ADEPT Learning Cycles using student tutors improve performance of introductory financial accounting students.

Thomas, William S. ; Bell, Sharon L. ; Shoulders, Craig D. 等

INTRODUCTION

Low pass rates (with passing defined as C or above) in introductory accounting courses, including principles of financial accounting courses have plagued many business programs at both community colleges and 4-year institutions over the years. Failure to successfully navigate these courses negatively impacts retention rates in business programs and can add to the length of time required for students to complete business degrees, as these courses often are the first in a series of 3 to 4 courses that must be successfully completed in sequential order.

The accounting education literature, reviewed briefly in the next section, contains numerous studies involving various efforts to understand and to improve pass rates in the introductory accounting courses--some with more success than others. This study focuses on the application to principles of financial accounting of a technique, the Analysis of Diagnostic Exam Prompted Teaching and Learning Cycle. (ADEPT) Learning Cycle, successfully used in an Intermediate Accounting course (Shoulders & Hicks, 2008). This approach to teaching (and managing) a principles of financial accounting course is designed to help students know when they have achieved sufficient mastery of a topic and to empower them to achieve that proficiency. The ADEPT approach requires students to complete separate diagnostic exams that have no direct grade impact. Each diagnostic exam typically covers one of the major topics included on the graded unit exams. To earn the privilege of taking each unit exam, which includes the final exam, a student must demonstrate the required level of proficiency on all related diagnostic exams prior to the scheduled unit exam.

This teaching and learning cycle also involves one-on-one teaching and guidance outside of the classroom. The professor-student interaction is focused on an individual student's misunderstandings and misconceptions about a specific topic as determined by the diagnostic exam. This interaction may involve a combination of (1) explanations related to misunderstandings and (2) direction regarding areas requiring added study. The diagnostic exam focused instruction provides students timely feedback on their level of mastery of each major topic, without grade penalty.

The ADEPT Learning Cycle approach makes students responsible for learning the material in order to sit for the unit exams. A critical aspect of the manner in which the ADEPT approach was applied in this study is that peer tutors (upper level accounting majors) fulfilled the professor's role in implementing the diagnostic exam cycle, vastly reducing the professor time commitment required to implement the ADEPT approach. (A potential added advantage is that several research studies discussed in the next section indicate that peer tutoring enhances student performance.)

This study reports an exploratory study that compares performance of students taught using the ADEPT Learning Cycle--with student surrogates for the professor--to that of students in courses taught using traditional methods. This application of the ADEPT Learning Cycle in introductory financial accounting produced impressive improvements in student exam grades and C or better pass rates a

In the following section, the authors of this study discuss selected research on the relationship between:

* Student mentors (peer tutors), and other student interactions, and student success and

* The use of testing to enhance learning.

Then, the authors explain the manner in which the ADEPT Learning Cycle approach was applied in this study in detail. Next, we report the results of comparing student performance in an introductory financial accounting course taught using the ADEPT approach with those in the same course taught by the same professor without including the ADEPT approach. Peer tutors were available to both groups. Finally, we present the conclusions and contributions of this study, along with its limitations and possible areas for related future research.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Review of the accounting education literature demonstrates the high level of importance and interest scholars have assigned to the introductory financial accounting course and improving student success in the course. Over the years researchers have sought to understand the factors that explain success or failure in introductory financial accounting courses. Baldwin and Howe (1982) investigated the hypothesis that success in accounting is based on the level of prior accounting knowledge. Mitchell (1988) suggested that success in mathematics courses predicted better academic performance in accounting courses. Auyeung and Sands (1994) found no difference between the performance of female and male students in this course. Koh and Koh (1999) found gender, previous work experience, academic aptitude and age to be significant predictors of academic performance. Other studies have focused on the impact of high school grades and SAT scores. Bartlett, Peel, and Pendlebury (1993) concluded that the results of many of the studies clearly indicate that academic performance in accounting cannot be predicted on the basis of selected data of accounting students enrolled in introductory accounting courses. Introductory financial accounting continues to be a challenging course for the majority of undergraduate business majors.

