Advertisement

Applying Open-Book-Open-Web Assessment in Postgraduate Accounting Subject: Flipping Test

  • Corinne CorteseEmail author
  • Sanja Pupovac
  • Lina Xu
Reference work entry

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to extend the notion of the “flipped” classroom to subject assessment. A postgraduate accounting subject was taught using a “flipped” approach to encourage collaborative learning, foster student engagement, and develop students’ critical thinking skills. The teaching style used throughout the semester was extended to the final exam, whereby an Open-Book-Open-Web format was adopted that enabled students to work collaboratively and draw on any resources available to them to complete the assessment. This research illustrates a novel approach to the teaching and assessment of theory-based accounting subjects and provides further support for the flipped approach as a means of enhancing the student learning experience.

References

  1. Adelman, C., D. Jenkins, and S. Kemmis. 1976. Re-thinking case study: Notes from the second Cambridge Conference. Cambridge Journal of Education 6(3): 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amanullah M., G.S. Zaman, A.A. Patel, and K. Mohanna. 2013. A comparative study of Open Book-Open Web (OBOW) exams and Invigilated Closed Book-Pen and Paper (ICBPP) exams. Available at: http://meritresearchjournals.org/er/content/2013/may/Amanullah%20et%20al.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2014.
  3. Arbaugh, J.B., and R. Benbunan-Fich. 2006. An investigation of epistemological and social dimensions of teaching in online learning environments. Academy of Management Learning & Education 5(4): 435–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berrett, D. 2012. How “flipping” the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. The Education Digest 78: 36–41.Google Scholar
  5. Bing, M.N., H.K. Davison, S.J. Vitell, A.P. Ammeter, B.L. Garner, and M.M. Novicevic. 2012. An experimental investigation of an interactive model of academic cheating among business school students. Academy of Management Learning & Education 11(1): 28–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloland, H.G. 2005. Whatever happened to postmodernism in higher education?: No requiem in the new millennium? Journal of Higher Education 76(2): 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boud, D. 2001. Introduction: Making the move to peer learning. In Peer learning in higher education, ed. D. Boud, R. Cohen, and J. Sampson, 1–20. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  8. Briggs, K., J.P. Workman, and A.S. York. 2013. Collaborating to cheat: A game theoretic exploration of academic dishonesty in teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education 12(1): 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carpenter, J.P. 2007. Punishing free-riders: How group size affects mutual monitoring and the provision of public goods. Games and Economic Behavior 60(1): 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carson, J.G. and G.L. Nelson 1994. Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing 3(1): 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carson, J.G. and G.L. Nelson. 1996. Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction Journal of Second Language Writing 5(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collier, K., and J. McManus. 2005. Setting up learning partnerships in vocational education and training: Lessons learnt. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 57(3): 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans, C. 2008. The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Computers and Education 50(2): 491–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fraga, L.M. 2012. Mobile learning in higher education. PhD, The University of Texas, San Antonio.Google Scholar
  15. Gavota, M.C., A. Cattaneo, C. Arn, E. Boldrini, E. Motta, D. Schneider, and M. Betrancourt. 2010. Computer-supported peer commenting: A promising instructional method to promote skill development in vocational education. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 62(4): 495–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hard, S.F., J.M. Conway, and A.C. Moran. 2006. Faculty and college student beliefs about the frequency of student academic misconduct. Journal of Higher Education 77(6): 1058–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harvey, J.B. 1984. Encouraging students to cheat: One thought on the difference between teaching ethics and teaching ethically. Journal of Management Education 9(2): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Havnes, A. 2008. Peer-mediated learning beyond the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 33(2): 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hudd, S.S., C. Apgar, E.F. Bronson, and R.G. Lee. 2009. Creating, a campus culture of integrity: Comparing the perspectives of full- and part-time faculty. Journal of Higher Education 80(2): 146–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hwang, A., and A.M. Francesco. 2010. The influence of individualism-collectivism and power distance on use of feedback channels and consequences for learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education 9(2): 243–257.Google Scholar
