A comparison of academic performance in traditional and hybrid sections of introductory managerial accounting

Journal of Accounting Education

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 147-154

  Keller, J Howard ^a   Hassell, John M ^a   Webber, Sally A ^b   Johnson, James N ^c  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accounting principles; Hybrid and blended instruction; Web based

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956184773     PISSN: 07485751     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaccedu.2010.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Brace N., Kemp R., Snelgar R. SPSS for psychologists: A guide to data analysis using spss for windows 2000, Macmillan Press, London.
2. Buckless F.A., Lipe M.G., Ravenscroft S.P. Do gender effects on accounting course performance persist after controlling for general academic aptitude?. Issues in Accounting Education 1991, 6(Fall):248-261.
3. Dowling C., Godfrey J.M., Gyles N. Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods improve accounting students' learning outcomes?. Accounting Education 2003, 4(December):373-391.
4. Gist W.E., Goedde H., Ward B.H. The influence of mathematical skills and other factors on minority student performance in principles of accounting. Issues in Accounting Education 1996, 11(Spring):49-60.
5. Hill M.C., Stratton R., Edwards J.D. Transfer of learning in the introductory accounting course sequence. The Accounting Educators' Journal 1996, 8(Spring):27-50.
6. Klein H.J., Noe R.A., Wang C. Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology 2006, 3(Autumn):665-702.
7. Koh H.C., Koh M.Y. The determinants of performance in an accountancy degree programme. Accounting Education 1999, 8(1):12-29.
8. Krawiec S., Salter D., Kay E.J. A " hybrid" bacteriology course: The professor's design and expectations; the students' performance and assessment. Microbiology Education 2005, 6(May):8-13.
9. Laband D.N., Rosenberg D.L., Smith K.J. An examination of the performance of transfer versus " native" students in upper-level accounting courses. Journal of Accounting Education 1997, 14(4):515-529.
10. Lord F.M. A paradox in the interpretation of group comparisons. Psychological Bulletin 1967, 68:304-305.
11. Lord F.M. Statistical adjustments when comparing preexisting groups. Psychological Bulletin 1969, 72:336-377.
12. Rivera, J. C., & Rice, M. L. (2002). A comparison of student outcomes & satisfaction between traditional & web based course offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(3). http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall53/rivera53.html.
13. Tang M., Byrne R. Regular versus online versus blended: A qualitative description of the advantages of the electronic modes and a quantitative evaluation. International Journal on E-Learning 2007, 6(2):257-266.
14. Turetsky H., Weinstein G. Validity check on the accounting prerequisites within the business curriculum. Advances in Accounting Education 2003, 5:165-180.
15. US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2009). evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies, Washington, DC. http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf.
16. Utts, J., Sommer B., Acredolo, C., Maher, M. W., & Matthews, H. R. (2003). A study comparing traditional and hybrid internet-based instruction in introductory statistics classes. Journal of Statistics Education, 11(3). http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v11n3/utts.html.