Description
The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the implementation of an online self
and peer assessment model (SPARKPLUS) to assess team work skills of accounting students.
Accounting Research Journal
Online self and peer assessment of team work in accounting education
Deborah Anne Delaney Marty Fletcher Craig Cameron Kerry Bodle
Article information:
To cite this document:
Deborah Anne Delaney Marty Fletcher Craig Cameron Kerry Bodle , (2013),"Online self and peer
assessment of team work in accounting education", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 222 -
238
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARJ -04-2012-0029
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 21:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 40 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 876 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Karol Marek Klimczak, Grzegorz Szafranski, (2013),"Coincident and forecast relevance of accounting
numbers", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 239-255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
ARJ -09-2012-0076
Nik Nazli Nik Ahmad, Maliah Sulaiman, (2013),"Case studies in a passive learning environment: some
Malaysian evidence", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 173-196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
ARJ -10-2012-0082
Patti Cybinski, Carolyn Windsor, (2013),"Remuneration committee independence and CEO remuneration
for firm financial performance", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 197-221 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARJ -08-2012-0068
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
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.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Online self and peer assessment
of team work in accounting
education
Deborah Anne Delaney
Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics,
Grif?th University, Gold Coast, Australia
Marty Fletcher
Department of International Business and Asian Studies,
Grif?th University, Gold Coast, Australia, and
Craig Cameron and Kerry Bodle
Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics,
Grif?th University, Gold Coast, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the implementation of an online self
and peer assessment model (SPARK
PLUS
) to assess team work skills of accounting students.
Design/methodology/approach – This study describes the background and implementation of
SPARK
PLUS
and employs a survey questionnaire administered to students enrolled in an
undergraduate company accounting subject before and after the implementation of the model. The
survey results and selected qualitative data are used to evaluate students’ attitudes to group work and
the impact of SPARK
PLUS
.
Findings – The study suggests that students understand the bene?ts of group work activities in
developing their technical knowledge in company accounting. However, students do not appreciate the
value of group work activities in developing generic skills or how SPARK
PLUS
supports group work
activities.
Practical implications – Professional and accreditation bodies require evidence of teaching and
learning activities and assessment of team work skills during the students’ undergraduate accounting
degree. This study demonstrates that students require signi?cant teaching and learning activities in
relation to team work skills and the assessment model for successful implementation.
Originality/value – This study makes an original contribution to the accounting education
literature pertaining to assessment of team work skills in two respects. First, the study outlines the
design, implementation and preliminary evaluation of an online self and peer assessment model in an
undergraduate company accounting course. Second, preliminary evidence concerning the impact of
this model on group work activities and team work skills is provided.
Keywords Teamwork, Accounting education, Accreditation, Assurance of learning, Generic skills,
Peer assessment
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
Teamwork, also described as the ability to work in groups, is a generic skill demanded
by employers but not necessarily acquired by accounting students during their higher
education experience. Employers of accounting graduates require more than just
technical skills but a range of generic skills such as team skills, leadership,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1030-9616.htm
Accounting Research Journal
Vol. 26 No. 3, 2013
pp. 222-238
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1030-9616
DOI 10.1108/ARJ-04-2012-0029
ARJ
26,3
222
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
oral communication, interpersonal skills and business awareness or real life experience
(Albrecht and Sack, 2000; Kavanagh and Drennan, 2008; Jackling and De Lange, 2009).
In particular, employers have criticised the focus of accounting education on content
knowledge and not creative types of learning which foster generic skills including
teamwork (Albrecht and Sack, 2000; Ballantine and Mccourt Larres, 2007b;
Hancock et al., 2009).
Professional bodies have recognised the importance of generic skills in accounting
education by establishing criteria that require universities to include generic skills in the
curriculum (ICAA and CPA, 2009; the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB), 2011). For example, the CPA/ICAA Professional Accreditation
Guidelines for Higher Education Programs requires higher education providers “to
clearly articulate their objectives and demonstrate that quality assurance systems are in
place to ensure that these objectives are achieved” (ICAA and CPA, 2009, para. 1.12).
Teaching and learning activities that include generic skills such as interpersonal,
leadership and the ability to work effectively in groups are regarded as essential
components of the quality assurance framework. Submissions for accreditation must
explain how these generic skills are assessed within the curriculum (ICAA and CPA,
2009, para. 1.2.1). Similarly the Association to AACSB, an internationally recognised
accreditationfor business andaccounting programs, requires tertiaryinstitutions to have
a quality assurance framework that speci?es learning goals for general, management
speci?c and/or discipline-speci?c knowledge and skills (i.e. generic skills), and howthey
are achieved in the undergraduate degree program. Assessment, if properly designed, is
intended to demonstrate that the learning goals are being met (AACSB, 2011).
It is in this assurance of learning context that an online model was introduced to
facilitate the assessment of teamwork skills of accounting students. Online self and peer
assessment (SPA) is not a new phenomenon with various models being described and
evaluated in the literature (Freeman and McKenzie, 2002; Thompson and McGregor,
2009; Kavanagh et al., 2012). This paper makes an original contribution to the literature
bystudyingvarious student attitudes to groupworkbefore andafter the implementation
of an online tool known as Self and Peer Assessment Resource Kit (SPARK
PLUS
) in a
second year undergraduate company accounting course at an Australian university.
The paper also provides initial teacher insight and preliminary evaluation of SPAdesign
and implementation of this online model. We suggest that this may provide valuable
lessons for accounting educators faced with the task of assuring external stakeholders of
student learning in teamwork skills.
The next section examines the literature on group work assessment with particular
attention paid to peer assessment strategies and criteria. Following the literature
review, we provide a case study that includes a background to and implementation of
SPARK
PLUS
, and an evaluation by students (through a brief pre and post study) and
teaching staff of its ?rst use in the company accounting course. The paper concludes
with a discussion of the limitations and potential for future research into peer
assessment strategies and processes.
2. Literature review
Teacher assessment of group work
Assessment of group work may be conducted in one or more of the following three ways:
the individual student completing the group work activity (self-assessment); the student’s
Online self and
peer assessment
223
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
peers in that group (peer assessment); and the teacher. Self-assessment is where the
students evaluate their own contribution to the group work activity. This can be contrasted
with peer assessment where it is the group members who evaluate the contribution of
individual group members to the group. Finally, the teacher may assess the group work
utilising either the group only or “mixed-incentive” models (Bryant and Albring, 2006).
With the group only model, the teacher assigns a single grade to the entire group. The
varying contributions of group members are disregarded, thereby discouraging individual
accountability, with the ?nal output assessed and not the teamwork process used to
produce the ?nal output. This mayleadto grade in?ationas “individual weaknesses tendto
be coveredup bythe strengths of other group members” (Habeshawet al., 1993, p. 93). With
the group only model, students may complete the group project but not function as a team.
Under a mixed-incentive model, the individual’s ?nal grade is effectively a
combination of a group mark andindividual mark. To achieve individual accountability,
the design and assessment of the group work project must ensure that each group
member is held responsible for their contribution (Cottell Jr and Millis, 1992;
Johnson et al., 2007). This discourages “free riders” and “workhorses” (Clinton and
Kohlmeyer III, 2005, p. 98) and fosters the skills associated with a “team”, which can be
distinguished from a group (Hackman, 1983).
Clear accountability regimes are necessary to ensure students are motivated to take
advantage of opportunities to learn as they contribute to a group project and
simultaneously develop, demonstrate, and re?ect upon teamwork skills at both
individual and collective levels. A more speci?c assessment structure leverages the
range of motivation types across diverse group members. The students who are
extrinsically motivated to dominate the group for fear of underachieving desired grades
will be less likely to dominate and con?ict with other group members, whereas, students
who are intrinsically motivated to contribute will be less exploited by social loafers.
Peer assessment of group work
Peer assessment and SPA strategies have been variously recommended (Boud and
Falchikov, 2007) and used (Freeman, 1995; Michaelsen et al., 2004) in tertiary education.
The assessment criteria may be negotiated between group members or set by the
teacher (Habeshaw et al., 1993). A variety of peer assessment strategies have been
documented in the literature including:
.
Multiplying the group mark by an individual weighting factor derived from the
assessment criteria completed by the student’s peers (Gold?nch, 1994).
.
Multiplying the group mark by the number of students and asking the students
to distribute the marks between themselves, with or without set assessment
criteria (Lejk et al., 1996). For example, a teacher awards a grade of 60 percent for
a group project produced by a group of ?ve students, allocates 300 marks to the
group and asks the group based on an assessment criteria to allocate the
300 marks amongst themselves (Habeshaw et al., 1993).
.
A group mark plus or minus a mark for contribution using set assessment
criteria (Habeshaw et al., 1993; Lejk et al., 1996).
.
A combination of a group mark (the ?nal output) and a mark for group work
(the process) derived from peer assessment criteria, with the split not necessarily
being 50/50 (Lejk et al., 1996).
ARJ
26,3
224
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The most common peer assessment strategy involves some form of adjustment to the
group mark for each individual based on an assessment of contribution by their peers.
We identi?ed four peer assessment models in the accounting education literature that
adjusted individual grades ( Johnson and Smith, 1997; McConnell and Sasse, 1999;
Mahenthiran and Rouse, 2000; Miglietti, 2002). Whilst their application varied, each
peer assessment model was completed in hard copy form, used a point allocation
system to distinguish the performance of group members and had “contribution” as
one criterion for assessment. With the exception of Johnson and Smith (1997), our
initial concern with the peer assessment models is their over emphasis on contribution.
Each model appears to be an effective reward/punishment mechanism, which
encourages students to engage in group work activities and thereby improve their
teamwork skills. We suggest requires more comprehensive and prescriptive criteria for
assessing students’ teamwork skills for assurance of learning purposes.
The literature on the implementation of peer assessment strategies is divided into two
main ?elds: the bene?ts to learners and reliability and validity issues (Boud and
Falchikov, 2007, p. 132). As SPARK
PLUS
was used as a means of collecting data and
assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning purposes, our focus is on issues of
reliability and validity of strategies and methods aimed at assessing and evaluating
students’ group work skills and performances. Peer assessed grades may cluster around
an average and students may feel uncomfortable about criticising their colleagues
(Ballantine and Mccourt Larres, 2007a, p. 167). Further, students may be too critical or
generous about other group members (Gold?nch, 1994) and gender bias may exist
(Falchikov and Magin, 1997). There is also the possibility of grade in?ation, that is,
the relationships developed in the cooperative learning environment may encourage
students to give peers higher evaluations which do not re?ect their actual performance
( Johnson and Smith, 1997). This can be contrasted with Gibbs’ review of the peer
assessment literature, which suggests that peer assessment marks are no more or less
reliable thanteachers’ marks, albeit that reliabilitycanbe affected bythe number of peers
(Gibbs, 2009). Race (2007) has also reported that average student assessments against
criteria closely resemble the actual marks givenbytutors (within 0.5 standarddeviation).