Other researchers have studied whether different teaching or study techniques improve student learning and therefore pass rates and retention in this course. Hostetler and Snyder (2008) determined that study groups and peer learning had a positive effect on the overall course grade in financial accounting. Forbes and Spence (1991) describe improved performance in an engineering class requiring students to submit problem sheets for peer assessment. Cooper (1994) used learning teams of four to improve poor performance in a large accountancy class. Jones and Fields (2001) studied the role of supplemental instruction in the first accounting course. They concluded that, whether based on voluntary or mandatory use, supplemental instruction can be effective in increasing student academic performance.

Gibbs (2000) used formative and summative assessment outside of class and incorporated the four learning functions of assessment--capturing student time and effort; generating appropriate learning activities; providing feedback; and helping students to internalize standards. His essay placed a major emphasis on the importance of prompt feedback from "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education" (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) and on the work of Forbes and Spence (1991). Forbes and Spence also determined that feedback was an important component in student success. They documented that students paid more attention to feedback provided immediately by their colleagues than to feedback provided, less promptly, by their teacher. The fact that the teachers' feedback was more accurate mattered less than how and when it was provided. Angelo and Cross (1993) suggested that good practices to improve learning include providing feedback on student learning that is more systematic, more flexible, and more effective. To improve their learning Angelo & Cross believed that students need to receive appropriate and focused feedback early and often.

Additional studies indicate that enhanced testing has positive effects on student performance. In a three year study, Snooks (2005-06) determined a direct positive relationship between the number of practice tests taken and the students' final course grade. Leeming (2002) used an exam-a day procedure in his psychology courses and found students significantly improved their performance on course exams and improved their retention. Roediger and Karpicke (2006) found that students who studied a passage of prose and then took one (or three) immediate free recall tests had significantly higher retention rates than students who studied the passage and restudied the passage one (or three) additional times but without taking the tests.

Cull (2000) found that frequent testing at distributed intervals produced significant benefits. Murphy and Stanga (1994) found that more frequent interim exams (six versus three) improved student performance on interim exams in an income tax course. More recently, Shoulders and Hicks (2008) had success implementing an ADEPT learning cycle approach in an intermediate accounting course. The ADEPT learning cycle included diagnostic exams and prompt feedback. This research study showed improved exam grades and course grades as well as better performance of ADEPT Students in the subsequent Intermediate Accounting II course and better retention and student satisfaction in the class studied.

Another strategy for improving student performance that has significant implications for this article is the use of peer tutors. Gracia and Jenkins (2002) explored student failure in undergraduate accounting. They found that students became more engaged in their learning by establishing a relationship with a tutor. Students in this study indicated the importance of the pivotal role that tutors play in the students' success. Topping (2005) defines peer tutoring as a specific role-taking as tutor or tutee, with high focus on curriculum content and usually also on clear procedures for interaction, in which participants receive generic and/or specific training. When peer tutoring is implemented with consideration to the target purpose, context, and population results, are very good. Topping and Ehly (2001) synthesized their findings in a theoretical model of peer-assisted learning that assigns five sub-processes or channels that influence effectiveness. The model indicates that more elaborate and cognitively demanding forms of peer tutoring, such as peer tutoring in thinking skills (Topping, 2001) aim to utilize all of the channels, with both tutor and tutee operating and benefiting in every channel.

Topping (2005) indicates that the area which has seen the most growth in widespread use is peer assessment (peers evaluating the products or outcomes of learning of others). He also indicates that peer learning has moved from a method perceived as being only for a few selected learners, to a method used on a class-wide equal opportunity and inclusive basis. Benefits to helpers are now emphasized at least as much as benefits to those helped. Arguably, there is no better apprenticeship for being a helper than being helped (Topping, 2005).

Terrion and Leonard (2007) have further advanced the notion of the importance of peer mentoring. They defined peer mentoring as an effective intervention process in which qualified students provide guidance and support to vulnerable students to enable them to navigate through their education and ensure outcomes. Their study linked the mentoring functions with the best type of peer to fulfill the functions. They established a taxonomy of a list of mentor characteristics most often associated with positive outcomes from the mentoring relationship for both mentor and mentee.

