structure
were motivated by two factors. First, it is asserted that cooperative learning approaches
are beneficial to the learning outcomes of students; and second, it is argued that students
learn better in active environments in smaller classes such as opposed to the traditional
large lecture format. This paper concentrates on analysing the effect of the second
change, the change in the teaching structure on student performance.
The paper does not seek to delve into the issues of the benefits or otherwise of small
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

class sizes. For instance, we are not concerned with whether a class size of 15 is more
beneficial to student learning and outcomes than a class of 25 or 100. Instead, our focus is
on the type of teaching and learning that occurs in the classroom and the best way to
utilise the limited face-to-face contact hours available to students. In particular, we aim
to observe if placing greater emphasis on cooperative learning (workshop) based
tutorials as opposed to passive listening in the lecture format can improve student
performance. Furthermore, given the cooperative learning approach was adopted in
both of the teaching structures, the paper does not aim to compare the benefits of such
practices with other approaches. Rather, the purpose of the study is to compare
the performance of students across the different teaching structures so as to enable the
benefits of adopting alternative teaching structures to be assessed.
Given the tutorials in both of the teaching structures were conducted using the
cooperative learning (workshop) based approach, the following section is aimed at
describing both the nature of and the virtues of this approach.

2.1 Cooperative learning


Cooperative learning refers to “a process through which students work together
in groups to master material initially presented by the tutor” (Slavin, 1989). The four
underlying theories promoting the use of cooperative learning are: motivational, social
cohesion, cognitive elaboration and opportunity for practise (Slavin, 1989). Motivational
theories are based around the notion that “actions are determined by motivation and
that motivation can be influenced by providing students with goals and rewards for
achieving them” (Baird and Narayanan, 2005, p. 75). The social cohesion model is based
on the premise that interaction and open discussion are key elements that improve the
learning experience for students. Cognitive elaboration is the notion of creating learning
tasks which engage students at a cognitive level such that extrinsic rewards or
incentives are not necessary. And finally, the opportunity for practise as the name
suggests encourages instructors to allow students to master problems through practise
and engagement with the material. Theoretically, our approach is based on the social
cohesion and opportunity for practise models put forward by Slavin (1989).
In adopting a cooperative learning approach under both teaching structures, Change
we attempted to address each of the following four key criteria for cooperative learning in teaching
to a certain degree (Cottell and Millis, 1992):
(1) Positive interdependence. This refers to the idea that students “swim or sink”
structure
together. It includes providing students with mutual goal and rewards. In our case,
students were required to work in groups. The groups discussed key concepts and
worked together on both conceptual recall and problem-solving questions. Each 151
student’s assessment mark for class participation was dependent upon their ability
to engage and interact with other students within their group.
(2) Individual accountability. According to Johnson et al. (1991, p. 19) individual
accountability is achieved when:
[. . .] the performance of each student is assessed, the results are given back to
the individual and the group, and the student is held responsible by other members
of the group for contributing a fair share to the group’s success.
While there was no assessable group task, each student was held accountable
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

for their own performance as they were required to sit an end of semester exam
which assessed their knowledge of the whole course. Students had to pass this
final exam in order to receive a passing grade in the course. In addition,
students were indirectly responsible for their group members’ performance by
assisting them in engaging with the material throughout the semester.
(3) Appropriate grouping. The students were allowed to self-select their groups.
While some researchers argue that groups should be formed by the instructor
(Peek et al., 1995), this was deemed to be unnecessary as there were no
assessment marks directed to specific group activities such as assignments,
and the instructor’s prior knowledge of the students was insufficient to
adequately make decisions relating to the grouping of students.
(4) Group processing. The ability of each group to work effectively on set tasks is
informally assessed by the instructor, who constantly monitors the progress
of groups and provides whatever assistance is required to promote effective
discussion and satisfactory progress towards the desired learning outcomes.