  21. Joyce, W.B. 1999. On the free-rider problem in cooperative learning. Journal of Education for Business 74(5): 271–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kincaid, C., and D.M.V. Zemke. 2006. Perceptions of cheating: An exploratory study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education 18(1): 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lam, W., J.B. Williams, and A.Y.-K. Chua. 2007. E-xams: Harnessing the power of ICTs to enhance authenticity. Educational Technology & Society 10(3): 209–221.Google Scholar
  24. Macdonald, J. 2002. ‘Getting it together and being put on the spot’: Synopsis, motivation and examination. Studies in Higher Education 27(3): 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Magin, D.J. 1982. Collaborative peer learning in the laboratory. Studies in Higher Education 7(2): 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCabe, D.L., and L.K. Trevino. 1995. Cheating among business students: A challenge for business leaders and educators. Journal of Management Education 19(2): 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCabe, D.L., K.D. Butterfield, and L.K. Trevino. 2006. Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education 5(3): 294–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McDowell, L. 1995. The impact of innovative assessment on student learning. Programmed Learning 32(4): 302–313.Google Scholar
  29. Nonacs, P. 2013. ‘Flipping’ the test gives true assessment of student learning. Available at: http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/prof-finds-a-way-to-flip-the-test-245597.aspx. Accessed 5 Dec 2013.
  30. Opdecam, E., and P. Everaert. 2012. Improving student satisfaction in a first-year undergraduate accounting course by team learning. Issues in Accounting Education 27(1): 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parker, P., D.T. Hall, and K.E. Kram. 2008. Peer coaching: A relational process for accelerating career learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education 7(4): 487–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Phillips, R., and K. Lowe. 2003. Issues associated with the equivalence of traditional and online assessment. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide03/docs/pdf/419.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2014.
  33. Rosile, G.A. 2007. Cheating: Making it a teachable moment. Journal of Management Education 31(5): 582–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saito, E., and M. Atencio. 2014. Group learning as relational economic activity. Educational Review 66 (1): 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmelkin, L.P., K. Gilbert, K.J. Spencer, H.S. Pincus, and R. Silva. 2008. A multidimensional scaling of college students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty. Journal of Higher Education 79(5): 587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Selsky, J.W. 2000. “Even we are sheeps” cultural displacement in a Turkish classroom. Journal of Management Inquiry 9(4): 362–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sierra, J.J., and M.R. Hyman. 2006. A dual-process model of cheating intentions. Journal of Marketing Education 28(3): 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, K.J., J.A. Davy, D.L. Rosenberg, and T.G. Haight. 2002. A structural modeling investigation of the influence of demographic and attitudinal factors and in-class deterrents on cheating behavior among accounting majors. Journal of Accounting Education 20(1): 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strand, N.C., A.M. Rose, and C.M. Lehmann. 2004. Cooperative learning: Resources from the business disciplines. Journal of Accounting Education 22(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sund, K. 2009. Estimating peer effects in Swedish high school using school, teacher, and student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review 28(3): 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tielman, K.A., P.J. den Brok, S.M. Bolhuis, and B. Vallejo. 2012. Collaborative learning in multicultural classrooms: A case study of Dutch senior secondary vocational education. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 64(1): 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tucker, B. 2012. The flipped classroom. Education Next 12(1): 82–83.Google Scholar
  43. Williams, J.B. 2004. Creating authentic assessments: A method for the authoring of open book open web examinations. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/williams.html. Accessed 5 Jan 2014.
  44. Williams, J.B., and A. Wong. 2009. The efficacy of final examinations: A comparative study of closed-book, invigilated exams and open-book, open-web exams. British Journal of Educational Technology 40(2): 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yamagishi, T. 1988. Exit from the group as an individualistic solution to the free rider problem in the United States and Japan. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 24(6): 530–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang, Y. 2012. Developing animated cartoons for economic teaching. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 9(2): 1–15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Faculty of BusinessUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations