Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Accounting Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaccedu

Just opt in: How choosing to engage with technology impacts

business students’ academic performance
Nicola Beatson b,e,⇑, Cle-Anne Gabriel d, Angela Howell a, Stephen Scott e,
Jacques van der Meer c,e, Lincoln C. Wood a
a
Department of Management, PO Box 56, Otago Business School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
b
Department of Accountancy and Finance, PO Box 56, Otago Business School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
c
College of Education, PO Box 56, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
d
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
e
Office of Student Success, PO Box 56, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examines and compares the effect of gamification, in the form of a mobile appli-
Received 23 January 2019 cation (app) ‘Quitch’, on the behavioral engagement and academic performance of business
Received in revised form 13 October 2019 students in two first-year courses in accounting (n = 500) and management (n = 469). Both
Accepted 15 October 2019
courses are compulsory; however, prior to the gamification intervention, student engage-
Available online 1 November 2019
ment was varied. The results indicate that 169 (33.58%) accounting and 135 (28.5%) man-
agement students actively used Quitch. The results show that behavioral engagement
Keywords:
explains a large proportion of the variation around academic success, even when control-
Engagement
Gamification
ling for students’ prior learning at high school. This study not only adds to the growing lit-
Technology erature on gamification and engagement in business education, but also provides robust
Business evidence for researchers arguing for more emphasis on the non-cognitive aspects of
Education learning.
Student success Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

There is an increasing focus on retention and success in higher education that has prompted educators to consider the
integration of technology into university teaching environments in a bid to enhance student engagement (Bharucha,
2017; Luthans, Luthans, & Palmer, 2016; Olelewe, Agomuo, & Obichukwu, 2019). Aptly, much of this emphasis on retention
translates to academic and non-academic interventions in first year classrooms and other introductory learning environ-
ments. Indeed, student engagement1 has long been recognized as a challenge facing first-year students, as the transition to
university life can be difficult (Berger & Milem, 1999; Pascarella, Terenzini, & Wolfle, 1986; Tinto, 1987; Upcraft, Gardner, &
Barefoot, 2004). Often, it is non-academic interventions that influence a student’s chances of success and retention beyond their
first year of study (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001). Therefore, faced with this challenge, higher education professionals are using
technology increasingly in a bid to increase student engagement (Chen, Lambert, & Guidry, 2010; Kearsley & Shneiderman,
1998).

⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Accountancy and Finance, PO Box 56, Otago Business School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
E-mail address: nicola.beatson@otago.ac.nz (N. Beatson).
1
Student engagement can be described through four main types of engagement: cognitive, emotional/affective, behavioral, and relational. This manuscript
focuses on behavioural engagement as one aspect of this important phenomenon.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2019.100641
0748-5751/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641

With the growing confluence of technology and higher education practice, gamification is becoming increasingly popular
in higher education learning environments (Clark & Barbour, 2015; Kapp, 2012; Overland, 2017), but also within business
studies more specifically (Jakubowski, 2014; Poole, Kemp, Patterson, & Williams, 2014; Reiners & Wood, 2015). Indeed, there
is growing evidence that the effective use of technology in blended learning initiatives, such as gamification, can influence
student retention (Olelewe et al., 2019) and combat low levels of student engagement (Arbaugh, 2000; Bharucha, 2017;
Luthans et al., 2016). Specifically, students respond well to gamification designs (that is, using game-based principles when
designing non-game activities), enjoyed being able to earn badges, and reported a strong desire to use the technology
(Denny, 2013).
However, the nature of the technology is changing, and while researchers have undertaken considerable exploration of
the efficacy of computer-aided learning tools more generally, the corpus has suffered from a dearth of research that focuses
on mobile apps specifically (used, for example, on smartphones). In addition, and anecdotally, our own observations of stu-
dents in the introductory level compulsory courses in Accounting, as well as in Management, at a New Zealand university
suggested that student engagement levels were low. Therefore, to empirically diagnose and solve this issue, we undertook
this study with the aim to compare the efficacy of gamification, delivered via a mobile app, Quitch,2 as a tool to enhance stu-
dent engagement and academic performance (grades) in two first-year, compulsory,3 business higher education courses.4 We
used a range of learning activities, and a mobile gamification app, to send out quizzes and short surveys to students in both
courses – in Accounting, and in Management – throughout the semester. To interpret our results, we combine flow theory
(Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shernoff, 2014) as conceptual underpinning with technology as an engagement tool,
using a model of engagement (van der Meer, Scott, & Pratt, 2018). Thus, this paper answers the call for further research on the
influence of mobile app and gamification technologies on student retention (Pechenkina, Laurence, Oates, Eldridge, & Hunter,
2017) and examines this important phenomenon within a business school setting.
This research is important to capture and understand what is happening in universities where educators are increasingly
turning to technology to enhance engagement. The business school where this study takes place is part of a sizable and rep-
utable New Zealand university. The university is regionally unique as there is a large proportion of domestic students with a
high proportion of first-year students living on campus in residential colleges5 (Quick Stats, nd). In 2017, there were approx-
imately 18,200 equivalent full-time students (EFTS) enrolled at the university, and 91.2% of those students were domestic. Of
the students enrolled, 2900 (approximately) were business students. Only 14% of students across the university come from the
local area; most of the student population are New Zealanders from outside of the local area (Quick Stats, nd). Given the large
number of students who live away from home, the university is an interesting context in which to study student engagement
and academic success away from strong influencing factors such as parents and other familial motivators.
We structure the remainder of this paper as follows. Section 2 presents an overview of the relevant literature. We outline
our methods in Section 3, and present our results in Section 4. We discuss the results, implications for both theory and prac-
tice, limitations and ideas for future research within Section 5.