Cooperative learning is seen as beneficial to students’ learning outcomes by several


authors (Baird and Narayanan, 2005; Ravenscroft et al., 1999; Lightbody, 1997;
Ciccotello et al., 1997; Ravenscroft, 1997; Peek et al., 1995; Cottell and Millis, 1992, 1993).
The benefits of cooperative learning include the development of generic, interpersonal,
problem-solving and communication skills, all of which are seen as desirable by
employers in the accounting field (Adler and Milne, 1997; Ravenscroft, 1997).
Additionally, students comprehend and master material being taught if they are
“actively wrestling with problems and issues than when they are simply listening to
a lecture” (Baird and Narayanan, 2005, p. 75).
Baird and Narayanan (2005) conducted a survey to evaluate student’s opinion of
the cooperative learning (workshop) approach to conducting tutorials and found
strong support for this approach. In particular, they concluded that student’s were
very supportive of the incorporation of the in-class problem-solving tasks and group
work. More importantly, they indicated that they felt that the new approach was more
enjoyable than previous approaches and that it assisted them in understanding
ARA the course material. Given these findings, the major purpose of the change in teaching
18,2 structure was to enhance the benefits associated with the cooperative learning
approach by expanding the tutorials from one to two hours.

2.2 De-emphasising the traditional lecture and emphasising cooperative learning


While the purpose of new teaching structure (two-hour workshop) was to increase
152 the time spent by students in a cooperative learning environment, the change in
structure also involved de-emphasising the focus on the often criticised traditional
lecture (reduced to one hour per week). It is argued that the traditional lecture is not
conducive to deeper learning and the development of higher level analytical and critical
skills (Cottell and Millis, 1993; Inglis and Dall’Alba, 1998; Kern, 2002; Mladenovic,
2000). The lecture can only serve to provide an outline of the subject material and
introduce the material to students. It does not allow for interaction and discussion
which are both key elements of learning and essential elements of the social cohesion
model of cooperative learning. Furthermore, lectures do not facilitate the development
of generic skills in students. This point is of particular relevance when the lecture class
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

size is large (in this subject up to 500 students in each lecture). Our approach
of de-emphasising the lecture, therefore, transfers the learning experience back
to the classroom, where the benefits of cooperative learning can be fully realised[1].
The changed teaching structure is consistent with a general push by accounting
educators towards cooperative learning and learning by doing as Breton (1999, p. 1)
notes “the tendency is toward the more active participation of students in the
learning process”. Further support for cooperative learning has long been provided by
the Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC) (1990, p. 309), who state that
“Learning by doing should be emphasized. Working in groups should be encouraged”.
Several other authors indicate that cooperative learning helps improve students’
performance and life-long learning abilities (Cottell and Millis, 1993; Adler and Milne,
1997; Murdoch and Guy, 2002; Kern, 2002).
A key issue in relation to reaping the benefits of cooperative learning is the class size.
Murdoch and Guy (2002) address this issue and conclude that where critical and analytical
skills are required to fully grasp the subject matter, students in small classes perform
better than those attending large classes. Furthermore, small classes allow the instructor
to dedicate time to groups of students and to individuals (Murdoch and Guy, 2002, p. 272),
which is not possible in larger classes especially in lectures. Perceptions of students in
relation to class size can also have an influence on their perceived performance in the
course (Naser and Peel, 1998). It is however unclear as to what is meant by small and large
classes and the empirical evidence on whether class size matters is as yet mixed and
inconclusive (see Murdoch and Guy, 2002 for an in-depth discussion on this issue). While
the effect of class size is not the focus of the current study, it is acknowledged that the new
teaching structure (two-hour workshop) involved students being in smaller classes
(tutorials) for the majority (two hours) of the three face-to-face weekly contact hours.
Accordingly, this is expected to further enhance the benefits of the cooperative learning
approach thereby resulting in improvements in student performance.
Baldwin (1993) indicates that the differing teaching abilities of instructors provides a
further complication surrounding the debate on the effect of class sizes on student
performance. Specifically, he argues that a large class taught by an expert teacher can
outperform a small class taught by a less-proficient teacher. This issue is particularly
important in large courses where several instructors conduct classes, and there is Change
a necessity to employ part time instructors. Given we were required to use a mixture in teaching
of part time and full time instructors in each offering of the subject we attempt to alleviate
any instructor effect caused by varying teaching abilities by holding a meeting at structure
the beginning of the semester to communicate the requirements and teaching strategies
of the course to them. In addition, the overall quality of instructors was assured through
the requirement of part time staff to attend professional development courses and to 153
conduct student evaluations of their teaching.
In summary, there is widespread support in the literature for cooperative learning
and for an increased emphasis on the small class setting as opposed to the traditional
lecture. This paper is motivated by the need to expand our knowledge in relation to the
effect of a change in teaching structure, which involves placing greater emphasis on
cooperative learning, on student performance in the final examination.
Given the widely supported views that cooperative learning especially in small
classes is beneficial to students, we hypothesise that the new teaching structure
(two-hour workshop) will result in higher student performance in the final exam:
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