Despite its potential hazards, peer assessment was our preferred form of assessing
teamwork skills on the basis that “students who have been part of the team process are
best positioned to evaluate individual contribution within their own group” (Gammie
and Matson, 2007). The alternative to peer assessment of teamwork skills – instructor
monitoring – would be resource intensive and simply not feasible in large classes
(Thompson and McGregor, 2009). Further, there is no guarantee of instructor
objectiveness and their presence may alter student behaviour in a way that negatively
affects the group environment.
SPA criteria
Criteria-based SPAis well described in the higher education literature (Michaelsen et al.,
2004; Thompson et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2009). Lejk and Wyvill (2001) con?rmed that
criterion-based approaches to peer assessment of group contributions are more
discriminating than holistic scoring, although they argue that both formative and
holistic approaches have merit. Race (2007) recommended the use of self-assessment
strategies based upon explicit criteria. Recently, the impetus for using explicit criteria
in assessment has been the need to accumulate measures of higher order learning goals
Online self and
peer assessment
225
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
that may be constructively aligned (Biggs and Tang, 2007) with contextualised and
speci?c assessment task criteria for assurance of learning purposes. This recent
development has led to a proliferation of recommended generic rubrics (Rhodes, 2010;
Oliver, 2011) that are descriptive of student performance across a range of broad
outcome categories, including teamwork and group communication. The performance
level descriptors for each criterion in the rubric are adaptable to various evaluative
purposes, including threshold standards for assurance of learning as well as
categorised marking and grading of individual students.
3. Case study: SPARK
PLUS
in company accounting
Background – assurance of learning
Accreditation was the key driver behind the adoption of criterion based SPA of
teamwork skills in company accounting. The “ability to work effectively in groups”
(teamwork) was a program learning objective (PLO) of the undergraduate accounting
degree as part of the AACSBassurance of learning process. The university was required
to demonstrate that one or more of the accounting courses included teaching and
learning activities and assessment of teamwork (one of many PLOs) for accreditation
purposes. A strategic review of the accounting degree (strategic review) entailed the
mapping of the accounting curriculum against the PLOs. This curriculum mapping
exercise identi?ed a “gap” in the teaching and assessment of teamwork skills.
Company accounting, a second year undergraduate accounting course, was selected to
develop and implement a formal mandatory group assessment item. Although the
course already had a group assignment, it was de?cient both in assessment and design
from an accreditation perspective. Previously group formation was optional. No peer
assessment existed as students self-assessed their group work skills using a rubric,
and the group only model of assessment lacked the individual accountability demanded
of a cooperative learning environment.
A short survey of the company accounting cohort was also undertaken in the
semester prior to the implementation of SPARK
PLUS
to gauge student attitudes towards
group work. The survey included three questions that students responded to on a seven
point Likert scale ranging from (1) “not at all” to (7) “to a great extent”. These questions
focussed on the students’ attitudes towards group-assessed activities as an aid to
learning, their preference for individual assessment and their opinion as to how group
work would provide skills useful for their future working life. A summary of the
demographic data is provided inTable I. The average student age was just over 24 years.
The gender of the sample was weighted to female students, with most students of
Australian nationality and had completed year 12 as the highest education level.
The descriptive statistics are included in Tables II and III. The results show that
for the ?rst question relating to group work providing assistance to learning, the
93 students surveyed rated the item around the mid-point of the mean (3.95). As shown
in Table III, despite the mean (3.95) being around the mid-point, 22.6 percent of
students responded by rating 1 and 2 suggesting that they are sceptical that group
work would assist their learning. At the other end of the scale 15.1 percent of students
rated 6 and 7, and therefore thought group work would be helpful. Question 2 relating
to a preference for individual assessment has a mean of 4.98, with 49.5 percent of
students rating a 6 and 7 suggesting that students have a preference for individual
assessment. Question 3 relates to the bene?t of group work in a students working life
ARJ
26,3
226
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Demographic characteristic Total sample (n ¼ 93)
Age
Mean 24.47 years
Minimum 18 years
Maximum 53 years
Gender
Female 64
Male 29
Nationality
Australian 53
Chinese 11
Korean 5
Other 24
Education level
Year 12 51
TAFE 34
Other 8
Degree
Accounting 67
Finance 1
Economics 1
Double major 23
Undecided 1
Table I.
Demographic data
of the sample
Variable Actual range Mean SD
To what extent have you experienced group
assessed activities as an aid to learning 1-7 3.95 1.49
In 2103AFE I would prefer to be assessed individually
rather than in a group scenario 1-7 4.98 1.81
To what extent will working in a group provide
you with skills that can be used in your future
working life? 2-7 4.87 1.31
Notes: n ¼ 93; scale: “1” – not at all, “7” – to a great extent
Table II.
Descriptive statistics for
variables in the
background study
Frequency percentage
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent have you experienced group
assessed activities as an aid to learning 3.2 19.4 11.8 30.1 20.4 10.8 4.3
In 2103AFE I would prefer to be assessed individually
rather than in a group scenario 5.4 6.5 8.6 19.4 10.8 23.7 25.8
To what extent will working in a group provide
you with skills that can be used in your future
working life? 0 5.4 9.7 21.5 29.0 24.7 9.7
Notes: n ¼ 93; scale: “1” – not at all, “7” – to a great extent
Table III.
Frequency of responses
to variables in the
background study
Online self and
peer assessment
227
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
with a mean of 4.87 comprising 34.4 percent of students recording a rating of 6 and 7
and 15.1 percent recording a rating of 1 and 2. This suggests that most students appear
to recognise the bene?ts of group work to their future working life.
The results suggest that students were sceptical that group work would assist their
learning and that they preferred individual assessment. However, students did
acknowledge that group work would bene?t them in their future working life.
These ?ndings con?rmed our understanding of students’ attitudes to group work
identi?ed during the strategic review. It appears that although students understand that
group work will equip students with the skills required in future work life, they are not
convinced that this will assist them in their university studies. SPARK
PLUS
was
implemented in company accounting in the following semester as an appropriate model
for facilitating SPA and collecting data on teamwork skills for assurance of learning.
SPARK
PLUS
In previous offerings of the company accounting course, students who elected to form
groups self-assessed their teamwork skills using a paper-based rubric. The rubric
described standards of performance on a ?ve-point scale from “excellent” to
“unsatisfactory” for the following ?ve criterion: working cooperatively; con?ict
resolution; leveraging group member skills; time management and equity. Student
completion of the rubric was a condition of submitting their assignment, but student
grades were not adjusted on account of their self-assessment. Paper-based instruments
generate administrative challenges, especially in contexts where there are large student
numbers such as the company accounting cohort (Thompson and McGregor, 2009).
With consideration to this scale, the necessity of technology solutions to support peer
ratings procedures was apparent (Willey and Freeman, 2006; Robinson and Walker,
2008; Kavanagh et al., 2012). The use of an online system for recording perceived
performances of self and peers reinforces to students that in contemporary workplaces,
work can be progressed virtually as well as face-to-face. This supports the development
of teamwork skills both in-class as well as out-of-the-classroom environment. One such
solution is the peer evaluation form published in Kavanagh et al. (2012) relating to
student teamvirtuality. Students completing a virtual group project conducted peer and
self-assessment using an electronic peer evaluation form, which included criterion on
teamwork skills as well as quantity and quality of the students’ work, in order to provide
“individualised grading for teamwork” (Kavanagh et al., 2012, p. 48). Following a review
of the peer evaluation forms, the teacher awarded a markrepresenting upto 20 percent of
the overall assignment mark.
SPARK is a widely used online SPA application, which has been described and
evaluated in the literature (Freeman and McKenzie, 2002; Thompson and
McGregor, 2009). Thompson and McGregor (2009) not only describe the
implementation of SPARK in their business and design courses and evaluate its
bene?ts but also assess student results generated by SPARK. Since these studies, a new
andimprovedSPARKsystemhas beendevelopedknown as SPARK
PLUS
(Freemanet al.,
2011). This paper makes an original contribution to the existing literature by: describing
the implementation of SPARK
PLUS
in the context of an assurance of learning process;
providing a preliminary study of student attitudes towards group work before and after
the implementation of SPARK
PLUS
; and revealing the issues, both from a teacher and
student perspective, concerning its implementation.
ARJ
26,3
228
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Design of assessment criteria
In assessing group work there is a need to award marks separately for both achievement
of intended cognitive outcomes of a group project (by the group as a whole), as well as to
identify varying individual contributions to group outcomes and the achievement of
teamwork skills (by distinct individual members). SPARK
PLUS
provides a sophisticated
scoring of this combined achievement, by individualizing the teamwork skill
achievement component (SPA factor), which is used to modify overall cognitive group
project marks, thereby recognizing the overall achievement of individual andgroupwith
a more reliable measure which can be used both formatively and summatively.
Table IV sets out the criteria and the associated descriptors for SPARK
PLUS
.
The SPARK
PLUS
assessment framework was developed following a review of the
paper-basedrubric bythe universitycurriculumconsultant who hadextensive experience
with implementing teamwork skills assessment criteria in business courses. There were
?ve SPARK ratings for each descriptor: “well above average”; “above average”;
“average”; “below average” and “well below average” placed progressively at 20 point
intervals on a continuous 100 point scale and weighted equally. Students do not have the
opportunityto modifyor add descriptors as assurance of learning dictates that the criteria
for assessing team work skills is consistent. The descriptors provide, in our opinion, a
more detailed assessment of teamwork skills than previous peer assessment models
referred to in the accounting education literature ( Johnson and Smith, 1997; McConnell
and Sasse, 1999; Mahenthiran and Rouse, 2000; Miglietti, 2002). Our design of the SPA
criteria also differs fromwhat could be described as a traditional rubric model adopted in
previous studies including Kavanagh et al. (2012) where standards of performance are
described for each criterion (“Kavanagh assessment”). Like the Kavanagh
assessment, teamwork skills represent the criteria being assessed. Unlike the
Kavanagh assessment, our model provides multiple descriptors attached to each
criterion, with students self and peer assessing each descriptor. Further, the notion of
“contribution” is contextualised. For example, the descriptor “makes contribution
accordingtoagreedgroupschedule” is attachedtothe teamworkskill “workcooperatively
Criterion Descriptors
Work cooperatively and time management 1. Able to listen
2. Shares information
3. Provided leadership
4. Organised and ef?cient
5. Makes contribution according to agreed group
schedule
Con?ict resolution 1. Manages con?ict effectively and constructively
2. Works towards positive resolutions to group
issues
Leveraging group member skills 1. Respects each group member’s skills and
strengths
2. Balances own skills and strengths with overall
group to achieve best possible group outcomes
Values and equity 1. Respectful of diversity of group member values,
knowledge and experience
2. Made a fair contribution to the overall workload
Table IV.
SPARK criteria and
descriptors
Online self and
peer assessment
229
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
and time management”. We contend that contextualising contribution improves
the assessment model from an assurance of learning perspective as students better
appreciate the connection between quantity and quality of the output and speci?c
teamwork skills. It is important that students recognise that the grading model is seeking
to support the development of teamwork skills as its main objective as well as providing a
measure of accountability for the students’ contribution to the group project.