2. Theoretical development

The theoretical underpinning of this research combines three key concepts: student engagement, flow theory and gam-
ification. The overall framework is grounded in engagement theory, using a conceptual diagram (van der Meer et al., 2018) to
demonstrate the complexity of the phenomenon. We use flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014) to show that concentration,
interest and engagement are integral parts of the student learning process. Finally, gamification is discussed as a tool in
which to spark engagement from students when learning accounting and other business subjects.

2.1. Student engagement models

The investigation of learning and academic performance in higher education is often considered a complex process of
multi-faceted variables (Beatson et al., 2018, 2019; Shernoff et al., 2014). There is little debate, however, that student
engagement is important to consider in higher education research due to the potential association between student engage-
ment and academic performance (Kahu & Nelson, 2018; Trowler, 2010; Zepke & Leach, 2010). The task of capturing the com-
plexity of student engagement into a single model is very difficult, as demonstrated by the body of work in this area (see
Kahu, 2013). Yet, recent research has emerged that attempts to bring together the complexity of student engagement into
one model (e.g., (Kahu, 2013; van der Meer, Scott, & Pratt, 2018)). Kahu (2013) shows that engagement in higher education is
an important part of the learning process, and educators must consider the engagement of students when assessing the
effectiveness of teaching and learning in universities.

2
Quitch is a mobile app that sends push notifications to students via smartphones. It can be customized for any course of study and has points students can
earn to climb a leaderboard. The instructor uses the push notifications to send notifications to students at any time (within or outside of class), and students
compete to ‘win’ based on the speed and accuracy of the answers they provide.
3
There are 20 courses in this degree program.
4
A ‘course’ is a 13 week, one semester, learning module.
5
A ‘residential college’ is a live-in environment on or near campus, where the college provides pastoral care and academic support. The residential colleges
normally house several hundred first year students together at a time. At this institution the majority of first year students would live in a residential college.
 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641 3

The model in Fig. 1 (van der Meer, Scott, & Pratt, 2018) presents a conceptual illustration of the complex facets of student
engagement as synthesised from the extant literature. Academic engagement can be separated into four main types of
engagement: cognitive engagement, emotional/affective engagement, behavioral engagement, and relational engagement.
Cognitive engagement is focused on the approach to learning, and the way a student processes information (Bandura,
1997). Emotional or affective engagement relates to variables such as self-efficacy or motivation and has been shown to
impact academic performance (Beatson et al., 2018, 2019). Relational engagement is about the students’ sense of belonging
(Tinto, 1987). Behavioral engagement focuses on the actions and behavior of the individual: does the student choose to come
to class? Does the student choose to put effort into studying? Often there is a dominant focus on cognitive student learning,
but it is well established in the literature that a student needs more than intelligence alone to be able to learn successfully
(Beatson, Berg, & Smith, 2018; Lipnevich & Smith, 2009). Fig. 1 conceptualises the complex experience of student learning
into one model. From this model, we can see that engagement is supported by constructs and the concept of ‘flow’ can sup-
port increased engagement.
Flow theory investigates learning from the perspective of student experience (Shernoff et al., 2014; Csikszentmihalyi,
2014), based on a deep engagement with the material and learning process. Learning is seen as a continual experience,
and the student can be impacted at any stage of the learning process. Flow theory considers three constructs as part of this
process: concentration, interest, and engagement (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). When students are challenged to learn new
material in a way that they feel enabled and supported, higher levels of engagement are reported (Shernoff et al., 2014). Fur-
thermore, students are more engaged when the relevance of what they are learning is obvious, and the environment in
which he or she is learning within, is well controlled (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). Subsequently, if any part of
the concentration, interest or engagement process is increased, this will have positive impacts upon the students’ learning
experience. Very little research exists on flow theory within the higher education field as much of the work is situated in pre-
tertiary learning environments such as primary education (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Marks, 2000).
More recently, student engagement research within business and accounting education has increased in popularity, chal-
lenging the perception that business disciplines are dry or boring (Albaqami, 2016; Holmes & Rasmussen, 2018; Jones, 2014).
Educators in business schools are turning to technological solutions to increase engagement within the classroom, and
research in this area shows a positive impact for students (Holmes & Rasmussen, 2018; Kaciuba, 2012; Parsons & Taylor,
2011). Holmes and Rasmussen (2018) used Pinterest6 in a managerial accounting course and found that not only did students
become more engaged with the material, they also became more active learners, and self-reported an increase in interest in the
course content. Kaciuba (2012) used movies in an auditing class to stimulate engagement with positive results for both student
engagement and academic achievement. Interestingly, despite positive responses from students, educators are sometimes
reluctant to use new technology (Watty, McKay, & Ngo, 2016). Consequently, students may miss out on a beneficial experience
and deeper engagement with the material, due to the reluctance of the teaching staff. When the technology is enjoyed by stu-
dents, self-reported engagement and satisfaction levels may increase, but the measurable learning benefits are less obvious
(Carnaghan, Edmonds, Lechner, & Olds, 2011). However, the balance of the literature shows that when educators use techno-
logical solutions to attempt to increase engagement, there is a positive response from students (Carnaghan et al., 2011; Holmes
& Rasmussen, 2018).