H1. The performance of students subject to the two-hour workshop teaching


structure will be higher than those students subjected to the one-hour
workshop teaching structure.

3. Methodology
As previously discussed, the paper was designed to enable a comparison of the exam
performance of students across the two teaching structures, the one- and two-hour
workshops. The paper compares the final exam performance of students subjected to the
two teaching structures on final exam questions covering five different management
accounting topic areas – job costing, joint costs, standard costing, variable/absorption
costing, and linear programming[2]. The exam questions are shown in the Appendix.
While, such a comparison involved evaluating the performance of students from
different semesters, the comparisons were only made in instances, where the exam
questions used in the different semesters were identical or virtually identical (the same
question but using different numbers). The same lecturer was in charge of the subject in
each semester analysed. In addition, the duration (13 weeks) and material used in the
subject were identical in each semester.
The job-costing question required students to interpret the information provided
to complete ledger accounts which summarised the costs in a manufacturing
organisation. Students were required to understand the flow of costs in a manufacturing
environment. Specifically, they needed to understand the link between the three
inventory accounts (raw material inventory, work-in-process inventory and
finished-goods inventory) and cost of good sold as well as being able to calculate and
account for any under/over applied overhead. The completion of the relevant T-accounts
was worth seven marks with a further five marks aimed towards assessing the ability of
students to identify crucial amounts based on the interpretation of the information
provided and/or their completion of the ledger accounts.
The joint-cost question involved a practical and a theory/discussion component.
The practical component required students to allocate joint costs using the physical
units, relative sales value and net realisable value methods and was worth four marks
in total. A further three marks were allocated to the theory component which consisted
ARA of a discussion question asking students to critically evaluate whether or not joint costs
18,2 were relevant in making a decision as to whether or not to sell a joint product at
the split-off point or to process further.
The standard costing question was practical in nature with ten marks allocated to the
calculation of various variances. Specifically, students were required to use the
information provided to calculate the direct material, direct labour and variable and fixed
154 overhead variances. The final component of this question required students to provide the
journal entries to account for the fixed and variable overhead and was worth three marks.
The variable/absorption costing question was worth 11 marks and consisted of
two/three components, the first of which required students to prepare a profit
statement using the variable-costing method. The second component required students
to be able to reconcile the difference in net income under the two approaches, and the
third component was a theory/discussion question requiring students to explain the
theoretical underpinning as to why income differs under the two approaches.
The linear programming question consisted of two practical components, each
requiring students to determine the optimal product mix. The first component was
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

worth two marks and required students to determine the optimal product mix when
there was only one limiting resource. The second component was more complex in that
two constraints existed therefore requiring students to determine the constraints and
graph them in order to determine the feasible region, and thereby determine the
optimal product mix, and calculate the maximum profit available.
The performance of students under the two different teaching structures was
compared using a series of t-tests with the performance of students being the dependent
variable and the different teaching structures being the main independent variable.
The results were also analysed based on the ability of students (as measured by grade
point average (GPA)[3]) with the exam performance of students subject to the one- and
two-hour workshops compared within each of five different GPA categories identified.

4. Results
In comparing the final exam performance of students across the two teaching
structures (one- and two-hour workshops) the final exam performance of 3,137 students
was assessed. Table I shows the average final exam mark obtained by students for
each of the five topic areas across the two teaching structures. t-tests were performed to
compare the performance of students subject to the two teaching structure with the
results revealing that the performance of students was significantly higher for students
subject to the two-hour workshop for all five topic areas; thereby providing initial
support for the hypothesis.

