1

Participation, Group Work and Assessment: Experience from Accounting and Finance

Sarah Smith and Isaac T. Tabner

E- mails: sarah.smith@stir.ac.uk ; isaac.tabner@stir.ac.uk

2

Participation – what do we mean?

Participation: the act of taking part in an activity or event (Oxford Dictionary)

Attendance: the action or state of going regularly to or being present at a place or event (Oxford Dictionary)

Non-attendance at classes equals non-participation in classes Non-participation in classes does not necessarily equal non-

participation in terms of module engagement Availability of written and audio materials via virtual

classrooms facilitates self-study

3

We face an increasing challenge

As educators―Delivering to an expanding and diverse student population―Maintaining the quality of academic performance―Vicious circle: Student performance attracts employers at

the output stage, enhancing institutional reputation, attracting well qualified students at the input stage

―In UK (excluding Scotland) introduction of UG tuition fees generated increased demand for ‘value for money’ – some universities responded with legally binding attendance contracts (Richard & Haplin, 2006).

4

Accounting and Finance Context

Attracting employers to degree programmes offered and consequently well- qualified students at the input stage matters with accreditation by various professional bodies influencing career prospects

Content and quality of modules externally evaluated by professional bodies – standards need to be sustained for accreditation to be awarded

― Trend towards awarding accreditation on basis of graduate performance in professional exams.

Academic research finds university performance impacts success of students sitting professional exams (Gammie, 1999)

Professional bodies often require higher standards – e.g. ICAS requires pass rate of 50% rising to 60% in specific modules for accreditation.

5

Attendance as a policy variable?

Impacting performance – alternative views?― Poor student attendance means poor results / increased chance of drop

out (Brooke, 2004)― “Absences create a ‘dead’, tiresome, unpleasant classroom environment

that makes students who come feel uncomfortable and the professor irritable” (Brauer, 1994, p.206)

― If students choose not to attend, it’s their business (Hadland, 2002)― Students should not be forced to attend, and institutions couldn’t cope in

terms of physical resources if all students did attend (Jones, 2002)― Not all students learn best from attending ‘lecture-type’ scenario (Morgan,

2001) ― Issue of how to record attendance – increased investment in use of

technology in light of troublesome manual systems?

6

Attendance as a policy variable?

Impacting performance – alternative views?― Majority of prior research in US (especially in economics discipline) using

regression analysis (Parker and Kerr, 1990; Romer, 1993; Durden and Ellis, 1995; Marburger, 2001; Grabe, 2005;)

― Research in Australia (Rodgers, 2001) and UK (Woodfield et al., 2006; Arulampalam et al., 2012)

― On balance: attendance appears to exert some impact on academic performance – but not a linear relationship!

― In the A&F context: variables acquired or developed during a degree programme are most likely determinants of academic performance (Bartlett et al., 1993) - could include attendance patterns!

― Lack of research in A&F context

7

Smith 2007/15 Herriot-Watt/Stirling

Heriot-Watt 2007― Advanced Financial Accounting – 72 third year UG students ― One six week module taught by one lecturer Summer term 2005 ― Attendance recorded manually by student signature and manual head

count at lectures and tutorials― Mean level of attendance across 21 contact hours = 83.75%, no significant

differences on basis of gender or class type. Early morning Friday classes negative impact.

― Difference in attendance between students attaining over 60% and below 60% statistically significant.

― Regression analysis controlling for ability / motivational differences (average performance in year 2): attendance exerts positive influence on exam performance.

8

Smith 2007/15 Herriot-Watt/Stirling

Heriot-Watt 2007― On average, students with higher ability / motivation attend more but if

they miss classes not detrimental to current exam performance― Students of lower ability / motivation more vulnerable to non-attendance

- detrimental effect on performance (especially with non-attendance in excess of 20%)

― A rationale for directing resources at improving attendance of this ‘at risk’ group of students?

9

Attendance and student ability

Ability (60% threshold)

Low

High

Attendance

Low

‘At risk group’

No significant impact

(80 % threshold)

High

Minor impact

No significant impact

But based on a sample exhibiting reasonably high level of attendance (83.75%) ten years ago…….more research required where attendance is lower in the current climate

10

Smith & Tabner 2015 – Data from Stirling

Recordable participation― Attendance at lectures― Attendance at tutorials― Participation in group presentations of tutorial problems― Level of explanation for non-attendance/participation.