Lidren, Meire, and Brigham (1991) concluded that both maximal and minimal tutorial procedures were effective in enhancing academic performance of college students. Their overall pattern of results--positive ratings by both students and peer tutors, increased academic performance, and high levels of satisfaction at a minimal cost to the university--provide a strong rationale for the introducing peer tutors into other courses. Lidren, Meire, and Brigham believe that their results provide a strong rationale for requiring students to participate in academic activities outside the classroom. They believe that peer tutoring may improve the academic skills of advanced undergraduates who assist other students. In summarizing their conclusions, they state, "Because the results of this study and others such as McKeachie (1986) clearly demonstrate the positive effects of peer tutoring, it appears that peer tutoring should be an important component of the plans for improving education in the nation's colleges and universities. The primary need at this point appears to be a large scale systematic experimental field test of peer tutoring in many classes and disciplines (Lidren, et al., 1991). Shoulders and Hicks (2008) also conclude that additional research in accounting principles courses and the use of superior advanced undergraduate students as surrogates for the professor in applying ADEPT learning cycles is warranted.

APPLICATION OF THE ADEPT LEARNING CYCLE APPROACH

Shoulders and Hicks (2008) describe the ADEPT Learning Cycle approach as:

... a system under which:

* The cost of nonconformance is high and immediate--enough to cause the vast majority of students to implement good study habits and commitment. The student must score well on the diagnostic exams to be allowed to take the grade-determining interim exams.

* Student deficiencies are identified by the individual topic diagnostic exams on a timely basis and in enough detail to provide an early alert if a student's mastery is not adequate. This identification enables students to work to achieve an acceptable level of knowledge and proficiency without direct grade penalty, providing a diagnostic benefit.

* The instructor provides outside-the-classroom, one-on-one, faculty-student guidance based on the diagnostic exam results. This guidance includes appropriate combinations of study direction and remedial instruction based on the identified needs of each student. The guidance is focused on assisting the student to understand and address the deficiencies identified by the diagnostic exam, which becomes a teaching and learning tool.

A significant modification made in this study, which applied the ADEPT approach to introductory financial accounting classes, is that student (peer) tutors, not the instructor, provided the outside-of-classroom, one-on-one guidance based on the diagnostic exam results. The tutors used were upper level accounting majors hired by the university to operate an accounting lab for this purpose. The literature reviewed in the prior section suggests that there is no reason to expect qualified peer tutors to diminish any benefits to be gained from the ADEPT system. Substituting this peer tutor guidance for faculty-student guidance was viewed as a low-cost approach to making the application of the ADEPT approach feasible from a faculty workload perspective. The primary additional demands on faculty time compared to the normal time devoted to teaching the classes were minimal and consisted primarily of time spent developing the diagnostic exams and solutions and a limited amount of time involved in supervising the tutors.

The success of substituting student tutors for the instructor in this approach is critical to its success. Shoulders and Hicks (2008) state,

The ADEPT Learning Cycle (a) mandates significant, regular, professor-student interaction outside of the classroom and (b) makes the professor, not the student, responsible for determining if the student needs to continue studying to master the topic. Presumably, the professor understands the proficiency representing topic mastery and can provide students meaningful assistance in achieving that proficiency.

Therefore, if the student tutors do not effectively fulfill the professor's role in this process, it will necessarily fail to achieve meaningful improvement in student performance. Mandatory diagnostic exams and the related feedback and assistance are the most significant features of the ADEPT approach. The professor advised the students of the topics to be tested at the beginning of coverage of each chapter. The 19 diagnostic exams normally covered a single topic, and there were usually one to three separate diagnostic exams for each chapter. The diagnostic exam topics are listed in Exhibit 1.

Each student had to complete each diagnostic exam successfully at an 80% or higher level prior to taking the related unit exam, the grades on which were the primary determinant of the final course grade. Each unit exam covered two to four chapters. Multiple attempts on diagnostic exams were permitted as long as the overall requirement was met. However, students who did not achieve the 80% performance level on each diagnostic exam topic before time for the unit exam received a zero for that unit exam. Grades on the diagnostic exams did not impact exam grades or final course grades, but making their successful completion a prerequisite for any score other than zero on the unit exams associated a significant reward with the diagnostic exams.