Mean Mean
(one-hour (two-hour
Table I. Topic (mark out of) workshop) n workshop) n t-value p-value
Results of t-tests
comparing the mean Job costing (12) 5.32 586 7.23 1,580 212.10 0.000
performance of students Joint costs (7) 2.86 586 3.49 1,348 25.73 0.000
subject to the one- and Standard costing (13) 7.02 586 7.62 1,346 23.73 0.000
two-hour cooperative Variable/absorption costing (11) 4.54 1,366 6.02 1,342 213.98 0.000
learning workshops Linear programming (7) 2.12 779 3.43 2,358 212.22 0.000
It is acknowledged that these results may have been affected by the overall ability of Change
students across the two cohorts with the average GPA of students subject to the two-hour in teaching
workshop (1.66) higher than the average GPA of students subject to the one-hour
tutorials (1.39). Hence, an analysis was performed to observe if there were any structure
interactions between the effect of the different teaching structure (one- versus two-hour
tutorials) and the GPA of students in relation to the performance of students. The results
revealed that there were significant interactions for three of the topics – standard 155
costing, job costing and linear programming. Accordingly, further analysis of the effect
of the different teaching structures was undertaken to control for the GPA of students.
Specifically, the difference in the performance of students across the two teaching
structures was assessed in respect to each of the five topic areas for each of the five GPA
categories identified with the results revealed in Table II.
Table II reveals that the performance of students on the job costing, variable and
absorption costing and linear programming questions was significantly higher for all
categories with the exception of the 0-0.99 GPA category in respect to the job costing
and linear programming questions. However, the results in respect to the joint cost and
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

standard costing questions were not as strong with significant improvements in


performance only found in respect to those students with a GPA of 0, while the
mean performance of students on the standard costing question was actually lower for
students with a GPA of 1-2.99. Overall, the results reveal that the mean performance
of students was higher for students under the two-hour workshop in 22 out of 25 of the
GPA comparisons (i.e. five GPA categories for each of the five topic areas), providing
support for the benefits of the new teaching structure. The final exam performance of
students subject to the two-hour workshop approach was significantly higher in 15 out
of 25 of the categories identified, indicating that the new teaching structure (two-hour
workshop) has led to improvements in performance for the majority of students.

5. Conclusion and implications


The paper has enabled a comparison of the final exam performance of students subject
to two different teaching structures (one- and two-hour workshops) in respect to
five management accounting topics – job costing, joint costs, standard costing,

Standard Variable/ Linear


Job costing Joint costs costing absorption programming
GPA Mean t ( p) Mean t ( p) Mean t ( p) Mean t ( p) Mean t ( p)

0 1 5.36 29.88 2.63 21.96 6.65 2 3.43 4.23 26.38 2.13 2 5.58
2 7.87 (0.000) 3.04 (0.05) 7.77 (0.001) 5.85 (0.000) 3.76 (0.000)
0-0.99 1 5.23 1.108 2.04 20.999 5.74 2 1.47 3.59 24.76 1.40 2 0.877
2 2.18 (0.272) 2.32 (0.319) 6.48 (0.144) 5.05 (0.000) 1.62 (0.381) Table II.
1-1.99 1 5.23 22.68 2.64 21.41 7.05 1.07 4.32 24.94 1.79 2 3.04 Results of t-tests
2 6.54 (0.008) 2.90 (0.160) 6.75 (0.287) 5.23 (0.000) 2.32 (0.002) comparing the mean
2-2.99 1 5.72 22.53 3.59 20.750 7.93 0.865 4.97 26.68 2.48 2 3.95 performance on exam
2 6.83 (0.012) 3.77 (0.454) 7.64 (0.387) 6.27 (0.000) 3.24 (0.000) questions of students
3-4 1 4.68 26.10 4.83 21.05 8.88 2 1.16 6.37 23.93 3.26 2 5.68 subject to one- and
2 8.44 (0.000) 5.16 (0.295) 9.40 (0.249) 7.55 (0.000) 4.93 (0.000) two-hour cooperative
learning workshops
Notes: 1, one-hour tutorial; 2, two-hour tutorial based on GPA
ARA variable/absorption costing and linear programming. The results provide support for
18,2 the hypothesis with the initial t-tests indicating that the performance of students in
respect to all five topic areas was higher under the new two-hour workshop teaching
structure. While subsequent analysis which controlled for student ability (as assessed
by GPA) was less supportive of this relationship, the performance of students on the job
costing, and linear programming questions was significantly higher under the two-hour
156 workshop structure in all but one of the GPA categories (0-0.99), while the performance
of students on the variable/absorption costing question was significantly higher for all
GPA categories. In addition, the performance of those students with a GPA of zero was
significantly higher under the two-hour workshop for all five questions. Such findings
provide strong support for the benefits of the new teaching structure in contributing
to improvements in the performance of students. Hence, the results indicate that in
implementing cooperative learning practices it is desirable that emphasis be placed on
teaching in small classes given that students perform better under a two-hour
cooperative learning (workshop) based tutorial. It is acknowledged that results did not
increase statistically significantly in all GPA categories across the five questions;
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

however, a majority of students did appear to benefit on the whole (15 out of 25 categories
were significantly different). The findings also complement the conclusions of Baird and
Narayanan (2005) by demonstrating that the positive attitude of students in respect
to cooperative learning practices are shown to influence their learning outcomes as
demonstrated by their performance in the final exam of the subject.
The results provide further support for the literature advocating cooperative learning
approaches and suggest that greater focus should be placed on teaching in small classes.
Such results are particularly interesting given “that lecturing remains the prominent
method of teaching in most subjects in on-campus institutions” (Ramsden, 1992, p. 152).
Indeed, many subjects continue to operate with up to 500 students at a time experiencing
two-hour lecture per week and only one-hour per week of teaching in smaller classes.
Our findings suggest that institutions need to have a rethink regarding the teaching
structures employed and strongly consider adopting a two-hour cooperative learning
(workshop) based approach. While it is acknowledged that insufficient funding and/or
the shortage of suitable teaching staff represent potential barriers to the implementation
of the new teaching structure (two-hour workshop), the improvement in student
performance levels achieved in this unit suggest that institutions should make this
teaching structure a high priority and endeavour to support such initiatives.

Notes
1. In this paper, we refer to small classes as tutorials involving 25-30 students as opposed to the
lecture format in which there were up to 500 students. The shift to the two-hour workshop
approach allowed students to spend more time working in smaller classes.
2. We were able to use past examination questions as we do not release examination questions
to students after final examinations. Therefore, the questions can be reused without risk
of the question being in public circulation.
3. GPA is a measure of the overall performance of students. A GPA of 4 indicates students have
received high distinction and/or distinction grades on average. A GPA of 3 indicates that
students have received credit grades on average. A GPA of 2 indicates that students have
received Pass grades on average. A GPA of 1 indicates that students received conceded pass
grades on average.
References Change
Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC) (1990), “Objectives of education for accountants: in teaching
position statement number one”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 5, pp. 307-12.
structure
Adler, R.W. and Milne, M.J. (1997), “Improving the quality of accounting students’ learning
through action-oriented learning tasks”, Accounting Education, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 191-215.
Baird, K.M. and Narayanan, V. (2005), “An analysis of students’ perceptions of a workshop
(cooperative learning) based approach to tutorials”, Australian Journal of Accounting
157
Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 73-87.
Baldwin, B.A. (1993), “Teaching introductory financial accounting in mass-lecture sections:
longitudinal evidence”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 97-111.
Breton, G. (1999), “Some empirical evidence on the superiority of the problem-based learning
(PBL) method”, Accounting Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Ciccotello, C., D’Amico, R. and Grant, C. (1997), “An empirical examination of cooperative
learning and student performance in management accounting”, Accounting Education: A
Journal of Theory, Practice, and Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