Non-recordable participation – excluded from our data― Participation in Q & A and discussions – difficult to record in large

classes― Self study― Informal group engagement.

Class test and exam performance― Does recordable participation make a difference?

11

Our data - Finance II

Finance II – second year UG Level 9 module, prerequisite is Finance I.

Assessment: Final exam 60% Course work 40%

Coursework pre- 2013MCQ Class test delivered via Succeed under closed book conditions

Coursework 2013 - 201535% MCQ as before5% recordable participation.

12

Participation – Descriptive Statistics

2013 2014 2015Average Tutorial Participation 67% 62% 64%Average Lecture Participation 61% 61% 61%Average Participation Score Including Presentations 60% 72% 66%Proportion zero participation (no self-certification) 2% 1% 3%First Quartile 34% 53% 51%Median 69% 79% 74%Third Quartile 84% 91% 88%Maximum 92% 100% 100%Number of students 63 79 144

Table 1 - Finance II Participation Descriptive Statistics

13

Participation and Self-certification

Table 2 - Causes of absence 2015No. % of Total Self-certs % of Total Missed Classes

Medical Severe 34 41% 3.93%Medical Unspecified/Moderate 10 12% 1.16%ARUA Student 8 10% 0.92%Snow & Storms 6 7% 0.69%Work Commitments (Paid), including job interviews 6 7% 0.69%Personal & Family Business 5 6% 0.58%Childcare 4 5% 0.46%Traffi c & Parking Delay 4 5% 0.46%Funeral 3 4% 0.35%Unspecified or Other 2 2% 0.23%Late joiner 1 1% 0.12%Total 83 100% 9.60%Number of Students 124Missed tutorials 394Missed lectures 471Total number of missed classes 865Total number of student classes 2,480

6 students attended no lectures or tutorials, from these only 1 self-certification was received and another had an ARUA.

14 students had overall participation of < 20%, 6 self-certifications were received from these.

Lower quartile, 30 students, participation < 51%, 28 self-certs and 3 ARUAs.

14

Participation and Self-certification

Relationship is weak.

Table 3 - 2015 Relationship Participation and Self-certification FrequencyDependent Variable is Participation ScoreIntercept 0.69

(22.57)***Total Self Certs Excluding ARUA -0.044

(-1.76)*ARUA -0.11

(-1.01)Number of observations 123Adjusted R - Square 1.00%

15

Participation and exam performance

Dependent Variable is Final Exam PerformanceModel Number (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI)Intercept 5.49 0.65 4.28 -0.72 5.14 0.30

(5.08)*** (0.45) (3.16)*** (-0.45) (5.84)*** (0.28)Class test performance 0.47 0.45 0.46

(4.43)*** (4.61)*** (6.39)***Participation Score 0.19 0.11 0.24 0.20 0.21 0.15

(2.56)** (1.71)* (3.02)*** (2.68)*** (3.944)*** (3.11)***Cohort dummy 2013 = 0, 2014 = 1 -0.36 -0.42

(-0.499) (0.66)Number of observations 63 63 79 79 144 144Adjusted R - Square 8.0% 29.0% 9.4% 28.4% 8.7% 28.8%

20142013Table 4 - Participation and Final Exam Performance 2013 & 2014

2013 & 2014 Combined

16

Concluding comments and Q & A?

Participation does appear relevant, but it is not a panacea― Would we want to penalise somebody who managed to perform well in an exam

without attendance?― Should we accept Self-certification which would involve module coordinators / chief

examiners making subjective judgement?• could lead to inconsistencies across the university.

― Stick and carrot approach may have little effect upon the least engaged students (those who would benefit most from participation)

Do we target those with less ability / motivation and impose sanctions on them for non-attendance?

― If a 40% grade cap is applied for non-attendance (future university plan) how do we manage equity / diversity issues re physical attendance of those who work / look after children etc.

― A cap of 40% is detrimental to future honours classification and results in non-accreditation in A&F (50% and in some cases 60% required)

― Huge administrative task, if attendance with sanctions is a university policy - will it invest in technology to monitor facilitate this in line with other universities have done?

17

Possible Questions

Future research – ― reasons for non-attendance and what motivates attendance?