2.2. Gamification

Various types of technology-based gamification are used to stimulate behavior outcomes and are used widely to promote
engagement with areas such as marketing campaigns, motivational tools, and management techniques; however, gamifica-
tion is seen less within education (Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, & Angelova, 2015). Educators are often looking for tools to stim-
ulate their students and increase their engagement; one of the tools that may be relevant to student engagement is
gamification. As mentioned previously, flow theory focuses on varying levels of concentration, interest and engagement
for students. Gamification can be used as a tool within educational settings to increase interest and/or engagement for
students.
Gamification was first used in 2008 and is an approach that uses the elements of gaming techniques outside of a tradi-
tional gaming context (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011). Despite its infancy as a construct, gamification is gaining in
popularity within many different non-gaming contexts (Dicheva et al., 2015), as it is well-received by and has a positive
motivational effect on students (Cronk, 2012; Muntean, 2011; Turan, Avinc, Kara, & Goktas, 2016). However, despite consid-
erable potential and increasing interest in gamification (Barna & Fodor, 2017; Pechenkina et al., 2017), it is also recognized
that technologies pass through a life cycle, from early stages and adoption through to maturity. Gartner’s Hype Cycle7
(Gartner, 2013) suggests that gamification is yet to reach a plateau of maturity. As gamification increases in popularity, one
might expect to see more application of this tool within education.
Although points, badges and leader boards (Gregory et al., 2015) are frequently used components of gamification, gam-
ification has much more to offer in terms of student engagement and academic performance. Indeed, careful design creates
an integrative ‘whole’ that encourages users to develop the desired behavior (Werbach & Hunter, 2012; Wood & Reiners,

6
Pinterest is a social media platform for sharing ideas and inspiration.
7
A research method mapping tool showing technology tracked over time to assess how successful it will be within a commercial space.
4 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641

Fig. 1. Work in progress of a conceptual diagram of student engagement (van der Meer, Scott, & Pratt, 2018).

2015). One of the important aspects of learning is setting clear goals (Hamari, 2017). Gamification techniques, such as earn-
ing badges, are one way to provide students with well-defined goals. In a learning environment, gamification can be
designed to influence specific behaviors (such as engagement with material or understanding foundational principles or con-
cepts). These gamification options are based on the careful design of learning tasks and immersion in activities (Bastiaens,
Wood, & Reiners, 2014), or through increasing student attentiveness with a compelling narrative or storyline about the sub-
ject (Reiners et al., 2014).

2.3. First-year business students

First-year business students at a university are often perceived as reluctant to engage; an opinion that is supported by
anecdotal evidence from teaching staff in the business school under study. This evidence indicates that lecture attendance
is low, tutorials are poorly attended, and office hours8 are not used or valued by students. The introductory Accounting and
Management courses we examined in this study are compulsory for all business students. When students are required to study
a subject, they are less interested and engaged in the course as a whole (Beatson et al., 2018) than if they are able to choose to
enrol in a course of study themselves. The university provides supplementary academic support to first year business students,
to support better engagement and help them to develop effective learning habits. There is a university-provided study session
programme that contributes to enhanced scholastic achievement and retention (van der Meer, Wass, Scott, & Kokaua, 2017).
However, educators can do more, particularly given the ease with which technology can be integrated into higher education
classrooms and other learning environments. Given the evidence about the benefits of technology for engagement, it is appro-
priate to situate our research within the context of first-year business studies.

2.4. Hypothesis

The aim of the current project is to use mobile technology to stimulate engagement, and therefore ultimately increase
student academic performance. Our over-arching research question is: To what extent can the engagement of mobile apps
and gamification techniques result in higher academic performance? If we have good reason to believe that a student needs
more than base intelligence in which to learn (Lipnevich & Smith, 2009), then perhaps increased behavioral engagement will
enable success. Hence, we hypothesize:

H1: increased engagement over multiple interventions/opportunities will lead to a greater chance of academic success.
H2: behavioral engagement is a better predictor of academic success than prior learning.

3. Method

This project aimed to understand how student behavioral engagement influences performance in two compulsory first-
year business courses, hereafter referred to simply as ‘‘Accounting” (n = 500) and ‘‘Management” (n = 469). Accounting is an

8
‘Office hours’ refer to staff consultation times, when students have the opportunity to discuss learning challenges with staff directly.
 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641 5