Implementation of SPARK
PLUS
Prior to the implementation of SPARK
PLUS
a one-hour orientation session was
delivered by the Curriculum Consultant as part of the weekly lecture. The formal part
of this presentation took approximately 15 minutes with the remaining time used in
addressing students concerns. The rationale for using SPA was discussed, and
students had a chance to express their views on group assessment. Students were then
briefed on the criteria and what they should be looking for in their own and peers’
performances. Then the procedures for logging on to the system and completing the
ratings were demonstrated. The computations of the SPA ratings and their impact on
the individual’s ?nal mark were explained. All this information was also made
available via pages on the course learning management system web site.
In addition, students were asked to do a “formative” rating shortly after their
groups were formed. The purpose of the formative rating was introductory, procedural
and pedagogical. The introductory and procedural purposes were to ensure that
students could access the system via correct account details, and to check that all
students’ group membership details were correct. Pedagogically this ?rst rating
experience was used to form students’ awareness that through summative mandatory
ratings, group work was an inescapable requirement with a transparent and equitable
outcome showing a relationship between individual contributions and recognition in
terms of marks. Formative feedback to support development of teamwork skills and
summative assessment of the achievement of teamwork ability is provided in the ?rst
rating, which was labeled “formative”. Although data from this ?rst iteration of self
and peer ratings is not applied to any formal marks, it is a re?ective opportunity for
students to see how their contributions are being noted and perceived by other group
members. It helps them to realise before it is too late that there is accountability at the
individual level. It also provides data at a point in time where the teaching team still
has the opportunity to intervene for a team that is either idle or dysfunctional.
Students completed their summative SPARK
PLUS
ratings after their group
assignment was completed. The SPARK
PLUS
system generated a SPA factor, the
normalised average across all criteria of all self and peer ratings, which was used to
redistribute the marks achieved at the group level to the individuals (see Figure 1,
excerpted from student support materials).
Figure 1.
Illustration of the
calculation of adjusted
group mark
ARJ
26,3
230
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
By normalising the average around the threshold of 1.0, SPA factors above 1.0
represent an above average performance relative to other group members, while
factors below 1.0 represent performance at less than average. Note that the self-rating
carries equal weight with peer ratings, however the software also provides a measure
whereby the self-rating can be compared with the peer ratings, allowing the teaching
team to identify cases where the individual may be trying to game the system if he/she
expects poor peer ratings or where a student has an in?ated view of their own and
others’ contributions. In these cases, the system allows for the recalculation of the SPA
factor excluding the self-rating. If there are at least three students in a group, the marks
are anonymous. With two student groups, there is no real anonymity possible.
For assurance of learning purposes, the data were then examined and aggregated at
the criterion level, with categorisation into each of the four criteria groupings based on
the original paper-based rubric. The data were then presented to the course and
program teams in chart form, for discussion and reporting in the “closing the loop”
stage of the assurance of learning process.
Student evaluation
A separate pre and post-rating instrument to the standard university student
evaluation of teaching and student evaluation of course instrument was completed by
company accounting students in the ?rst semester in which SPARK
PLUS
was
implemented. Students were asked to provide their student number or name as an
identi?er for matching purposes for each of the pre- and post-surveys. This identi?er
was deleted once matching of surveys using the SPSS statistical computer program
was completed. The instrument was designed to collect information about “what was
taught and what was learned, the value of that learning, and the effects of learning
upon student learning” (Pratt, 1997, p. 35). Two questions were included in the pre- and
post-rating instrument that focussed on the students’ attitude to group assessment and
the fairness of group work.
In terms of demographics, 32 students (20.4 percent) have used SPARK
PLUS
when
completing group work in another course, while 126 students (80.3 percent) have been
involved in group work in a prior course. This would indicate that while the majority of
students have experience in teamwork most have not used SPARK
PLUS
. It is noted
however that although the majority of students have not used SPARK
PLUS
for SPAthey
may have used other manual or computer based forms of peer assessment or SPA.
Student ratings may therefore have been in?uenced by such other previous experiences.
Students responded on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “very
negative/poor” to (7) “very positive/excellent”. The post-rating questions in the
instrument focussed on the impact of SPARK
PLUS
on a range of attitudes related to
group work and consistent with the SPARK criteria used (Table IV). Paired samples
t-tests were conducted on the matched responses to assess any changes in their
opinions. The results are provided in Table V. A signi?cant difference was found on
the question in regard to attitude to group work (t ¼ 21.771; p ¼ 0.079) suggesting
students perceived that there were bene?ts from engaging in the SPARK program.
The ?nal survey resulted in 157 useable responses. Table VI includes the descriptive
statistics resulting from the post-rating section of the survey instrument. These results
show that for all questions, students rated the items in each category around the
midpoint to the mean. Notably the responses to the use of SPARK
PLUS
show that
Online self and
peer assessment
231
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
students rated their enjoyment in using this program as below the midpoint to
the mean. This may be explained by the fact that students may feel uncomfortable
about criticising their peers (Ballantine and Mccourt Larres, 2007b) or a lack of
understanding about the operation and bene?ts of SPARK
PLUS
. This is illustrated
through the demographic data relating to the SPARK
PLUS
implementation that shows
that although 80.3 percent of students had previous experience in group work, only
20.3 percent had previous experience in using SPARK
PLUS
.
By comparing the mean points of the survey results collated in the strategic review
prior to the introduction of SPARK
PLUS
(as presented in Table II) (the pre-SPARK
instrument) with the results after the implementation of SPARK
PLUS
(the post-SPARK
instrument) presented in Table VII, a number of observations can be made. First in
relation to group work as an aid to learning, the pre-SPARKinstrument showed a mean
below the mid-point (mean ¼ 3.95) compared with the post-SPARK instrument
(mean ¼ 4.80). Second, in relation to student’s preference for completing the assignment
individually, the mean has declined from the pre-SPARK instrument (mean ¼ 4.98) to
the post-SPARK instrument implementation survey (mean ¼ 4.51). These results
suggest that by formalising the group work process and assessing teamwork skills,
students see a bene?t to their learning and are more willing to undertake group work.
Finally, in comparing the mean scores for the use of group work in the development of
employability skills, there was a decrease noted in the mean scores fromthe pre-SPARK
instrument (mean ¼ 4.87) to the post-SPARK instrument (mean ¼ 4.47). This small
change in mean score may indicate that the development of group work skills was not
emphasised in terms of providing the link between the process being undertaken and
“real life” at the time of assignment submission.
The above results were supported by comments made by students as part of the
post-SPARKinstrument. Students appeared to understand the use of group work and the
implementationof the SPARK
PLUS
to facilitate teamworkskills with comments including:
I think the SPARKsystemis a great way to get the group working as a team, as it assists them
as to how to work in a group and really helpful tool to assist the performance of group work.
Opinion questions t-value Two-tailed sig.
Attitude to group assessment 21.771 0.079
*
Fairness of group work 21.430 0.155
Notes: Signi?cant at:
*
p ¼ 0.10; n ¼ 157; scale: “1” – not at all, “7” – to a great extent
Table V.
Student perceptions of
group work (pre versus
post survey)
Demographic characteristic Total sample (n ¼ 157) Percentage of total sample (%)
Previous experience in group work
Yes 126 80.3
No 31 19.7
Previous experience in using SPARK
Yes 32 20.3
No 125 79.7
Table VI.
Demographic data
of the SPARK
implementation sample
ARJ
26,3
232
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
SPARK
PLUS
was also recognised as a means to minimise the free rider problem
supported by the comment: “it’s a good way to punish those guys who are not really
engaged in the assessment”. However, in assessing the survey responses directly related
to SPARK
PLUS
for each question, 22 students (14 percent) recorded a response of 1 “poor”
to each question. Student comments supported this negative sentiment, including:
“Don’t like SPARK. Wasted my time having to evaluate people and in my opinion,
SPARK wasn’t needed”.
This negative sentiment was not all related to the SPARKinstrument but attributable
to a variety of factors including a lack of student understanding about the importance of
teamwork skills in the “real world” and/or an aversion to group work in general.
12 respondents noted“poor” to the itemrelatingto development of skills for employability
in the post-SPARK instrument. In the qualitative study students noted that:
Group assignments create more hassles than learning accomplishments and group work
should be replaced it’s not fair. Despite intentions to mimic “the real world”, our personal
marks and own money are on the line.
These comments support the evidence fromthe post-SPARKinstrument where students
were above the mean on all items relating to group work and SPARK
PLUS
. It should
be noted that this includes a preference to complete an individual assignment. It would
appear that students understand the importance of group-assessed activities in
developing teamwork skills that will assist themin their future careers but would prefer
not to engage in teamwork for a variety of reasons.
Initial teacher perspectives
From a teacher perspective we devoted considerable time and resources to the
implementation of a group work rubric, SPARK
PLUS
and to ensure that this process was
successful. Whilst there was no systematic data collection of teacher perspectives,
general discussions amongst those involved revealed that teaching teammembers were
disappointed with the survey results. They considered that SPARK
PLUS
would capture a
students’ perception of their contribution and experience, relative to their team,
moderate and convert it to an objective performance measure that would be used
Variable Actual range Mean SD
Post-rating
In your opinion did the use of SPARK assist in the
conduct of group work overall? 1-7 4.20 1.91
In your opinion did group work and the
accompanying assessment assist in the development
of skills for employability? 1-7 4.47 1.56
In your opinion did group work and the
accompanying assessment bene?t your learning in
company accounting? 1-7 4.80 1.60
In company accounting I would have preferred to
complete the assignment by myself 1-7 4.51 2.07
In company accounting I enjoyed using SPARK as
part of the group work assessment process 1-7 3.99 1.83
Notes: n ¼ 157; scale: “1” – poor, “7” – to a great excellent
Table VII.
Descriptive statistics for
the variables in the study
Online self and
peer assessment
233
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
for grading. It appears that this was not communicated clearly enough to students in the
implementation process. Future semesters will include additional resources devoted to
improving teamwork through use of formative SPARK
PLUS
ratings as well as other
teamwork skill resources such as review of minutes and observation; introducing
students to SPARK
PLUS
and the use of the technology, and feedback to students
relating to the teamwork process following assignment submission. Despite the
disappointingresearch ?ndings, teachingteammembers considered the experience with
SPARK
PLUS
froman assurance of learning perspective was generally positive. Within a
large class setting, the system appeared to be an ef?cient and effective means of
generating documentary evidence for accreditation bodies that accounting students had
engaged in learning activities and assessment of teamwork skills.
4. Limitations and future research
A signi?cant limitation of this study, and a valuable lesson for accounting educators,
lies with the peer assessment model itself as a means of assessing and assuring the
learning of team work skills. There is no absolute external standard for teamwork
against which student achievement can be assessed. Assurance of learning data in this
study are collected using a relative standard where achievement is gauged against the
standard within the team. It would be useful in future research to develop a more
robust approach to assess and assure student achievement of teamwork skills. As a
further limitation attached to peer assessment, students may not have the experience to
assess their own teamwork skills and those of their peers. In other words, student
perceptions may not re?ect the objective reality of their teamwork skills. Despite the
majority of students having engaged in teamwork in prior subjects it cannot be
determined what that experience was or what was learned in terms of teamwork
processes. In future research, students should be provided with formalised teamwork
exercises to ensure they are better informed and therefore better equipped to apply
teamwork standards when forming their judgements.