Diagnostic exams

* were taken outside of class and almost exclusively during accounting lab hours,

* covered a previously identified topic(s),

* were typically an in-depth problem on the topic(s) that was not unlike the prerequisite homework, and

* were graded, typically by the peer tutors, as soon as possible--usually immediately after completion.

The tutor explained any errors to the student when the diagnostic exam was graded, and students who scored less than 80 percent returned after additional preparation to retake a diagnostic exam on that topic. Students could go through this "cycle" multiple times to gain and to demonstrate the required level of proficiency on a topic. Even though students were required to complete and submit significant homework assignments prior to the related diagnostic exam, virtually all students took at least some of the diagnostic exams more than once.

THE EXPERIMENT AND RESULTS

To evaluate the success of the ADEPT Learning Cycle approach using peer tutors in the introductory financial accounting courses, we compared the performances in introductory financial accounting courses taught by a single professor of:

* Seventy-four students (referred to hereafter as "ADEPT Students") taught during one academic year using the ADEPT learning process and

* Eighty-five introductory financial accounting students (referred to hereafter as "Control Group") taught in the academic year immediately prior to the year the ADEPT learning cycle approach was used.

All students in both groups completed the course. Students who dropped the course--26 out of 100 ADEPT Students and 30 Control Group students, i.e., approximately 26% of each group)--were excluded from the data, (The university's Institutional Review Board approved the study).

The same textbook was used both years. Each course was taught using the same syllabus covering identical topics. The course grade was based 80% on exam grades for each course in the study and 20% on other elements. Peer tutors were available to students during each year, and most of the tutors served both years. Each graded exam was prepared by professors not teaching the course during the testing period and was given to all sections of the financial accounting course for the semester at a common time. Similarly, the multiple choice portion (40%) of each exam was machine graded, and the problems were divided among professors teaching the course (and the professor who prepared the exam) for grading. Except for the problem portion of each exam that he was assigned, the researcher did not grade his students' exams either year, virtually eliminating any probability of preparer or grader bias affecting the results.

Unit exam grades and final course grades were used for t-tests to examine two hypotheses, stated here in the null form:

[H.sub.1] ADEPT Students' average scores on Principles of Financial Accounting unit exams were not higher than average scores of students in the Control Group.

[H.sub.2] ADEPT Students earned final course grades no better than those of the students in the Control Group.

Unit Exam Scores

The results of the t-test performed to examine H1 are reported in Panel A of Exhibit 2. The average exam score for ADEPT Students was 76.47 compared to an average of 63.20 for the Control Group. Levene's test for equality of variances provided no basis to reject a null hypothesis of equal variances. The t-test results for this H1 indicate that the average exam scores of the ADEPT Students were significantly higher than those of the Control Group (one-tailed p-value<.0001).

The Control Group for these tests consists of students who took and completed the professor's introductory financial accounting courses (4 sections) in the year prior to his implementing the ADEPT Learning Cycles approach. Diagnostic exams were not given. 30 other students dropped the course. The ADEPT Students consist of students who took and completed his introductory financial accounting courses (4 sections total) in the year he adopt the ADEPT approach. 26 other students dropped the course. Successful completion of a series of diagnostic exams at an 80% or higher level prior to each exam date was required.

Final Course Grades

Test 2 examines the effect of the ADEPT learning process on final course grades for introductory financial accounting, which ultimately determine the pass rate given a C or better requirement. Panel B of Exhibit 2 compares introductory financial accounting final course grades for ADEPT Students with those of the Control Group. The average course grade for ADEPT Students (on a four-point scale) was 2.58. That for the Control Group was 1.60. Again, Levene's test for equality of variances provided no basis to reject a null hypothesis of equal variances. H2 is rejected (one-tailed p-value<.001). This result indicates that there is a statistically significant improvement in the mean final course grades for ADEPT Students compared to the mean final course grades of the Control Group.

Also note that 85.1% of the ADEPT students who completed the exams earned a C or better in the course, which is the level required to meet the prerequisite for the second required accounting course at the university. (This is 63% of all students who began the course in the sections using the ADEPT system). Only 54.1% of Control Group students who completed the exams earned a C or better. (This represents 40% of all students who began in these sections). Over 50% more students achieved the minimum required grade in the course using the ADEPT system.