Cottell, P.G. Jr and Millis, B.J. (1992), “Cooperative learning in accounting”, Journal of Accounting
Education, Vol. 10, pp. 95-111.
Cottell, P.G. Jr and Millis, B.J. (1993), “Cooperative learning structures in the instruction of
accounting”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 40-59.
Inglis, R. and Dall’Alba, G. (1998), “The re-design of a management accounting course based
upon principles for improving the quality of teaching and learning”, Accounting
Education, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 193-207.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Smith, K.A. (1991), “Cooperative learning: increasing college faculty
instructional productivity”, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, Graduate School of
Education and Human Development, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Kern, B.B. (2002), “Enhancing accounting students’ problem-solving skills: the use of a hands-on
conceptual model in an active learning environment”, Accounting Education, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 235-56.
Lightbody, M. (1997), “Playing factory: active-based learning in cost and management
accounting”, Accounting Education, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 255-62.
Mladenovic, R. (2000), “An investigation into ways of challenging introductory accounting students’
negative perceptions of accounting”, Accounting Education, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 135-55.
Murdoch, B. and Guy, P.W. (2002), “Active learning in small and large classes”, Accounting
Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 271-82.
Naser, K. and Peel, M. (1998), “An exploratory study of the impact of intervening variables on
student performance in a principles of accounting course”, Accounting Education, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 209-23.
Peek, L.E., Winking, C. and Peek, G.S. (1995), “Cooperative learning activities: managerial
accounting”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 111-26.
Ramsden, P. (1992), Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge, London.
Ravenscroft, S.P. (1997), “In support of cooperative learning”, Issues in Accounting Education,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 187-90.
Ravenscroft, S.P., Buckless, F.A. and Hassall, T. (1999), “Cooperative learning – a literature
guide”, Accounting Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 163-76.
ARA Slavin, R.E. (1989), “Cooperative learning and student achievement: six theoretical perspectives”,
Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Motivation Enhancing Environments, Vol. 6,
18,2 pp. 161-77.

About the authors


Kevin M. Baird is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Accounting and Finance at Macquarie
158 University in Sydney, Australia. He has 15 years experience in teaching undergraduate and
postgraduate subjects in the management accounting area. He has also supervised numerous
Honours and PhD students and conducted research covering many topic areas within the
management accounting discipline including: activity-based management practices; total quality
management; performance measurement systems; management control systems; outsourcing;
employee organizational commitment; and employee empowerment. Kevin M. Baird is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: kbaird@efs.mq.edu.au
Venkateshwaran Narayanan is a Lecturer in Accounting at La Trobe University, Melbourne.
His main research interests are in the area of management control systems in organisational
change towards social and environmental sustainability, accounting education and the
management control of outsourcing relationships. He is in the process of completing his PhD on
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

role of management control systems in organisational change towards sustainability. He teaches


undergraduate students in management accounting at the second year level and has started
developing a course on sustainability accounting, accountability and corporations.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com


Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Appendix. Examination questions Change
in teaching
Job costing structure
The following incomplete information is provided in relation to Wakefield Ltd for the
month of October.

(i) Opening balances:


WIP $12,500 159
Finished goods $32,000

(ii) Closing balances


Raw material $18,000
Finished goods $65,000

(iii) Overhead is applied on the basis of $6 per direct labour hour.

(iv) The only unfinished job at the end of October had incurred $14,000 of raw materials
and $8,000 (800 hours) of direct labour.

(v) Jobs sold during the month realised $250,000. The cost of the goods
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

sold during the month was $170,000.

(vi) Raw materials purchased during October - $85,500

(vii) A total of 8,000 direct labour hours were worked during the month.

(viii) Actual manufacturing overhead costs incurred during October were $52,000.

Required:

Complete the relevant T- accounts (provided on next page) to show the flow of costs
through the company’s manufacturing accounts and answer the questions provided.
Raw material inventory Work in process inventory

Finished goods inventory Cost of goods sold

Sales Manufacturing overhead

(a) What was the cost of goods manufactured? (1 mark)