The ?ndings of this study should also be viewed in light of the short time horizon
and preliminary nature of the analysis, response biases and group effects. The survey
instrument concerning students’ attitudes to online SPA was conducted in one
semester that enabled the authors to make preliminary observations. The results of the
paired samples t-tests were based on matched responses in pre- and post-surveys.
In any future surveys where matching of samples is to be performed it is essential that
the scales used and the phraseology of questions/statements is consistent to ensure
there is no effect on respondents interpretations. The study should (and will) be
conducted over several semester offerings of company accounting for three reasons:
to address any immediate issues; to ensure the study’s objectives are met; and that the
results are empirically valid and generalizable. A further limitation may lie in the
method of implementation of the SPARK
PLUS
technology and its presentation to
students for use in teamwork. Further development of these areas is required for
improved implementation in future semesters.
Further research may entail various dimensions of group work previously
documented in the accounting education literature, but which can be applied to the
online SPA model. Studies may include the effect of group size and formation on SPA
results, the effect of online assessment on group dynamics and whether a cooperative
learning environment with SPA improves academic performance to a greater or lesser
ARJ
26,3
234
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
extent than the same environment without this form of assessment. Researchers may
also wish to followthe progress of accounting students after graduation and study their
employers as a means of comparing the graduates’ teamwork skills with those
graduates of the employer who did not encounter comprehensive SPA during their
undergraduate studies.
Researchers may also wish to conduct research into the use of SPARK in facilitating
the group work process. Based on the experience from this exploratory and
preliminary study, further development of the use of the formative SPARK rating
process may provide students with the opportunity to give/receive feedback and hence
uncover and develop relative team skills thereby encouraging their development
during the semester. This may be done using such methods as structured in-class
brie?ngs, discussion of team minutes and/or individual work logs, and observations of
the group at work. Summative assessment of the achievement of teamwork ability
should also be provided to students and their group at the conclusion of the assignment
to communicate with them how they achieved as a group and assist them in continued
development of their team skills.
5. Conclusion
This preliminary study advances our understanding of the implementation and impact
of an online model to assess the teamwork skills of intermediate level accounting
students. This study was motivated by the call of professional and accreditation bodies
for universities to recognise the importance of generic skills in accounting education
and implement a quality assurance framework that demonstrates teaching and
learning activities and assessment of teamwork skills, especially in the context of large
class sizes. The introduction of SPARK
PLUS
facilitated the collection of necessary data
on teamwork skills for assurance of learning purposes and was a means to formally
grade students on their teamwork skills by adjusting the group assignment mark for
each student.
The post-SPARK instrument results and qualitative data suggest that students
understand the bene?ts of groupwork activities in developingtheir technical knowledge
of company accounting. This exploratory study points to the need to understand the
introduction and evaluation of such pedagogical approaches developmentally over time,
bothfor the teachers andthe learners concerned. We note inthis case that students do not
yet understand the connection between group work and generic skills development or
how the SPARK
PLUS
assessment tool supports group work activities. As such, the
?ndings of this study present course convenors with a number of challenges. It would
appear that students require additional group work and SPARK
PLUS
training during
their degree, in particular: the importance of developing teamwork skills in the
“real world” of accounting; the bene?ts of SPA; the descriptors used to assess teamwork
skills; and how and why SPARK
PLUS
adjusts the individual student mark for the group
assignment. Similarly in succeeding implementations, course convenors will be
advantaged by improved expectations of students concerning the assessment
of group work, as well as having the opportunity to build in more re?ective activities
that are possible when students come into a course with a more mature expectation of
group work. Nevertheless, the current study provides a foundation for improving the
design and assessment of group work activities to achieve the generic skills outcomes
required by both professional and accreditation bodies.
Online self and
peer assessment
235
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
References
AACSB (2011), AACSB Business Accreditation Standard 16, available at: www.aacsb.edu/
accreditation/business/standards/aol/standard16.asp (accessed 29 October 2011).
Albrecht, W.S. and Sack, R.J. (2000), Accounting Education: Charting the Course Through a
Perilous Future, American Accounting Association, Sarasota, FL.
Ballantine, J. and Mccourt Larres, P. (2007a), “Cooperative learning: a pedagogy to improve
students’ generic skills?”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 49, pp. 126-137.
Ballantine, J. and Mccourt Larres, P. (2007b), “Final year accounting undergraduates’ attitudes to
group assessment and the role of learning logs”, Accounting Education, Vol. 16, pp. 163-183.
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007), Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student
Does, 3rd ed., Open University Press, Buckingham.
Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. (2007), Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education Learning for the
Longer Term, Routledge, London.
Bryant, S.M. and Albring, S.M. (2006), “Effective team building: guidance for accounting
educators”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 241-265.
Clinton, B.D. and Kohlmeyer, J.M. III (2005), “The effects of group quizzes on performance and
motivation to learn: two experiments in cooperative learning”, Journal of Accounting
Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 96-116.
Cottell, P.G. Jr and Millis, B.J. (1992), “Cooperative learning in accounting”, Journal of Accounting
Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 95-111.
Falchikov, N. and Magin, D. (1997), “Detecting gender bias in peer marking of students’ group
process work”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 385-396.
Freeman, M. (1995), “Peer assessment by groups of group work”, Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 289-300.
Freeman, M. and McKenzie, J. (2002), “Implementing and evaluating SPARK, a con?dential
web-based template for self and peer assessment of student teamwork: bene?ts of evaluating
across different subjects”, BritishJournal of Educational Technology, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 553-572.
Freeman, M., Willey, K., Thompson, D. and Howard, M. (2011), SPARK
plus
online software,
University of Technology, Sydney, available at: http://spark.uts.edu.au/
Gammie, E. and Matson, M. (2007), “Group assessment at ?nal degree level: an evaluation”,
Accounting Education, Vol. 16, pp. 185-206.
Gibbs, G. (2009), The Assessment of Group Work: Lessons fromthe Literature, available at: www.
brookes.ac.uk/aske/documents/Brookes%20groupwork%20Gibbs%20Dec%2009.pdf
(accessed 20 August 2012).
Gold?nch, J. (1994), “Further developments in peer assessment of group projects”, Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 29-35.
Habeshaw, S., Gibbs, G. and Habeshaw, T. (1993), 53 Interesting Ways to Assess Your Students,
3rd ed., Technical and Education Services Ltd, Bristol.
Hackman, J.R. (1983), ANormative Model of Work TeamEffectiveness (Tech. Rep. No. 2), Yale School
of Organization and Management, New Haven, CT, cited in Reddy, W.B. (1994), Intervention
Skills, Process Consultation for Small Groups and Teams, Pfeiffer & Co, San Diego, CA.
Hancock, P., Howieson, B., Kavanagh, M., Kent, J., Tempone, I. and Segal, N. (2009), “Accounting
for the future: more than numbers: a collaborative investigation into the changing skill set
for professional accounting graduates over the next ten years and strategies for
embedding such skills into professional accounting programs”, available at: www.altc.
edu.au/resource-accounting-future-more-uwa-2009 (accessed 20 August 2012).
ARJ
26,3
236
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
ICAA and CPA (2009), Professional Accreditation Guidelines for Higher Education Programs,
available at: www.cpaaustralia.com.au/cps/rde/xbcr/cpa-site/Professional_accreditation_
guidelines_for_higher_education_programs.pdf (accessed 29 October 2011).
Jackling, B. and De Lange, P. (2009), “Do accounting graduates’ skills meet the expectations of
employers? A matter of convergence and divergence”, Accounting Education, Vol. 18
Nos 14/5, pp. 369-385.
Johnson, C.B. and Smith, F.I. (1997), “Assessment of a complex peer evaluation instrument for
team learning and group processes”, Accounting Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R. and Smith, K. (2007), “The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary
and professional settings”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Kavanagh, M. and Drennan, L. (2008), “What skills and attributes does an accounting graduate
need? Evidence from student perceptions and employer expectations”, Accounting &
Finance, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 279-300.
Kavanagh, M., Sargent, L., Caspersz, D. and Levak, N. (2012), “Business education in the
21st century: examining the antecedents and consequences of student team virtuality”,
Australian Government Of?ce for Learning Teaching, available at: www.olt.
gov.au/project-business-education-21st-century-usq-2008 (accessed 20 August 2012).
Lejk, M. and Wyvill, M. (2001), “Peer assessment of contributions to a group project:
a comparison of holistic and category-based approaches”, Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 61-72.
Lejk, M., Wyvill, M. and Farrow, S. (1996), “A survey of methods of deriving individual grades
from group assessments”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 267-280.
McConnell, C.A. and Sasse, C.M. (1999), “An anticipatory case for managing teams and team
projects”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 41-54.
Mahenthiran, S. and Rouse, P.J. (2000), “The impact of group selection on student performance
and satisfaction”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 255-265.
Michaelsen, L., Knight, A. and Fink, L.D. (2004), Team-based Learning: A Transformative Use of
Small Groups in College Teaching, Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA.
Miglietti, C. (2002), “Using cooperative small groups in introductory accounting classes:
a practical approach”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 111-115.
Oliver, B. (2011), “Assuring graduate capabilities”, ALTC Good Practice Guide, available at:
www.altc.edu.au/system/?les/resources/Assuring%20graduate%20outcomes.%
20ALTC%20Good%20practice%20report.%20Oliver%2C%20B%202011.pdf (accessed
13 January 2012).
Pratt, D. (1997), “Reconceptualizing the evaluation of teaching in higher education”, Higher
Education, Vol. 34, pp. 23-44.
Race, P. (2007), The Lecturer’s Toolkit: A Practical Guide to Assessment, Learning and Teaching,
3rd ed., Routledge, London.
Rhodes, T. (Ed.) (2010), Assessing Outcomes and Improving Achievement: Tips and
Tools for Using Rubrics, Association of American Colleges and Universities,
Washington, DC.
Robinson, D.H. and Walker, J.D. (2008), “Technological alternatives to paper-based
components of team based learning”, New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
Vol. 116, pp. 79-85.
Online self and
peer assessment
237
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Taylor, T., Thompson, D., Clements, L., Simpson, L., Paltridge, A., Fletcher, M., Freeman, M.,
Treleaven, L., Lawson, R. and Rohde, F. (2009), “Facilitating staff and student engagement
with graduate attribute development, assessment and standards in business faculties”,
Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Final Report, available at: www.olt.
gov.au/project-facilitating-staff-student-uts-2007 (accessed 27 September 2012).
Thompson, D. and McGregor, I. (2009), “Online self- and peer-assessment for groupwork”,
EducationþTraining, Vol. 51 Nos 5/6, pp. 434-447.
Thompson, D., Treleaven, L., Kamvounias, P., Beem, B. and Hill, E. (2008), “Integrating graduate
attributes with assessment criteria in business education using an online assessment
system”, Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 34-48.
Willey, K. and Freeman, M. (2006), “Improving teamwork and engagement: the case for self and
peer assessment”, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, available at: www.aaee.
com.au/journal/2006/willey0106.pdf (accessed 27 September 2012).
Corresponding author
Deborah Anne Delaney can be contacted at: d.delaney@grif?th.edu.au
ARJ
26,3
238
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_656781746.pdf
The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the implementation of an online self
and peer assessment model (SPARKPLUS) to assess team work skills of accounting students.
Accounting Research Journal
Online self and peer assessment of team work in accounting education
Deborah Anne Delaney Marty Fletcher Craig Cameron Kerry Bodle
Article information:
To cite this document:
Deborah Anne Delaney Marty Fletcher Craig Cameron Kerry Bodle , (2013),"Online self and peer
assessment of team work in accounting education", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 222 -
238
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARJ -04-2012-0029
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 21:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 40 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 876 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Karol Marek Klimczak, Grzegorz Szafranski, (2013),"Coincident and forecast relevance of accounting
numbers", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 239-255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
ARJ -09-2012-0076
Nik Nazli Nik Ahmad, Maliah Sulaiman, (2013),"Case studies in a passive learning environment: some
Malaysian evidence", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 173-196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
ARJ -10-2012-0082
Patti Cybinski, Carolyn Windsor, (2013),"Remuneration committee independence and CEO remuneration
for firm financial performance", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 197-221 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARJ -08-2012-0068
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
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.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Online self and peer assessment
of team work in accounting
education
Deborah Anne Delaney
Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics,
Grif?th University, Gold Coast, Australia
Marty Fletcher
Department of International Business and Asian Studies,
Grif?th University, Gold Coast, Australia, and
Craig Cameron and Kerry Bodle
Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics,
Grif?th University, Gold Coast, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the implementation of an online self
and peer assessment model (SPARK
PLUS
) to assess team work skills of accounting students.
Design/methodology/approach – This study describes the background and implementation of
SPARK
PLUS
and employs a survey questionnaire administered to students enrolled in an
undergraduate company accounting subject before and after the implementation of the model. The
survey results and selected qualitative data are used to evaluate students’ attitudes to group work and
the impact of SPARK
PLUS
.
Findings – The study suggests that students understand the bene?ts of group work activities in
developing their technical knowledge in company accounting. However, students do not appreciate the
value of group work activities in developing generic skills or how SPARK
PLUS
supports group work
activities.
Practical implications – Professional and accreditation bodies require evidence of teaching and
learning activities and assessment of team work skills during the students’ undergraduate accounting
degree. This study demonstrates that students require signi?cant teaching and learning activities in
relation to team work skills and the assessment model for successful implementation.
Originality/value – This study makes an original contribution to the accounting education
literature pertaining to assessment of team work skills in two respects. First, the study outlines the
design, implementation and preliminary evaluation of an online self and peer assessment model in an
undergraduate company accounting course. Second, preliminary evidence concerning the impact of
this model on group work activities and team work skills is provided.
Keywords Teamwork, Accounting education, Accreditation, Assurance of learning, Generic skills,
Peer assessment
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
Teamwork, also described as the ability to work in groups, is a generic skill demanded
by employers but not necessarily acquired by accounting students during their higher
education experience. Employers of accounting graduates require more than just
technical skills but a range of generic skills such as team skills, leadership,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1030-9616.htm
Accounting Research Journal
Vol. 26 No. 3, 2013
pp. 222-238
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1030-9616
DOI 10.1108/ARJ-04-2012-0029
ARJ
26,3
222
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
oral communication, interpersonal skills and business awareness or real life experience
(Albrecht and Sack, 2000; Kavanagh and Drennan, 2008; Jackling and De Lange, 2009).
In particular, employers have criticised the focus of accounting education on content
knowledge and not creative types of learning which foster generic skills including
teamwork (Albrecht and Sack, 2000; Ballantine and Mccourt Larres, 2007b;
Hancock et al., 2009).
Professional bodies have recognised the importance of generic skills in accounting
education by establishing criteria that require universities to include generic skills in the
curriculum (ICAA and CPA, 2009; the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB), 2011). For example, the CPA/ICAA Professional Accreditation
Guidelines for Higher Education Programs requires higher education providers “to
clearly articulate their objectives and demonstrate that quality assurance systems are in
place to ensure that these objectives are achieved” (ICAA and CPA, 2009, para. 1.12).
Teaching and learning activities that include generic skills such as interpersonal,
leadership and the ability to work effectively in groups are regarded as essential
components of the quality assurance framework. Submissions for accreditation must
explain how these generic skills are assessed within the curriculum (ICAA and CPA,
2009, para. 1.2.1). Similarly the Association to AACSB, an internationally recognised
accreditationfor business andaccounting programs, requires tertiaryinstitutions to have
a quality assurance framework that speci?es learning goals for general, management
speci?c and/or discipline-speci?c knowledge and skills (i.e. generic skills), and howthey
are achieved in the undergraduate degree program. Assessment, if properly designed, is
intended to demonstrate that the learning goals are being met (AACSB, 2011).
It is in this assurance of learning context that an online model was introduced to
facilitate the assessment of teamwork skills of accounting students. Online self and peer
assessment (SPA) is not a new phenomenon with various models being described and
evaluated in the literature (Freeman and McKenzie, 2002; Thompson and McGregor,
2009; Kavanagh et al., 2012). This paper makes an original contribution to the literature
bystudyingvarious student attitudes to groupworkbefore andafter the implementation
of an online tool known as Self and Peer Assessment Resource Kit (SPARK
PLUS
) in a
second year undergraduate company accounting course at an Australian university.
The paper also provides initial teacher insight and preliminary evaluation of SPAdesign
and implementation of this online model. We suggest that this may provide valuable
lessons for accounting educators faced with the task of assuring external stakeholders of
student learning in teamwork skills.
The next section examines the literature on group work assessment with particular
attention paid to peer assessment strategies and criteria. Following the literature
review, we provide a case study that includes a background to and implementation of
SPARK
PLUS
, and an evaluation by students (through a brief pre and post study) and
teaching staff of its ?rst use in the company accounting course. The paper concludes
with a discussion of the limitations and potential for future research into peer
assessment strategies and processes.
2. Literature review
Teacher assessment of group work
Assessment of group work may be conducted in one or more of the following three ways:
the individual student completing the group work activity (self-assessment); the student’s
Online self and
peer assessment
223
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
peers in that group (peer assessment); and the teacher. Self-assessment is where the
students evaluate their own contribution to the group work activity. This can be contrasted
with peer assessment where it is the group members who evaluate the contribution of
individual group members to the group. Finally, the teacher may assess the group work
utilising either the group only or “mixed-incentive” models (Bryant and Albring, 2006).
With the group only model, the teacher assigns a single grade to the entire group. The
varying contributions of group members are disregarded, thereby discouraging individual
accountability, with the ?nal output assessed and not the teamwork process used to
produce the ?nal output. This mayleadto grade in?ationas “individual weaknesses tendto
be coveredup bythe strengths of other group members” (Habeshawet al., 1993, p. 93). With
the group only model, students may complete the group project but not function as a team.
Under a mixed-incentive model, the individual’s ?nal grade is effectively a
combination of a group mark andindividual mark. To achieve individual accountability,
the design and assessment of the group work project must ensure that each group
member is held responsible for their contribution (Cottell Jr and Millis, 1992;
Johnson et al., 2007). This discourages “free riders” and “workhorses” (Clinton and
Kohlmeyer III, 2005, p. 98) and fosters the skills associated with a “team”, which can be
distinguished from a group (Hackman, 1983).
Clear accountability regimes are necessary to ensure students are motivated to take
advantage of opportunities to learn as they contribute to a group project and
simultaneously develop, demonstrate, and re?ect upon teamwork skills at both
individual and collective levels. A more speci?c assessment structure leverages the
range of motivation types across diverse group members. The students who are
extrinsically motivated to dominate the group for fear of underachieving desired grades
will be less likely to dominate and con?ict with other group members, whereas, students
who are intrinsically motivated to contribute will be less exploited by social loafers.
Peer assessment of group work
Peer assessment and SPA strategies have been variously recommended (Boud and
Falchikov, 2007) and used (Freeman, 1995; Michaelsen et al., 2004) in tertiary education.
The assessment criteria may be negotiated between group members or set by the
teacher (Habeshaw et al., 1993). A variety of peer assessment strategies have been
documented in the literature including:
.
Multiplying the group mark by an individual weighting factor derived from the
assessment criteria completed by the student’s peers (Gold?nch, 1994).
.
Multiplying the group mark by the number of students and asking the students
to distribute the marks between themselves, with or without set assessment
criteria (Lejk et al., 1996). For example, a teacher awards a grade of 60 percent for
a group project produced by a group of ?ve students, allocates 300 marks to the
group and asks the group based on an assessment criteria to allocate the
300 marks amongst themselves (Habeshaw et al., 1993).
.
A group mark plus or minus a mark for contribution using set assessment
criteria (Habeshaw et al., 1993; Lejk et al., 1996).
.
A combination of a group mark (the ?nal output) and a mark for group work
(the process) derived from peer assessment criteria, with the split not necessarily
being 50/50 (Lejk et al., 1996).
ARJ
26,3
224
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The most common peer assessment strategy involves some form of adjustment to the
group mark for each individual based on an assessment of contribution by their peers.
We identi?ed four peer assessment models in the accounting education literature that
adjusted individual grades ( Johnson and Smith, 1997; McConnell and Sasse, 1999;
Mahenthiran and Rouse, 2000; Miglietti, 2002). Whilst their application varied, each
peer assessment model was completed in hard copy form, used a point allocation
system to distinguish the performance of group members and had “contribution” as
one criterion for assessment. With the exception of Johnson and Smith (1997), our
initial concern with the peer assessment models is their over emphasis on contribution.
Each model appears to be an effective reward/punishment mechanism, which
encourages students to engage in group work activities and thereby improve their
teamwork skills. We suggest requires more comprehensive and prescriptive criteria for
assessing students’ teamwork skills for assurance of learning purposes.
The literature on the implementation of peer assessment strategies is divided into two
main ?elds: the bene?ts to learners and reliability and validity issues (Boud and
Falchikov, 2007, p. 132). As SPARK
PLUS
was used as a means of collecting data and
assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning purposes, our focus is on issues of
reliability and validity of strategies and methods aimed at assessing and evaluating
students’ group work skills and performances. Peer assessed grades may cluster around
an average and students may feel uncomfortable about criticising their colleagues
(Ballantine and Mccourt Larres, 2007a, p. 167). Further, students may be too critical or
generous about other group members (Gold?nch, 1994) and gender bias may exist
(Falchikov and Magin, 1997). There is also the possibility of grade in?ation, that is,
the relationships developed in the cooperative learning environment may encourage
students to give peers higher evaluations which do not re?ect their actual performance
( Johnson and Smith, 1997). This can be contrasted with Gibbs’ review of the peer
assessment literature, which suggests that peer assessment marks are no more or less
reliable thanteachers’ marks, albeit that reliabilitycanbe affected bythe number of peers
(Gibbs, 2009). Race (2007) has also reported that average student assessments against
criteria closely resemble the actual marks givenbytutors (within 0.5 standarddeviation).