Other Possible Causes for Improved Performance

We considered possible causes other than the use of the ADEPT system for the improved performance in the ADEPT classes. The possibility of instructor bias was virtually eliminated by the manner in which the tests were prepared and graded. As noted before, for both the ADEPT Students and the Control Group the exams were prepared by another professor, and the instructor whose class results are reported in this study did not see the exams until shortly before they were administered. Likewise, he graded only a small portion of each exam. In the year before using the ADEPT approach, he had no expectation of using that approach or conducting this study in the following year.

Although tutors were available in the accounting lab each of the two years in the study, they were rarely used by the Control Group. Tutors did not see the exams prior to the exam being administered, therefore could not have provided any insider information to the students in either year about exam content. No unfair advantage could have been provided by the tutors. The effect of peer tutoring cannot be separated from the effect of the ADEPT system in this study. However, the requirement to take diagnostic exams increased use of the peer tutors by the ADEPT Students compared to the Control Group.

The relative academic ability of the students in the ADEPT Students and the Control Group was examined using grade point averages earned at the university prior to the semester each student enrolled in the financial accounting class and using SAT scores. Based on information provided by the university's institutional effectiveness staff, the overall grade point average (GPA) of the students in the Control Group at the beginning of the semester in which they were included in the study was slightly higher than that of the ADEPT Students (2.69 vs. 2.61). [Not all students in either group had a prior institutional GPA and not all had SAT scores.] The same was true for average Verbal SAT scores (458 for the Control Group vs. 456 for the ADEPT Students). The average Math SAT scores for the ADEPT Students (468) were 12 points above those of the Control Group (456). However, when only the students who received C or higher in the course are considered, the average Math SAT score of 480 for the Control Group is higher than that of the ADEPT Students (474). Another interesting observation is that when only the students who received C or better are considered, the Control Group average GPA jumps to 2.98 from 2.68 while that of the ADEPT Students remains approximately the same, rising from 2.61 to 2.67; and the average Verbal SAT score of the Control Group increases from 458 to 476 while that of the ADEPT Students falls from 457 to 454. In summary, these comparisons provide no logical basis for arguing that the superior results of the ADEPT Students was because the ADEPT Students were academically superior to those in the Control Group.

Another potential explanation for the significant difference in the final course grades was the performance on the non-exam component of the final course grade. However, the average grade earned by the Control Group on that grade component was higher than that of the ADEPT Students.

LIMITATIONS

Although the results of the study indicated that applying the ADEPT Learning Cycle approach using peer tutors improved student performance in terms of both exam averages and final course grades, the study has limitations. The results can not be generalized to the broader population of students in introductory financial accounting classes because there is no assurance that the students in the study are representative of the population as a whole. Indeed, there is reason to presume that they are not. Similarly, it is possible that the difference resulted from the efforts of exceptionally well qualified peer tutors. While they were excellent tutors, we have no reason to think that they were exceptional relative to those who have served this role at other times--and indeed the majority of the tutors were the same students both years. The fact that these tutors had a year of tutoring experience (when tutoring the ADEPT Students) likely was not important because they were so under-utilized in the year that the ADEPT system was not used.

Further, it is possible that the improved performance of the ADEPT Students resulted more from the fact that they were forced to invest more time and energy in the learning process in the course, not from the technique itself. Finally, we have no way to be sure that this technique will improve results for every professor. It is possible that it is more effective for some teaching styles and philosophies than others.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is a follow-up to the Shoulders and Hicks (2008) study of the use of ADEPT Learning Cycles in Intermediate Accounting I courses. Like the Shoulders and Hicks study, the results indicate that applying the ADEPT system improved student exam grades and final course grades.

Because one of the practical criticisms of the ADEPT approach as applied in the Shoulders and Hicks study is the significant demand on faculty time to implement, it is important that this study found similar results using accounting majors as surrogates for the professor in applying the labor-intensive steps in the ADEPT system. The accounting majors were hired as tutors in a lab for a total of about $2,600 per semester providing a cost effective means of implementing the ADEPT system. An important side benefit for which anecdotal evidence was gained is that the peer tutors' understanding of the material was reinforced and improved in the year that the ADEPT system was used. Too, some peer tutors have expressed a serious interest in becoming accounting professors as a result of their experience as tutors.