(b) What is the closing balance in the work in process account? (1 mark)
(c) What amount of raw materials were issued to production during October? (1 mark)
(d) What was the opening balance in the raw material inventory account? (1 mark)
(e) Was overhead under/over applied during October and by how much? (1 mark)
(continued)
ARA Joint costs
18,2 Floundering Company produces two products as a result of a joint process. The process
yields 48,000 kg of Product 1 and 72,000 kg of Product 2. Product 1 sells for $12 per kg,
while Product 2 sells for $7 per kg. Each product can be processed further with Product 1
selling for $18 per unit if additional processing costs of $180,000 are incurred. Additional
processing costs incurred in respect of Product 2 amount to $28,000, and the product can
then be sold for $8 per kg. Joint costs incurred were $200,000.
160
Required:
(a) Using the physical units method allocate the company’s joint product costs between
the two products. (1 mark)
(b) Using the relative sales value method allocate the company’s joint product costs
between the two products. (1 mark)
(c) Using the net realisable value method allocate the company’s joint product costs
between the two products. (2 marks)
(d) ‘The amount of joint processing costs allocated to a product is crucial when making a
decision to either sell a joint product at the split-off point or to process it further’.
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

Do you agree? Discuss. (3 marks)

Standard costing
Kingfisher Company manufactures a single product, Reelemin. The standard cost
specification sheet shows the following standards for one unit of Reelemin:
4kg of material X @ $12 per kg $48
3 hr of direct labour @ $10 per hour $30
Overhead: Fixed - $5 per direct labour hour $15
Variable - $2 per direct labour hour $ 6

The fixed overhead allocation rate is based on normal monthly capacity of 15,000 direct
labour hours. Fixed overhead and production are expected to be spread evenly throughout
the year.
A total of 5,500 Reelemins were produced during July.
Actual costs incurred during July were:
25,000 kg of material X were purchased @ $12.50 per kg
21,000 kg of material X were used.
18,000 direct labour hours were worked at an average wage rate of $11 per hour
Actual overhead incurred: Fixed $80,000
Variable $34,000
Required:
(a) Compute the following variances for the month of July: (10 marks)
(i) Direct material price variance
(ii) Direct material quantity variance
(iii) Direct labour rate variance
(iv) Direct labour efficiency variance
(v) Variable overhead spending and efficiency variances
(vi) Fixed overhead budget and volume variances
(continued)
(b) Provide the appropriate journal entries to account for the fixed overhead and Change
variable overhead variances. (3 marks)
in teaching
Variable / absorption costing structure
The Felix Fly Company Ltd manufactures a single product which sells for $26.50 per
unit. The following data relate to the first two years of the company’s operations.
Year 1 Year 2 161
Budgeted and actual production (units) 125,000 125,000
Sales (units) 100,000 150,000
Budgeted and actual fixed overhead $250,000 $250,000
Fixed selling and administration costs $80,000 $80,000

The following variable costs per unit were incurred:


Direct material $7
Direct labour $6
Variable overhead $3
Variable selling and administration costs $2
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

(a) Prepare a profit statement for year 2 using variable costing. (4 marks)
(b) If the absorption costing income method were used, would the reported net
income figures be higher or lower than those reported using the variable costing
method? By how much? Compare the results for both years. (4 marks)
(c) Explain why the reported net income figures differ when using absorption and
variable costing. (3 marks)

Linear programming
A firm manufactures two products, A and B. There is only one machine with 3,000 hours
available per year. Each unit of product A requires 3 machine hours while each unit of
Product B requires 2 machine hours. A summary of the profitability of each product is
provided below.
Product A Product B
Selling price $150 $120
Costs:
Direct material $60 $15
Direct labour $15 $25
Variable overhead $15 $20

Maximum yearly demand for Products A is 800 units and for Product B is 1,000 units.
Required:
(a) Determine how many units of each product should be produced to maximise yearly
profit. (2 marks)

(b) If we now assume that in addition to the machine hour constraint, the firm also is
constrained by the amount of labour available with a maximum of 3,000 direct labour
hours available for the year. Product A uses 2 direct labour hour per unit and Product
B uses 4 direct labour hours per unit.

Given this additional constraint, determine how many units of each product should be
produced to maximise profits. What profit will be generated? (5 marks)
This article has been cited by:

1. AldamenHusam, Husam Aldamen, DuncanKeith, Keith Duncan, ZiegelmayerJennifer L., Jennifer L.


Ziegelmayer. 2018. Cumulative learning and sustained engagement in an introduction to accounting
course. Asian Review of Accounting 26:1, 19-38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by UEM At 22:56 06 August 2018 (PT)

Вам также может понравиться