introduction to financial and management accounting concepts, which includes reading and interpreting accounting state-
ments and making internal business decisions. This course uses information systems and communication technology to
manage data and discusses the associated ethical issues. Management is an introduction to the business environment of
New Zealand, which includes the important defining characteristics, social and environmental implications of business deci-
sions, and an appreciation of bi-cultural frameworks as they affect business. Both courses are team-taught and integrated in
terms of content. Accounting has approximately 30% financial accounting content, 30% information systems content and 40%
cost accounting content. Management is taught by several disciplines, but predominately the management department.
Accounting is a combination of both numerical and written assessment and Management is assessed mostly through written
content.
We measured ‘behavioral engagement’ by evaluating opt-in behavior of students, focusing on attendance in tutorials,
participation in quizzes, and their use of the mobile application ‘Quitch.’9 Our approach combines Quitch-use data, atten-
dance data and learning management system (LMS) use, to explain the variation in the students’ final grade. Quitch is an
app that allows push notifications to be sent to students. It displays a leaderboard, and students earn badges by answering
questions quickly and correctly. Quitch allows options for both the student and instructor. For example, the instructor has
the flexibility to create several ‘types’ of questions (for example, multiple choice, free text, or video). Student users can
choose to compete under a username, thus allowing anonymity if the student wishes. The student can participate in the
game at any time, or the instructor can have purpose built questions that are used in class. Quitch differs from a LMS
as the mobile gamification aspects of Quitch, such as mobile push notifications, a leader board, and earning of badges,
are designed to encourage engagement. The Quitch app has won several awards including ‘Startup of the Year’ and ‘Inno-
vation of the Year’ in 2017 at the Victorian iAwards and the American Accounting Association ‘Innovation in Accounting’
award in the same year.

3.1. Sampling and data collection

We invited all students enrolled in Accounting and Management in semester one 2018 to participate in our study; there
were no inclusion or exclusion criteria. To accommodate students without a smartphone (and for those who wished to
engage with the additional content but did not wish to take part in the research), we replicated the content (from Quitch)
on the LMS, ‘Blackboard’, so no students were academically disadvantaged for not participating.10 No incentives were pro-
vided for participation in the research, and full ethical approval was granted for this study. Students were informed in lectures
and on the LMS how to download and set up the Quitch app on their mobile devices. Regular multi-choice questions designed to
test knowledge and understanding of the topics covered were sent to the students who consented to be part of the study by
using the Quitch app.
We drew on multiple data sources in our analysis which included student administration data, Quitch use data, tutorial
attendance data, and student academic performance data. The student academic performance data used were from first-year
students who had entered the university with the national qualification for secondary school students – the New Zealand
Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). The New Zealand Qualification Authority (NZQA)11 provided NCEA data to
the university. Data from the different sources were matched and merged for analyses.

3.2. Variable construction

We constructed a binary variable that showed whether the student was active on Quitch. As part of an overarching pro-
ject on student retention research, we developed a range of early engagement indicators (see Table 1) based on the different
structure (e.g., weekly or bi-weekly quizzes) of each course. We used the tutorial attendance data collected over the semester
but acknowledge that this was captured by a range of tutors and may be somewhat varied with regards to accuracy. Each
course had ten tutorials during the semester, for which attendance was optional.
We identified and controlled for other factors that can influence the final grade. It has been found that prior learning
is associated with success at university within the same discipline (Alcock, Cockcroft, & Finn, 2008; Duff, 2004; Engler,
2010; Rohde & Kavanagh, 1996). Therefore, we controlled for factors such as achievement at high school in accounting
and also studying relevant subjects to accounting or management at school. Furthermore, we used ethnicity data to indi-
cate whether the student was a member of Māori or Pacific Island ethnic groups as these groups have traditionally
achieved lower final grades (Boshier, 2001). A stepwise entry of factors in a multiple regression model was used to
answer the research question, by evaluating the impact of a range of independent variables of engagement, student
demographics and prior knowledge on the dependent variable (final grade). The adjusted R2 measure was interpreted
to prevent overfitting of predictors.

9
See https://www.quitch.com/ for more information.
10
No students took up this option.
11
One of the authors has a Memorandum of Understanding with NZQA to use NCEA data for research aimed at enhancing student achievement.
6 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641

Table 1
Early engagement indicators in accounting and management.

Week Indicator Accounting Management

Week 1 1 Failed or didn’t attempt Quiz 1 No Blackboard use in Week 1
Week 2 2 Didn’t attend Tutorial 1 Didn’t attend Tutorial 1
3 Failed or didn’t attempt Quiz 2 Failed or didn’t attempt Quiz 1
Week 3 4 Didn’t attend Tutorial 2 No Blackboard use in Week 3
5 Failed or didn’t attempt Quiz 3 Didn’t attend Tutorial 2

4. Results

Table 2 provides an overview of the main student behaviors that are reported on in this paper. For both courses, we pre-
sent descriptive data for students in the sample: how many were or were not first-year students, those that were repeating
the course, and the percentage of domestic and international students. Also presented in Table 2 is information about where
the student lives, either in a residential college or not, the engagement with the mobile app Quitch and how many courses
the student was enrolled in for the semester that the data were collected.

4.1. Use of Quitch

There were three possible Quitch indicators that could indicate the impact of Quitch on the final grades: whether the stu-
dent was active in Quitch, the number of questions attempted, and the total points gained in answering questions. To assess
which of the indicators appeared to have an impact, a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to
assess the relationship between the final grade and the three indicators. For both courses, the relationship between final
grade and the ‘active’ status was significant at the 0.01 level. To get more insight into the size of the impact, a one-way
between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of being active in Quitch on the final grade at the p < .05 level
for both courses; Accounting (F(1, 500) = 49.18, p < 0.001) and Management (F(1, 469) = 26.36, p < 0.001). Table 3 reports the
means for the final grades of both courses. We also included a summary of the step-wise regression model with step one
being the total points gained in Quitch, as there was a significant relationship between these total points and the final grade
for the accounting course.

4.2. Engagement indicators

A university is a complex environment, and we acknowledge that other academic engagement indicators may have also
helped to explain the final grades. To identify other possible engagement indicators, both courses, as described below, mon-
itored five academic engagement behaviors in the first three weeks (other than engagement with Quitch) that could predict
the academic performance of students. The engagement behaviors monitored in both courses included attendance at the first
tutorial in week two, and attendance at the second tutorial in week three. Separately, student engagement in Management
was monitored by engagement with LMS (Blackboard) in weeks one and three and by completing a quiz in week two. Stu-
dent engagement in Accounting was monitored by the completion of a quiz in the first three weeks and tutorial attendance
was also considered as a predictive variable across the same time period. Further factors considered as possible confounders
included: the year-level (first-year students as opposed to upper-level students), repeat students (students repeating the
course because they failed the course previously), course load (the number of courses a student was enrolled in for first

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and overview.

Accounting Management
N % N %
First-year students 251 50.20% 299 63.20%
Non-first-year students 249 49.80% 174 36.80%
Repeating students 77 15.40% 6 1.30%
International students 39 7.80% 48 36.80%
Domestic students 461 92.20% 425 63.20%
Students living in residential college 192 38.40% 247 52.20%
Students living in other accommodation 308 61.60% 226 47.80%
Students with an active status in Quitch 169 33.80% 135 28.50%
Students with an non-active status in Quitch 331 66.20% 338 71.50%
Number of courses enrolled for: 1 102 20.40% 96 20.30%
Number of courses enrolled for: 2 159 31.80% 157 33.20%
Number of courses enrolled for: 3 205 41.00% 184 38.90%
Number of courses enrolled for: 4 34 6.80% 36 7.60%
 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641 7

Table 3
Comparison of active status for Quitch in each class.

Accounting Management
Mean N St. Dev Mean N St. Dev.
Not active 60.03 331 16.62 61.62 334 15.51
Active 70.57 169 14.37 69.07 135 10.34
Entire Course 63.60 500 16.65 63.77 469 14.60

semester), prior academic performance (a student’s overall academic performance at high school), other subjects (comple-
tion of subjects that could possibly have supported their performance in the two university courses under investigation), cit-
izenship status (domestic or international), and residential status (whether they lived in a residential college - as those in
residential colleges often receive the opportunity to attend additional tutorials and therefore receive greater academic sup-
port - in addition to the added peer support and influence from the supportive environment).

4.2.1. Hierarchical multiple regressions

To explore the aforementioned possible predictors and confounding factors, six and eight-stage hierarchical multiple
regressions were conducted for each course with final course grade as the dependent variable, and active engagement with
Quitch as the independent variable entered in the first stage. The eight-stage regression was the same as the six-stage regres-
sion with the addition of two additional stages: (1) the weighted score for the New Zealand Certificate of Educational
Achievement (NCEA); and a block with the separate weighted scores for four potentially relevant NCEA subjects; viz., math-
ematics, accounting, business studies, and economics. The NCEA data provides a control for first-year students’ academic
performance in their last year at a New Zealand high school before coming to university. However, because not all students
in the two courses were first-year students or were admitted to the university based on their NCEA results (e.g., international
students or students who had completed alternative university entrance exams), we had to conduct a separate regression for
those with NCEA results. The six-stage regression included all students who had completed the course; the eight-stage
regression included only students who had completed NCEA in the previous year.
We entered the active Quitch use indicator in step one of each regression analysis so that we could see what the effect
was of variables entered in subsequent stages on the active Quitch use indicator. In step two, we entered the five academic
behaviors that were monitored in the first three weeks of each course. In step three, we entered the number of tutorials
attended. In step four, we added some of the student-related variables, first-year status, repeater status and the number
of courses they chose to enroll in. In step five we added their residential college status, followed by their international stu-
dent status in step six. In steps seven and eight, we entered the NCEA related variables. A summary of the regressions for
each of the courses is shown in Table 4 and Table 6. For the accounting course, we conducted an additional regression with
the number of total Quitch points as the independent variable in the first stage rather than the active status (Table 5).

4.3. Accounting

As seen in Table 4, the results for Accounting show active student engagement with Quitch predicted nearly six extra
marks of the final grade at step six of the regression analysis. When considering the results of step eight in the regression
model of students with NCEA scores included, it predicted just over four of the final marks. The total variance explained
in the six-step model was 30%, and for the eight-step model 59%.
In addition to the six-step and eight-step models, we also conducted regression analyses with the total Quitch points
entered at the first step, rather than the Quitch active status indicator. Table 5 shows the comparison of the variance
explained between the different Quitch indicators.

4.4. Management

The hierarchical multiple regression for Management revealed that at step one, the Quitch active status contributed sig-
nificantly to the regression model (F (1,467) = 26.36, p < .001) and accounted for 5% of the variation in the final grade of all
students. It also contributed significantly to the regression model (F (1,246) = 22.74, p < .001) and accounted for 8% of the
variation in the final grade of students with NCEA scores model. The subsequent entry of other variables reduced the impact
of Quitch. However, when considering the results of step six in the regression model with all students included, it can be seen
that even when controlling for other factors, active student engagement with Quitch still predicted nearly four extra marks
of the final grade. When considering the results of step eight in the regression model of students with NCEA scores included,
the model still predicted just over three of the final marks. For both groups, it is clear that tutorial attendance was very
important for the final result. Analysing the regression with NCEA scores included, it is clear that these scores contributed
significantly to the overall model. Also of interest is that the impact of residential colleges was significantly reduced after the
NCEA scores were entered in the model. The total variance explained in the six-step model was 37% and for the eight-step
model 49%.
8 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641

Table 4
Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting final grades in accounting.