Despite its potential hazards, peer assessment was our preferred form of assessing
teamwork skills on the basis that “students who have been part of the team process are
best positioned to evaluate individual contribution within their own group” (Gammie
and Matson, 2007). The alternative to peer assessment of teamwork skills – instructor
monitoring – would be resource intensive and simply not feasible in large classes
(Thompson and McGregor, 2009). Further, there is no guarantee of instructor
objectiveness and their presence may alter student behaviour in a way that negatively
affects the group environment.
SPA criteria
Criteria-based SPAis well described in the higher education literature (Michaelsen et al.,
2004; Thompson et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2009). Lejk and Wyvill (2001) con?rmed that
criterion-based approaches to peer assessment of group contributions are more
discriminating than holistic scoring, although they argue that both formative and
holistic approaches have merit. Race (2007) recommended the use of self-assessment
strategies based upon explicit criteria. Recently, the impetus for using explicit criteria
in assessment has been the need to accumulate measures of higher order learning goals
Online self and
peer assessment
225
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
that may be constructively aligned (Biggs and Tang, 2007) with contextualised and
speci?c assessment task criteria for assurance of learning purposes. This recent
development has led to a proliferation of recommended generic rubrics (Rhodes, 2010;
Oliver, 2011) that are descriptive of student performance across a range of broad
outcome categories, including teamwork and group communication. The performance
level descriptors for each criterion in the rubric are adaptable to various evaluative
purposes, including threshold standards for assurance of learning as well as
categorised marking and grading of individual students.
3. Case study: SPARK
PLUS
in company accounting
Background – assurance of learning
Accreditation was the key driver behind the adoption of criterion based SPA of
teamwork skills in company accounting. The “ability to work effectively in groups”
(teamwork) was a program learning objective (PLO) of the undergraduate accounting
degree as part of the AACSBassurance of learning process. The university was required
to demonstrate that one or more of the accounting courses included teaching and
learning activities and assessment of teamwork (one of many PLOs) for accreditation
purposes. A strategic review of the accounting degree (strategic review) entailed the
mapping of the accounting curriculum against the PLOs. This curriculum mapping
exercise identi?ed a “gap” in the teaching and assessment of teamwork skills.
Company accounting, a second year undergraduate accounting course, was selected to
develop and implement a formal mandatory group assessment item. Although the
course already had a group assignment, it was de?cient both in assessment and design
from an accreditation perspective. Previously group formation was optional. No peer
assessment existed as students self-assessed their group work skills using a rubric,
and the group only model of assessment lacked the individual accountability demanded
of a cooperative learning environment.
A short survey of the company accounting cohort was also undertaken in the
semester prior to the implementation of SPARK
PLUS
to gauge student attitudes towards
group work. The survey included three questions that students responded to on a seven
point Likert scale ranging from (1) “not at all” to (7) “to a great extent”. These questions
focussed on the students’ attitudes towards group-assessed activities as an aid to
learning, their preference for individual assessment and their opinion as to how group
work would provide skills useful for their future working life. A summary of the
demographic data is provided inTable I. The average student age was just over 24 years.
The gender of the sample was weighted to female students, with most students of
Australian nationality and had completed year 12 as the highest education level.
The descriptive statistics are included in Tables II and III. The results show that
for the ?rst question relating to group work providing assistance to learning, the
93 students surveyed rated the item around the mid-point of the mean (3.95). As shown
in Table III, despite the mean (3.95) being around the mid-point, 22.6 percent of
students responded by rating 1 and 2 suggesting that they are sceptical that group
work would assist their learning. At the other end of the scale 15.1 percent of students
rated 6 and 7, and therefore thought group work would be helpful. Question 2 relating
to a preference for individual assessment has a mean of 4.98, with 49.5 percent of
students rating a 6 and 7 suggesting that students have a preference for individual
assessment. Question 3 relates to the bene?t of group work in a students working life
ARJ
26,3
226
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Demographic characteristic Total sample (n ¼ 93)
Age
Mean 24.47 years
Minimum 18 years
Maximum 53 years
Gender
Female 64
Male 29
Nationality
Australian 53
Chinese 11
Korean 5
Other 24
Education level
Year 12 51
TAFE 34
Other 8
Degree
Accounting 67
Finance 1
Economics 1
Double major 23
Undecided 1
Table I.
Demographic data
of the sample
Variable Actual range Mean SD
To what extent have you experienced group
assessed activities as an aid to learning 1-7 3.95 1.49
In 2103AFE I would prefer to be assessed individually
rather than in a group scenario 1-7 4.98 1.81
To what extent will working in a group provide
you with skills that can be used in your future
working life? 2-7 4.87 1.31
Notes: n ¼ 93; scale: “1” – not at all, “7” – to a great extent
Table II.
Descriptive statistics for
variables in the
background study
Frequency percentage
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent have you experienced group
assessed activities as an aid to learning 3.2 19.4 11.8 30.1 20.4 10.8 4.3
In 2103AFE I would prefer to be assessed individually
rather than in a group scenario 5.4 6.5 8.6 19.4 10.8 23.7 25.8
To what extent will working in a group provide
you with skills that can be used in your future
working life? 0 5.4 9.7 21.5 29.0 24.7 9.7
Notes: n ¼ 93; scale: “1” – not at all, “7” – to a great extent
Table III.
Frequency of responses
to variables in the
background study
Online self and
peer assessment
227
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
with a mean of 4.87 comprising 34.4 percent of students recording a rating of 6 and 7
and 15.1 percent recording a rating of 1 and 2. This suggests that most students appear
to recognise the bene?ts of group work to their future working life.
The results suggest that students were sceptical that group work would assist their
learning and that they preferred individual assessment. However, students did
acknowledge that group work would bene?t them in their future working life.
These ?ndings con?rmed our understanding of students’ attitudes to group work
identi?ed during the strategic review. It appears that although students understand that
group work will equip students with the skills required in future work life, they are not
convinced that this will assist them in their university studies. SPARK
PLUS
was
implemented in company accounting in the following semester as an appropriate model
for facilitating SPA and collecting data on teamwork skills for assurance of learning.
SPARK
PLUS
In previous offerings of the company accounting course, students who elected to form
groups self-assessed their teamwork skills using a paper-based rubric. The rubric
described standards of performance on a ?ve-point scale from “excellent” to
“unsatisfactory” for the following ?ve criterion: working cooperatively; con?ict
resolution; leveraging group member skills; time management and equity. Student
completion of the rubric was a condition of submitting their assignment, but student
grades were not adjusted on account of their self-assessment. Paper-based instruments
generate administrative challenges, especially in contexts where there are large student
numbers such as the company accounting cohort (Thompson and McGregor, 2009).
With consideration to this scale, the necessity of technology solutions to support peer
ratings procedures was apparent (Willey and Freeman, 2006; Robinson and Walker,
2008; Kavanagh et al., 2012). The use of an online system for recording perceived
performances of self and peers reinforces to students that in contemporary workplaces,
work can be progressed virtually as well as face-to-face. This supports the development
of teamwork skills both in-class as well as out-of-the-classroom environment. One such
solution is the peer evaluation form published in Kavanagh et al. (2012) relating to
student teamvirtuality. Students completing a virtual group project conducted peer and
self-assessment using an electronic peer evaluation form, which included criterion on
teamwork skills as well as quantity and quality of the students’ work, in order to provide
“individualised grading for teamwork” (Kavanagh et al., 2012, p. 48). Following a review
of the peer evaluation forms, the teacher awarded a markrepresenting upto 20 percent of
the overall assignment mark.
SPARK is a widely used online SPA application, which has been described and
evaluated in the literature (Freeman and McKenzie, 2002; Thompson and
McGregor, 2009). Thompson and McGregor (2009) not only describe the
implementation of SPARK in their business and design courses and evaluate its
bene?ts but also assess student results generated by SPARK. Since these studies, a new
andimprovedSPARKsystemhas beendevelopedknown as SPARK
PLUS
(Freemanet al.,
2011). This paper makes an original contribution to the existing literature by: describing
the implementation of SPARK
PLUS
in the context of an assurance of learning process;
providing a preliminary study of student attitudes towards group work before and after
the implementation of SPARK
PLUS
; and revealing the issues, both from a teacher and
student perspective, concerning its implementation.
ARJ
26,3
228
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Design of assessment criteria
In assessing group work there is a need to award marks separately for both achievement
of intended cognitive outcomes of a group project (by the group as a whole), as well as to
identify varying individual contributions to group outcomes and the achievement of
teamwork skills (by distinct individual members). SPARK
PLUS
provides a sophisticated
scoring of this combined achievement, by individualizing the teamwork skill
achievement component (SPA factor), which is used to modify overall cognitive group
project marks, thereby recognizing the overall achievement of individual andgroupwith
a more reliable measure which can be used both formatively and summatively.
Table IV sets out the criteria and the associated descriptors for SPARK
PLUS
.
The SPARK
PLUS
assessment framework was developed following a review of the
paper-basedrubric bythe universitycurriculumconsultant who hadextensive experience
with implementing teamwork skills assessment criteria in business courses. There were
?ve SPARK ratings for each descriptor: “well above average”; “above average”;
“average”; “below average” and “well below average” placed progressively at 20 point
intervals on a continuous 100 point scale and weighted equally. Students do not have the
opportunityto modifyor add descriptors as assurance of learning dictates that the criteria
for assessing team work skills is consistent. The descriptors provide, in our opinion, a
more detailed assessment of teamwork skills than previous peer assessment models
referred to in the accounting education literature ( Johnson and Smith, 1997; McConnell
and Sasse, 1999; Mahenthiran and Rouse, 2000; Miglietti, 2002). Our design of the SPA
criteria also differs fromwhat could be described as a traditional rubric model adopted in
previous studies including Kavanagh et al. (2012) where standards of performance are
described for each criterion (“Kavanagh assessment”). Like the Kavanagh
assessment, teamwork skills represent the criteria being assessed. Unlike the
Kavanagh assessment, our model provides multiple descriptors attached to each
criterion, with students self and peer assessing each descriptor. Further, the notion of
“contribution” is contextualised. For example, the descriptor “makes contribution
accordingtoagreedgroupschedule” is attachedtothe teamworkskill “workcooperatively
Criterion Descriptors
Work cooperatively and time management 1. Able to listen
2. Shares information
3. Provided leadership
4. Organised and ef?cient
5. Makes contribution according to agreed group
schedule
Con?ict resolution 1. Manages con?ict effectively and constructively
2. Works towards positive resolutions to group
issues
Leveraging group member skills 1. Respects each group member’s skills and
strengths
2. Balances own skills and strengths with overall
group to achieve best possible group outcomes
Values and equity 1. Respectful of diversity of group member values,
knowledge and experience
2. Made a fair contribution to the overall workload
Table IV.
SPARK criteria and
descriptors
Online self and
peer assessment
229
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
and time management”. We contend that contextualising contribution improves
the assessment model from an assurance of learning perspective as students better
appreciate the connection between quantity and quality of the output and speci?c
teamwork skills. It is important that students recognise that the grading model is seeking
to support the development of teamwork skills as its main objective as well as providing a
measure of accountability for the students’ contribution to the group project.
Implementation of SPARK
PLUS
Prior to the implementation of SPARK
PLUS
a one-hour orientation session was
delivered by the Curriculum Consultant as part of the weekly lecture. The formal part
of this presentation took approximately 15 minutes with the remaining time used in
addressing students concerns. The rationale for using SPA was discussed, and
students had a chance to express their views on group assessment. Students were then
briefed on the criteria and what they should be looking for in their own and peers’
performances. Then the procedures for logging on to the system and completing the
ratings were demonstrated. The computations of the SPA ratings and their impact on
the individual’s ?nal mark were explained. All this information was also made
available via pages on the course learning management system web site.
In addition, students were asked to do a “formative” rating shortly after their
groups were formed. The purpose of the formative rating was introductory, procedural
and pedagogical. The introductory and procedural purposes were to ensure that
students could access the system via correct account details, and to check that all
students’ group membership details were correct. Pedagogically this ?rst rating
experience was used to form students’ awareness that through summative mandatory
ratings, group work was an inescapable requirement with a transparent and equitable
outcome showing a relationship between individual contributions and recognition in
terms of marks. Formative feedback to support development of teamwork skills and
summative assessment of the achievement of teamwork ability is provided in the ?rst
rating, which was labeled “formative”. Although data from this ?rst iteration of self
and peer ratings is not applied to any formal marks, it is a re?ective opportunity for
students to see how their contributions are being noted and perceived by other group
members. It helps them to realise before it is too late that there is accountability at the
individual level. It also provides data at a point in time where the teaching team still
has the opportunity to intervene for a team that is either idle or dysfunctional.
Students completed their summative SPARK
PLUS
ratings after their group
assignment was completed. The SPARK
PLUS
system generated a SPA factor, the
normalised average across all criteria of all self and peer ratings, which was used to
redistribute the marks achieved at the group level to the individuals (see Figure 1,
excerpted from student support materials).
Figure 1.
Illustration of the
calculation of adjusted
group mark
ARJ
26,3
230
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
By normalising the average around the threshold of 1.0, SPA factors above 1.0
represent an above average performance relative to other group members, while
factors below 1.0 represent performance at less than average. Note that the self-rating
carries equal weight with peer ratings, however the software also provides a measure
whereby the self-rating can be compared with the peer ratings, allowing the teaching
team to identify cases where the individual may be trying to game the system if he/she
expects poor peer ratings or where a student has an in?ated view of their own and
others’ contributions. In these cases, the system allows for the recalculation of the SPA
factor excluding the self-rating. If there are at least three students in a group, the marks
are anonymous. With two student groups, there is no real anonymity possible.
For assurance of learning purposes, the data were then examined and aggregated at
the criterion level, with categorisation into each of the four criteria groupings based on
the original paper-based rubric. The data were then presented to the course and
program teams in chart form, for discussion and reporting in the “closing the loop”
stage of the assurance of learning process.
Student evaluation
A separate pre and post-rating instrument to the standard university student
evaluation of teaching and student evaluation of course instrument was completed by
company accounting students in the ?rst semester in which SPARK
PLUS
was
implemented. Students were asked to provide their student number or name as an
identi?er for matching purposes for each of the pre- and post-surveys. This identi?er
was deleted once matching of surveys using the SPSS statistical computer program
was completed. The instrument was designed to collect information about “what was
taught and what was learned, the value of that learning, and the effects of learning
upon student learning” (Pratt, 1997, p. 35). Two questions were included in the pre- and
post-rating instrument that focussed on the students’ attitude to group assessment and
the fairness of group work.
In terms of demographics, 32 students (20.4 percent) have used SPARK
PLUS
when
completing group work in another course, while 126 students (80.3 percent) have been
involved in group work in a prior course. This would indicate that while the majority of
students have experience in teamwork most have not used SPARK
PLUS
. It is noted
however that although the majority of students have not used SPARK
PLUS
for SPAthey
may have used other manual or computer based forms of peer assessment or SPA.
Student ratings may therefore have been in?uenced by such other previous experiences.
Students responded on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “very
negative/poor” to (7) “very positive/excellent”. The post-rating questions in the
instrument focussed on the impact of SPARK
PLUS
on a range of attitudes related to
group work and consistent with the SPARK criteria used (Table IV). Paired samples
t-tests were conducted on the matched responses to assess any changes in their
opinions. The results are provided in Table V. A signi?cant difference was found on
the question in regard to attitude to group work (t ¼ 21.771; p ¼ 0.079) suggesting
students perceived that there were bene?ts from engaging in the SPARK program.
The ?nal survey resulted in 157 useable responses. Table VI includes the descriptive
statistics resulting from the post-rating section of the survey instrument. These results
show that for all questions, students rated the items in each category around the
midpoint to the mean. Notably the responses to the use of SPARK
PLUS
show that
Online self and
peer assessment
231
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
students rated their enjoyment in using this program as below the midpoint to
the mean. This may be explained by the fact that students may feel uncomfortable
about criticising their peers (Ballantine and Mccourt Larres, 2007b) or a lack of
understanding about the operation and bene?ts of SPARK
PLUS
. This is illustrated
through the demographic data relating to the SPARK
PLUS
implementation that shows
that although 80.3 percent of students had previous experience in group work, only
20.3 percent had previous experience in using SPARK
PLUS
.
By comparing the mean points of the survey results collated in the strategic review
prior to the introduction of SPARK
PLUS
(as presented in Table II) (the pre-SPARK
instrument) with the results after the implementation of SPARK
PLUS
(the post-SPARK
instrument) presented in Table VII, a number of observations can be made. First in
relation to group work as an aid to learning, the pre-SPARKinstrument showed a mean
below the mid-point (mean ¼ 3.95) compared with the post-SPARK instrument
(mean ¼ 4.80). Second, in relation to student’s preference for completing the assignment
individually, the mean has declined from the pre-SPARK instrument (mean ¼ 4.98) to
the post-SPARK instrument implementation survey (mean ¼ 4.51). These results
suggest that by formalising the group work process and assessing teamwork skills,
students see a bene?t to their learning and are more willing to undertake group work.
Finally, in comparing the mean scores for the use of group work in the development of
employability skills, there was a decrease noted in the mean scores fromthe pre-SPARK
instrument (mean ¼ 4.87) to the post-SPARK instrument (mean ¼ 4.47). This small
change in mean score may indicate that the development of group work skills was not
emphasised in terms of providing the link between the process being undertaken and
“real life” at the time of assignment submission.
The above results were supported by comments made by students as part of the
post-SPARKinstrument. Students appeared to understand the use of group work and the
implementationof the SPARK
PLUS
to facilitate teamworkskills with comments including:
I think the SPARKsystemis a great way to get the group working as a team, as it assists them
as to how to work in a group and really helpful tool to assist the performance of group work.
Opinion questions t-value Two-tailed sig.
Attitude to group assessment 21.771 0.079
*
Fairness of group work 21.430 0.155
Notes: Signi?cant at:
*
p ¼ 0.10; n ¼ 157; scale: “1” – not at all, “7” – to a great extent
Table V.
Student perceptions of
group work (pre versus
post survey)
Demographic characteristic Total sample (n ¼ 157) Percentage of total sample (%)
Previous experience in group work
Yes 126 80.3
No 31 19.7
Previous experience in using SPARK
Yes 32 20.3
No 125 79.7
Table VI.
Demographic data
of the SPARK
implementation sample
ARJ
26,3
232
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
SPARK
PLUS
was also recognised as a means to minimise the free rider problem
supported by the comment: “it’s a good way to punish those guys who are not really
engaged in the assessment”. However, in assessing the survey responses directly related
to SPARK
PLUS
for each question, 22 students (14 percent) recorded a response of 1 “poor”
to each question. Student comments supported this negative sentiment, including:
“Don’t like SPARK. Wasted my time having to evaluate people and in my opinion,
SPARK wasn’t needed”.
This negative sentiment was not all related to the SPARKinstrument but attributable
to a variety of factors including a lack of student understanding about the importance of
teamwork skills in the “real world” and/or an aversion to group work in general.
12 respondents noted“poor” to the itemrelatingto development of skills for employability
in the post-SPARK instrument. In the qualitative study students noted that:
Group assignments create more hassles than learning accomplishments and group work
should be replaced it’s not fair. Despite intentions to mimic “the real world”, our personal
marks and own money are on the line.
These comments support the evidence fromthe post-SPARKinstrument where students
were above the mean on all items relating to group work and SPARK
PLUS
. It should
be noted that this includes a preference to complete an individual assignment. It would
appear that students understand the importance of group-assessed activities in
developing teamwork skills that will assist themin their future careers but would prefer
not to engage in teamwork for a variety of reasons.
Initial teacher perspectives
From a teacher perspective we devoted considerable time and resources to the
implementation of a group work rubric, SPARK
PLUS
and to ensure that this process was
successful. Whilst there was no systematic data collection of teacher perspectives,
general discussions amongst those involved revealed that teaching teammembers were
disappointed with the survey results. They considered that SPARK
PLUS
would capture a
students’ perception of their contribution and experience, relative to their team,
moderate and convert it to an objective performance measure that would be used
Variable Actual range Mean SD
Post-rating
In your opinion did the use of SPARK assist in the
conduct of group work overall? 1-7 4.20 1.91
In your opinion did group work and the
accompanying assessment assist in the development
of skills for employability? 1-7 4.47 1.56
In your opinion did group work and the
accompanying assessment bene?t your learning in
company accounting? 1-7 4.80 1.60
In company accounting I would have preferred to
complete the assignment by myself 1-7 4.51 2.07
In company accounting I enjoyed using SPARK as
part of the group work assessment process 1-7 3.99 1.83
Notes: n ¼ 157; scale: “1” – poor, “7” – to a great excellent
Table VII.
Descriptive statistics for
the variables in the study
Online self and
peer assessment
233
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
for grading. It appears that this was not communicated clearly enough to students in the
implementation process. Future semesters will include additional resources devoted to
improving teamwork through use of formative SPARK
PLUS
ratings as well as other
teamwork skill resources such as review of minutes and observation; introducing
students to SPARK
PLUS
and the use of the technology, and feedback to students
relating to the teamwork process following assignment submission. Despite the
disappointingresearch ?ndings, teachingteammembers considered the experience with
SPARK
PLUS
froman assurance of learning perspective was generally positive. Within a
large class setting, the system appeared to be an ef?cient and effective means of
generating documentary evidence for accreditation bodies that accounting students had
engaged in learning activities and assessment of teamwork skills.
4. Limitations and future research
A signi?cant limitation of this study, and a valuable lesson for accounting educators,
lies with the peer assessment model itself as a means of assessing and assuring the
learning of team work skills. There is no absolute external standard for teamwork
against which student achievement can be assessed. Assurance of learning data in this
study are collected using a relative standard where achievement is gauged against the
standard within the team. It would be useful in future research to develop a more
robust approach to assess and assure student achievement of teamwork skills. As a
further limitation attached to peer assessment, students may not have the experience to
assess their own teamwork skills and those of their peers. In other words, student
perceptions may not re?ect the objective reality of their teamwork skills. Despite the
majority of students having engaged in teamwork in prior subjects it cannot be
determined what that experience was or what was learned in terms of teamwork
processes. In future research, students should be provided with formalised teamwork
exercises to ensure they are better informed and therefore better equipped to apply
teamwork standards when forming their judgements.