Another important contribution of this study is the success of the ADEPT system in introductory financial accounting courses instead of intermediate accounting courses. Introductory financial accounting courses generally have the highest level of student demand of all accounting courses and normally serve as a prerequisite to at least one other course or require a minimum grade for entry into the various business majors. Therefore, this course represents an important venue in which to test the effectiveness of the method. Further, because these courses are populated predominantly by non-accounting majors instead of predominantly by accounting majors, the study presumably gives some indication of whether the technique provides positive outcomes for a broader range of students and learning styles.

The first two accounting courses typically are required of all business majors. In many cases a minimum score of a C or C- is required in the first course before taking the second. The improved performance demonstrated in this study can potentially lead to better retention rates for business majors as the accounting courses are often a business major's most difficult hurdle in the business common body of knowledge courses. Also, better performance in the introductory financial accounting may make the accounting major more attractive to a broader range of students and result in prospective accounting majors being better prepared for the junior level accounting courses.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Several future research questions seem interesting:

1. Will the method improve results in introductory financial accounting classes at universities with a different student profile than the one in the study?

2. Can similar results be achieved in the second principles of accounting course or in other accounting courses?

3. Can similar results be achieved in other disciplines?

4. Can the method be used successfully when a professor teaches a large lecture and graduate teaching assistants work with small groups of students using the ADEPT system along with homework?

REFERENCES

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques, A Handbook for College Teachers. 2nd edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Auyeung, P. K., & Sands, D. F. (1994). Predicting success in first-year university accounting using gender-based learning analysis. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 3 (3), 259-272.

Baldwin, B. A., & Howe, K. R. (1982). Secondary-level study of accounting and subsequent performance in the first college course. The Accounting Review, 57 (3), 619-626.

Bartlett, S. P., Peel, M. J., & Pendlebury, M. (1993). From fresher to finalist: a three year analysis of student performance on an accounting degree programme. Accounting Education, 2 (2), 111-122.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39 (7), 3-7.

Cooper, K. (1994). Group assessment using closed book exams. Educational Developments 1 (1): London: London Guildhall University.

Cull, W. L. (2000). Untangling the benefits of multiple study opportunities and repeated testing for cued recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 215-235.

Forbes, D. A., & Spence, J. (1991). An experiment in assessment for a large class. In R. Smith (Ed.), Innovations in engineering education. London: Ellis Horwood.

Gibbs, G. (1999-2000). Changing student learning behavior outside of class. Essays on Teaching Excellence 11 (1). Available at http://www.podnetwork.org/publications/teachingexcellence/99-00/V11, N1 Gibbs.pdf

Gracia, L. A., & Jenkins, E. (2002). An exploration of student failure on an undergraduate accounting programme of study. Accounting Education, 11 (1), 93-107.

Hostetler, K. M., & Snyder, D. (2008). Accounting for success: analyzing the effects of study group participation on overall course grade in financial accounting. Business Education Forum, 63 (1), 19-21.

Jones, J. P., & K. Fields., T. (2001). The role of supplemental instruction in the first accounting course. Issues in Accounting Education, 16 (4), 531-547.

Koh, M. Y., & Koh, H. C. (1999). The determinants of performance in an accountancy degree programme. Accounting Education, 8 (1), 13-29.

Leeming, F. C. (2002). The exam-a-day procedure improves performance in psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 210-212.

Lidren, D. M., Meire, S. E., & T. A. Brigham. 1991. The effects of minimal and maximal peer tutoring systems on the academic performance of college students. Psychological Record, 41 (1) 69-77.

McKeachie, W. J. (1986.) Teaching Tips: A Guidebook for the Beginning College Teacher. 8th edition. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath Co.

Mitchell, F. (1988). High school accounting and student performance in the first level university accounting course: a UK study. Journal of Accounting Education, 6 (2), 279-291.

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. 2006. Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17 (3), 240-255.

Shoulders, C. D., & Hicks, S. A. (2008). ADEPT learning cycles enhance intermediate accounting student learning success. Issues in Accounting Education, 23 (2), 161-182.

Snooks, M. (2005-2006). Practice tests: a practical teaching method. Essays on Teaching Excellence 17 (7). Available at http://www.podnetwork.org/publications/teachingexcellence/05-06/V17, N7 Snooks.pdf

Terrion, J. A., & Leonard., D. (2007). A taxonomy of the characteristics of student peer mentors in higher education: findings from a literature review. Mentoring & Tutoring 15 (2) 149164.

Topping, K. J., & Ehly, S. W. (2001). Peer assisted learning: a framework for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12 (2), 113-132.

Topping, K. J. (2001). Thinking reading writing: A practical guide to paired learning with peers, parents, and volunteers. New York: Continuum International.

Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25 (6): 631-645.

William S. Thomas

Sharon L. Bell

University of North Carolina at Pembroke

Craig D. Shoulders

Western Carolina University

William Stewart Thomas is an assistant professor of Accounting and Information Technology Management at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke.

Sharon Bell is an associate professor in the Accounting and Information Technology Department at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke.

Craig D. Shoulders is an associate professor of accounting at Western Carolina University.

Exhibit 1
Diagnostic Exams

No.   Topic(s) Covered on Diagnostic Exam *

1.    Unclassified balance sheet
2.    Transaction analysis and journal entries (balance sheet only
      transactions)
3.    Classified balance sheet and statement of retained earnings
4.    Journal entries (balance sheet and income statement
      transactions)
5.    Adjusting journal entries
6.    Closing entries
7.    Multi-step income statement
8.    Sales (Including discounts, returns, and credit card sales)
9.    Accounts receivable, allowance for doubtful accounts, and
      bad debt expense (various estimation methods)
10.   Bank reconciliation and related journal entries
11.   Ending inventory and cost of goods sold computations under
      various cost flow assumptions
12.   Depreciation methods
13.   Journal entries for fixed asset acquisition, depreciation,
      and retirement
14.   Liabilities--including current vs. long term, contingent
      liabilities, payroll and payroll tax transactions--and
      working capital and current ratio
15.   Present value computations and noninterest bearing note
      with entries
16.   Bonds Payable--Entries (including issuance, interest, and
      retirement) for bonds issued at par and calculation of bond
      price and recording of issuance when stated rate and market
      rate differ at issuance
17.   Bonds payable--Computing and recording interest when bonds
      issued at a premium (both straight-line and effective
      interest amortization); bond retirement at call price on
      call date; balance sheet presentation
18.   Sale and issuance of common stock in various circumstances,
      cash dividends, and treasury stock transactions
19.   Issuance of common and preferred stock, stock dividends
      and stock splits, and allocation of cash dividends
      between common and preferred stockholders

* This set of diagnostic exams is not necessarily optimal.
Although some of the diagnostic exams used in the study
covered multiple topics, we believe that it is better to
cover only a limited topic on each exam. For example, it is
better for Diagnostic Exam No. 17 to be converted to two
diagnostic exams--one on journal entries for bonds issued
at par and a second on calculating the issue price.

Exhibit 2
Principles of Financial Accounting Results
With and Without Diagnostic Exams

Panel A: Comparison of Student Performance on Exams

Null hypothesis 1: ADEPT Students' average scores on
Principles of Financial Accounting unit exams were not
higher than average scores of students in the Control
Group. (The dependent variable is the exam average for
the semester. Each student took 4 exams.)

                              ADEPT     Control
                             Students    Group

Mean                          76.47      63.20
Standard deviation            18.53     19.098
Observations                    74        85
Levene's Test for Equality
  of Variances (sig)          0.685       --
t statistic                    5.66       --
One-tail p value              0.000       --

Panel B: Comparison of Final Course Grades

Null hypothesis 2: ADEPT Students earned final
course grades no better than those of the students
in the Control Group. (The dependent variable is
course grades earned on a 4-point scale, where
A = 4.0.)
                              ADEPT     Control
                             Students    Group

Mean                           2.58      1.60
Standard deviation             1.14      1.09
Observations                    74        85
Percent C or higher            85.1      54.1
Levene's Test for Equality
  of Variances (sig)          0.929
T statistic                    5.49
One-tail p value              0.000