All students (N = 497) Students with NCEA (N = 194)

Step Predictors B Beta Sig. DR2 B Beta Sig. D R2
1 (Constant) 60.03 0.00 0.09 61.65 0.00 0.16
Quitch Active 10.54 0.30 0.00 13.26 0.41 0.00
2 (Constant) 61.29 0.00 0.07 63.31 0.00 0.15
Quitch Active 9.26 0.26 0.00 11.57 0.36 0.00
No quiz done week1 7.02 0.09 0.04 57.18 0.36 0.00
No tutorial attended week2 26.25 0.12 0.01 23.47 0.10 0.29
No quiz done week2 10.57 0.09 0.06 11.33 0.10 0.19
No tutorial attended week3 24.88 0.16 0.00 19.55 0.15 0.06
No quiz done week3 3.77 0.05 0.30 1.29 0.02 0.79
3 (Constant) 53.91 0.00 0.10 58.16 0.00 0.02
Quitch Active 5.80 0.17 0.00 9.51 0.29 0.00
No quiz done week1 4.10 0.05 0.20 52.03 0.33 0.00
No tutorial attended week2 27.11 0.13 0.00 16.82 0.08 0.44
No quiz done week2 6.76 0.05 0.20 8.29 0.07 0.34
No tutorial attended week3 20.33 0.13 0.00 16.83 0.13 0.11
No quiz done week3 4.68 0.06 0.17 2.17 0.03 0.66
Number of tutorials attended 1.60 0.34 0.00 0.90 0.17 0.01
4 (Constant) 53.48 0.00 0.00 68.19 0.00 0.01
Quitch Active 5.31 0.15 0.00 9.66 0.30 0.00
No quiz done week1 2.99 0.04 0.36 48.81 0.31 0.00
No tutorial attended week2 27.20 0.13 0.00 13.20 0.06 0.55
No quiz done week2 7.48 0.06 0.16 8.50 0.08 0.32
No tutorial attended week3 20.91 0.14 0.00 15.12 0.12 0.15
No quiz done week3 4.42 0.05 0.20 2.69 0.04 0.58
Number of tutorials attended 1.50 0.32 0.00 0.92 0.18 0.01
First Year student 1.11 0.03 0.51 14.87 0.09 0.11
Repeat student 2.33 0.05 0.25
Number of courses enrolled for 0.39 0.02 0.66 1.61 0.07 0.25
5 (Constant) 53.05 0.00 0.01 63.70 0.00 0.01
Quitch Active 5.47 0.16 0.00 9.61 0.30 0.00
No quiz done week1 2.74 0.04 0.40 45.32 0.28 0.00
No tutorial attended week2 28.93 0.14 0.00 9.43 0.04 0.67
No quiz done week2 7.95 0.06 0.13 9.59 0.09 0.26
No tutorial attended week3 20.30 0.13 0.00 15.50 0.12 0.13
No quiz done week3 4.92 0.06 0.15 3.52 0.05 0.47
Number of tutorials attended 1.46 0.31 0.00 0.93 0.18 0.01
First Year student 1.20 0.04 0.47 13.89 0.09 0.14
Repeat student 2.17 0.05 0.29
Number of courses enrolled for 0.42 0.02 0.62 1.63 0.07 0.24
Residential College 5.08 0.08 0.04 4.38 0.11 0.06
6 (Constant) 53.05 0.00 0.03 63.09 0.00 0.00
Quitch Active 5.71 0.16 0.00 9.61 0.30 0.00
No quiz done week1 2.22 0.03 0.49 44.73 0.28 0.00
No tutorial attended week2 30.59 0.14 0.00 8.64 0.04 0.69
No quiz done week2 8.80 0.07 0.09 9.74 0.09 0.26
No tutorial attended week3 20.14 0.13 0.00 15.44 0.12 0.14
No quiz done week3 5.75 0.07 0.09 3.78 0.05 0.44
Number of tutorials attended 1.38 0.29 0.00 0.91 0.18 0.01
First Year student 4.44 0.13 0.03 13.91 0.09 0.14
Repeat student 1.99 0.04 0.32
Number of courses enrolled for 0.27 0.01 0.75 1.67 0.07 0.23
Residential College 7.32 0.12 0.00 4.97 0.13 0.04
International 8.58 0.25 0.00 5.09 0.06 0.37
7 (Constant) 26.54 0.01 0.20
Quitch Active 4.51 0.14 0.01
No quiz done week1 28.87 0.18 0.01
No tutorial attended week2 8.97 0.04 0.62
No quiz done week2 8.28 0.07 0.25
No tutorial attended week3 6.70 0.05 0.44
No quiz done week3 3.35 0.04 0.41
Number of tutorials attended 0.68 0.13 0.02
First Year student 0.56 0.00 0.94
Number of courses enrolled for 2.21 0.10 0.06
Residential College 3.35 0.09 0.09
International 4.18 0.05 0.37
NCEA weighted score 0.10 0.50 0.00
 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641 9

Table 4 (continued)

All students (N = 497) Students with NCEA (N = 194)