The ?ndings of this study should also be viewed in light of the short time horizon
and preliminary nature of the analysis, response biases and group effects. The survey
instrument concerning students’ attitudes to online SPA was conducted in one
semester that enabled the authors to make preliminary observations. The results of the
paired samples t-tests were based on matched responses in pre- and post-surveys.
In any future surveys where matching of samples is to be performed it is essential that
the scales used and the phraseology of questions/statements is consistent to ensure
there is no effect on respondents interpretations. The study should (and will) be
conducted over several semester offerings of company accounting for three reasons:
to address any immediate issues; to ensure the study’s objectives are met; and that the
results are empirically valid and generalizable. A further limitation may lie in the
method of implementation of the SPARK
PLUS
technology and its presentation to
students for use in teamwork. Further development of these areas is required for
improved implementation in future semesters.
Further research may entail various dimensions of group work previously
documented in the accounting education literature, but which can be applied to the
online SPA model. Studies may include the effect of group size and formation on SPA
results, the effect of online assessment on group dynamics and whether a cooperative
learning environment with SPA improves academic performance to a greater or lesser
ARJ
26,3
234
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
extent than the same environment without this form of assessment. Researchers may
also wish to followthe progress of accounting students after graduation and study their
employers as a means of comparing the graduates’ teamwork skills with those
graduates of the employer who did not encounter comprehensive SPA during their
undergraduate studies.
Researchers may also wish to conduct research into the use of SPARK in facilitating
the group work process. Based on the experience from this exploratory and
preliminary study, further development of the use of the formative SPARK rating
process may provide students with the opportunity to give/receive feedback and hence
uncover and develop relative team skills thereby encouraging their development
during the semester. This may be done using such methods as structured in-class
brie?ngs, discussion of team minutes and/or individual work logs, and observations of
the group at work. Summative assessment of the achievement of teamwork ability
should also be provided to students and their group at the conclusion of the assignment
to communicate with them how they achieved as a group and assist them in continued
development of their team skills.
5. Conclusion
This preliminary study advances our understanding of the implementation and impact
of an online model to assess the teamwork skills of intermediate level accounting
students. This study was motivated by the call of professional and accreditation bodies
for universities to recognise the importance of generic skills in accounting education
and implement a quality assurance framework that demonstrates teaching and
learning activities and assessment of teamwork skills, especially in the context of large
class sizes. The introduction of SPARK
PLUS
facilitated the collection of necessary data
on teamwork skills for assurance of learning purposes and was a means to formally
grade students on their teamwork skills by adjusting the group assignment mark for
each student.
The post-SPARK instrument results and qualitative data suggest that students
understand the bene?ts of groupwork activities in developingtheir technical knowledge
of company accounting. This exploratory study points to the need to understand the
introduction and evaluation of such pedagogical approaches developmentally over time,
bothfor the teachers andthe learners concerned. We note inthis case that students do not
yet understand the connection between group work and generic skills development or
how the SPARK
PLUS
assessment tool supports group work activities. As such, the
?ndings of this study present course convenors with a number of challenges. It would
appear that students require additional group work and SPARK
PLUS
training during
their degree, in particular: the importance of developing teamwork skills in the
“real world” of accounting; the bene?ts of SPA; the descriptors used to assess teamwork
skills; and how and why SPARK
PLUS
adjusts the individual student mark for the group
assignment. Similarly in succeeding implementations, course convenors will be
advantaged by improved expectations of students concerning the assessment
of group work, as well as having the opportunity to build in more re?ective activities
that are possible when students come into a course with a more mature expectation of
group work. Nevertheless, the current study provides a foundation for improving the
design and assessment of group work activities to achieve the generic skills outcomes
required by both professional and accreditation bodies.
Online self and
peer assessment
235
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
References
AACSB (2011), AACSB Business Accreditation Standard 16, available at: www.aacsb.edu/
accreditation/business/standards/aol/standard16.asp (accessed 29 October 2011).
Albrecht, W.S. and Sack, R.J. (2000), Accounting Education: Charting the Course Through a
Perilous Future, American Accounting Association, Sarasota, FL.
Ballantine, J. and Mccourt Larres, P. (2007a), “Cooperative learning: a pedagogy to improve
students’ generic skills?”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 49, pp. 126-137.
Ballantine, J. and Mccourt Larres, P. (2007b), “Final year accounting undergraduates’ attitudes to
group assessment and the role of learning logs”, Accounting Education, Vol. 16, pp. 163-183.
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007), Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student
Does, 3rd ed., Open University Press, Buckingham.
Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. (2007), Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education Learning for the
Longer Term, Routledge, London.
Bryant, S.M. and Albring, S.M. (2006), “Effective team building: guidance for accounting
educators”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 241-265.
Clinton, B.D. and Kohlmeyer, J.M. III (2005), “The effects of group quizzes on performance and
motivation to learn: two experiments in cooperative learning”, Journal of Accounting
Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 96-116.
Cottell, P.G. Jr and Millis, B.J. (1992), “Cooperative learning in accounting”, Journal of Accounting
Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 95-111.
Falchikov, N. and Magin, D. (1997), “Detecting gender bias in peer marking of students’ group
process work”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 385-396.
Freeman, M. (1995), “Peer assessment by groups of group work”, Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 289-300.
Freeman, M. and McKenzie, J. (2002), “Implementing and evaluating SPARK, a con?dential
web-based template for self and peer assessment of student teamwork: bene?ts of evaluating
across different subjects”, BritishJournal of Educational Technology, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 553-572.
Freeman, M., Willey, K., Thompson, D. and Howard, M. (2011), SPARK
plus
online software,
University of Technology, Sydney, available at: http://spark.uts.edu.au/
Gammie, E. and Matson, M. (2007), “Group assessment at ?nal degree level: an evaluation”,
Accounting Education, Vol. 16, pp. 185-206.
Gibbs, G. (2009), The Assessment of Group Work: Lessons fromthe Literature, available at: www.
brookes.ac.uk/aske/documents/Brookes%20groupwork%20Gibbs%20Dec%2009.pdf
(accessed 20 August 2012).
Gold?nch, J. (1994), “Further developments in peer assessment of group projects”, Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 29-35.
Habeshaw, S., Gibbs, G. and Habeshaw, T. (1993), 53 Interesting Ways to Assess Your Students,
3rd ed., Technical and Education Services Ltd, Bristol.
Hackman, J.R. (1983), ANormative Model of Work TeamEffectiveness (Tech. Rep. No. 2), Yale School
of Organization and Management, New Haven, CT, cited in Reddy, W.B. (1994), Intervention
Skills, Process Consultation for Small Groups and Teams, Pfeiffer & Co, San Diego, CA.
Hancock, P., Howieson, B., Kavanagh, M., Kent, J., Tempone, I. and Segal, N. (2009), “Accounting
for the future: more than numbers: a collaborative investigation into the changing skill set
for professional accounting graduates over the next ten years and strategies for
embedding such skills into professional accounting programs”, available at: www.altc.
edu.au/resource-accounting-future-more-uwa-2009 (accessed 20 August 2012).
ARJ
26,3
236
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
ICAA and CPA (2009), Professional Accreditation Guidelines for Higher Education Programs,
available at: www.cpaaustralia.com.au/cps/rde/xbcr/cpa-site/Professional_accreditation_
guidelines_for_higher_education_programs.pdf (accessed 29 October 2011).
Jackling, B. and De Lange, P. (2009), “Do accounting graduates’ skills meet the expectations of
employers? A matter of convergence and divergence”, Accounting Education, Vol. 18
Nos 14/5, pp. 369-385.
Johnson, C.B. and Smith, F.I. (1997), “Assessment of a complex peer evaluation instrument for
team learning and group processes”, Accounting Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R. and Smith, K. (2007), “The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary
and professional settings”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Kavanagh, M. and Drennan, L. (2008), “What skills and attributes does an accounting graduate
need? Evidence from student perceptions and employer expectations”, Accounting &
Finance, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 279-300.
Kavanagh, M., Sargent, L., Caspersz, D. and Levak, N. (2012), “Business education in the
21st century: examining the antecedents and consequences of student team virtuality”,
Australian Government Of?ce for Learning Teaching, available at: www.olt.
gov.au/project-business-education-21st-century-usq-2008 (accessed 20 August 2012).
Lejk, M. and Wyvill, M. (2001), “Peer assessment of contributions to a group project:
a comparison of holistic and category-based approaches”, Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 61-72.
Lejk, M., Wyvill, M. and Farrow, S. (1996), “A survey of methods of deriving individual grades
from group assessments”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 267-280.
McConnell, C.A. and Sasse, C.M. (1999), “An anticipatory case for managing teams and team
projects”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 41-54.
Mahenthiran, S. and Rouse, P.J. (2000), “The impact of group selection on student performance
and satisfaction”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 255-265.
Michaelsen, L., Knight, A. and Fink, L.D. (2004), Team-based Learning: A Transformative Use of
Small Groups in College Teaching, Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA.
Miglietti, C. (2002), “Using cooperative small groups in introductory accounting classes:
a practical approach”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 111-115.
Oliver, B. (2011), “Assuring graduate capabilities”, ALTC Good Practice Guide, available at:
www.altc.edu.au/system/?les/resources/Assuring%20graduate%20outcomes.%
20ALTC%20Good%20practice%20report.%20Oliver%2C%20B%202011.pdf (accessed
13 January 2012).
Pratt, D. (1997), “Reconceptualizing the evaluation of teaching in higher education”, Higher
Education, Vol. 34, pp. 23-44.
Race, P. (2007), The Lecturer’s Toolkit: A Practical Guide to Assessment, Learning and Teaching,
3rd ed., Routledge, London.
Rhodes, T. (Ed.) (2010), Assessing Outcomes and Improving Achievement: Tips and
Tools for Using Rubrics, Association of American Colleges and Universities,
Washington, DC.
Robinson, D.H. and Walker, J.D. (2008), “Technological alternatives to paper-based
components of team based learning”, New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
Vol. 116, pp. 79-85.
Online self and
peer assessment
237
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Taylor, T., Thompson, D., Clements, L., Simpson, L., Paltridge, A., Fletcher, M., Freeman, M.,
Treleaven, L., Lawson, R. and Rohde, F. (2009), “Facilitating staff and student engagement
with graduate attribute development, assessment and standards in business faculties”,
Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Final Report, available at: www.olt.
gov.au/project-facilitating-staff-student-uts-2007 (accessed 27 September 2012).
Thompson, D. and McGregor, I. (2009), “Online self- and peer-assessment for groupwork”,
EducationþTraining, Vol. 51 Nos 5/6, pp. 434-447.
Thompson, D., Treleaven, L., Kamvounias, P., Beem, B. and Hill, E. (2008), “Integrating graduate
attributes with assessment criteria in business education using an online assessment
system”, Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 34-48.
Willey, K. and Freeman, M. (2006), “Improving teamwork and engagement: the case for self and
peer assessment”, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, available at: www.aaee.
com.au/journal/2006/willey0106.pdf (accessed 27 September 2012).
Corresponding author
Deborah Anne Delaney can be contacted at: d.delaney@grif?th.edu.au
ARJ
26,3
238
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_656781746.pdf