Step Predictors B Beta Sig. DR2 B Beta Sig. DR2

8 (Constant) 32.69 0.00 0.03

Quitch Active 4.39 0.14 0.01
No quiz done week1 31.44 0.20 0.01
No tutorial attended week2 10.29 0.05 0.56
No quiz done week2 9.92 0.09 0.15
No tutorial attended week3 5.11 0.04 0.54
No quiz done week3 4.24 0.06 0.28
Number of tutorials attended 0.73 0.14 0.01
First Year student 0.10 0.00 0.99
Number of courses enrolled for 0.75 0.03 0.53
Residential College 3.47 0.09 0.08
International 4.99 0.05 0.27
NCEA weighted score 0.07 0.35 0.00
Accounting weighted score (NCEA) 0.11 0.22 0.00
BusinessStudies weighted score (NCEA) 0.01 0.02 0.73
Mathematics weighted score (NCEA) 0.04 0.08 0.26

Note: Where there is a blank for certain predictors this means there was no correlation.

Table 5
Summary of variance explained by Quitch indicator and student cohort.

Quitch active status indicator Quitch total points all Quitch active status Quitch total points NCEA
all students students indicator NCEA students students
Step Adj. R2 Adj. R2 Adj. R2 Adj. R2 Adj. R2 Adj. R2 Adj. R2 Adj. R2
MANT* ACCT** MANT ACCT MANT ACCT MANT ACCT
1 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.11 0.08 0.16 0.03 0.16
2 0.29 0.16 0.27 0.19 0.25 0.32 0.21 0.32
3 0.33 0.26 0.32 0.27 0.29 0.35 0.26 0.35
4 0.34 0.26 0.33 0.28 0.29 0.34 0.26 0.36
5 0.36 0.27 0.35 0.28 0.31 0.35 0.28 0.36
6 0.37 0.29 0.36 0.31 0.31 0.35 0.28 0.36
7 0.48 0.55 0.48 0.56
8 0.49 0.59 0.48 0.59
Total variance 0.37 0.29 0.36 0.31 0.49 0.59 0.48 0.59
explained
*
Management.
**
Accounting.

Whereas the results for Management are slightly lower for the total Quitch points than the active status indicator, for
Accounting they are slightly higher. The maximum possible Quitch points that could be gained in the two courses differed.
Using the mean points for each course, we calculated the predicted increase in final marks as an indication of the possible
effect of this engagement variable after controlling for all the other possible variables (step six for all students, and step eight
for NCEA students). Table 7 shows a summary of these results. For comparison, we have also included the same results from
the Quitch active status indicator. As can be seen, the results for Accounting NCEA cohort remains constant, whether the
Quitch active status is used or the total Quitch points gained. For Management, the total points gained seemed to have a
lesser impact than the Quitch active status.

4.5. Summary of findings

Overall, the stepwise regression models indicated a good overall fit, with up to 59% of the variance in the final mark for
students in Accounting, and 49% for Management (Table 5). The findings also suggest that student engagement is important.
Participation in Quitch and engagement in optional classes predicts students’ academic performance, even after controlling
for prior knowledge and student behavior. Moreover, our results show how important engagement is for student success
despite prior knowledge. Tables 4 and 6 indicate a range of activities where participation shows higher engagement and
the students who have participated gain higher overall final grades (have more academic success). If we look at the propor-
tion of the variation explained in the NCEA models at step 3, engagement factors, relative to the whole model at step 8,
shows engagement variables explain more than half of the variance explained in the full model (58%). In both Accounting
and Management, active use of Quitch (a voluntary engagement proxy) increased the chance of success academically. The
10 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641

Table 6
Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting final grade in management.

All students (N = 468) Students with NCEA (N = 247)

Step Predictors B Beta Sig. DR2 B Beta Sig. D R2
1 (Constant) 61.62 0.00 0.05 62.83 0.00 0.08
Quitch Active 7.45 0.23 0.00 8.06 0.29 0.00
2 (Constant) 64.28 0.00 0.24 64.41 0.00 0.17
Quitch Active 5.07 0.16 0.00 6.71 0.24 0.00
No blackboard accessed in week1 7.72 0.15 0.00 18.37 0.27 0.00
No tutorial attended week2 2.21 0.02 0.65 1.12 0.01 0.86
No quiz done week2 18.40 0.24 0.00 13.84 0.15 0.01
No blackboard accessed in week3 9.59 0.07 0.17
No tutorial attended week3 41.20 0.37 0.00 46.04 0.23 0.00
3 (Constant) 58.84 0.00 0.04 58.95 0.00 0.04
Quitch Active 3.69 0.12 0.00 5.45 0.20 0.00
No blackboard accessed in week1 5.52 0.11 0.01 17.12 0.25 0.00
No tutorial attended week2 2.18 0.02 0.64 1.03 0.01 0.87
No quiz done week2 14.50 0.19 0.00 9.72 0.11 0.06
No blackboard accessed in week3 7.64 0.06 0.26
No tutorial attended week3 39.33 0.35 0.00 43.17 0.21 0.00
Number of tutorials attended 1.44 0.23 0.00 1.34 0.22 0.00
4 (Constant) 59.39 0.00 0.01 67.89 0.00 0.00
Quitch Active 3.60 0.11 0.00 5.62 0.20 0.00
No blackboard accessed in week1 5.35 0.10 0.01 16.92 0.24 0.00
No tutorial attended week2 0.36 0.00 0.94 0.56 0.01 0.93
No quiz done week2 14.92 0.20 0.00 9.24 0.10 0.07
No blackboard accessed in week3 9.63 0.07 0.16
No tutorial attended week3 39.26 0.35 0.00 42.90 0.21 0.00
Number of tutorials attended 1.41 0.23 0.00 1.38 0.23 0.00
First Year student 0.59 0.02 0.65 10.02 0.09 0.12
Repeat student 13.44 0.10 0.01
Number of courses enrolled for 0.04 0.00 0.95 0.29 0.02 0.75
5 (Constant) 59.16 0.00 0.02 63.39 0.00 0.02
Quitch Active 3.56 0.11 0.00 5.30 0.19 0.00
No blackboard accessed in week1 4.00 0.08 0.06 14.81 0.21 0.00
No tutorial attended week2 0.71 0.01 0.88 1.50 0.01 0.82
No quiz done week2 15.28 0.20 0.00 10.10 0.11 0.05
No blackboard accessed in week3 10.90 0.08 0.10
No tutorial attended week3 39.52 0.35 0.00 45.86 0.22 0.00
Number of tutorials attended 1.41 0.23 0.00 1.40 0.23 0.00
First Year student 4.85 0.16 0.00 9.21 0.08 0.15
Repeat student 13.45 0.10 0.01
Number of courses enrolled for 0.10 0.01 0.88 0.21 0.01 0.81
Residential College 6.03 0.21 0.00 4.67 0.14 0.01
6 (Constant) 61.05 0.00 0.01 63.97 0.00 0.00
Quitch Active 3.69 0.11 0.00 5.34 0.19 0.00
No blackboard accessed in week1 4.74 0.09 0.02 14.55 0.21 0.00
No tutorial attended week2 0.28 0.00 0.95 0.02 0.00 1.00
No quiz done week2 16.25 0.21 0.00 10.11 0.11 0.05
No blackboard accessed in week3 12.88 0.10 0.05
No tutorial attended week3 39.08 0.35 0.00 46.13 0.23 0.00
Number of tutorials attended 1.47 0.24 0.00 1.40 0.23 0.00
First Year student 5.34 0.18 0.00 9.22 0.08 0.15
Repeat student 14.96 0.12 0.00
Number of courses enrolled for 0.43 0.03 0.52 0.18 0.01 0.84
Residential College 5.38 0.18 0.00 4.17 0.12 0.03
International 6.43 0.13 0.00 4.64 0.06 0.29
7 (Constant) 46.30 0.00 0.17
Quitch Active 2.99 0.11 0.03
No blackboard accessed in week1 14.71 0.21 0.00
No tutorial attended week2 1.24 0.01 0.83
No quiz done week2 8.41 0.09 0.06
No tutorial attended week3 39.62 0.19 0.00
Number of tutorials attended 0.96 0.16 0.00
First Year student 0.18 0.00 0.98
Number of courses enrolled for 0.58 0.04 0.45
Residential College 1.06 0.03 0.55
International 4.72 0.06 0.22
NCEA weighted score 0.07 0.47 0.00
 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641 11

Table 6 (continued)

All students (N = 468) Students with NCEA (N = 247)

Step Predictors B Beta Sig. DR2 B Beta Sig. DR2
8 (Constant) 46.05 0.00 0.01
Quitch Active 3.10 0.11 0.03
No blackboard accessed in week1 13.85 0.20 0.00
No tutorial attended week2 1.45 0.01 0.80
No quiz done week2 7.63 0.08 0.08
No tutorial attended week3 39.46 0.19 0.00
Number of tutorials attended 0.94 0.16 0.00
First Year student 0.54 0.01 0.92
Number of courses enrolled for 0.28 0.02 0.73
Residential College 1.33 0.04 0.46
International 5.36 0.07 0.16
NCEA weighted score 0.07 0.45 0.00
Accounting weighted score 0.06 0.11 0.05
BusinessStudies weighted score 0.01 0.01 0.83
Mathematics weighted score (NCEA) 0.04 0.10 0.11

Note: Where there is a blank for certain predictors this means there was no correlation.

Table 7
Summary of data related to Quitch total points gained and predicted increase in final marks.

Course Top points that Mean values of Non-standardised Predicted final Predicted final
could be gained by total points B values step 6 (all) mark increase mark increase
using Quitch gained and 8 (NCEA) total based on the based on Quitch
points gained mean values of active status
total Quitch
points
Student cohort All NCEA All NCEA All NCEA All NCEA All NCEA
MANT* 1370 1338 482 484 0.002 0.004 0.96 1.94 3.69 3.10
ACCT** 2538 2494 991 1092 0.006 0.003 5.95 3.28 5.71 4.39
*
Management.
**
Accounting.

‘Quitch active status’ indicator appeared to predict higher final grades for both courses than the Quitch total points gained. In
other words, the most predictive power seems to be based on engagement with Quitch rather than demonstrated perfor-
mance. The similar results for the five early engagement indicators seem to confirm this. Even in the last step, after control-
ling for other factors, including for students’ high school performance, some of the early engagement indicators still
predicted the final grades of both courses. Similar prediction of the final grade can also be made based on the number of
tutorial sessions attended.
The total Quitch points seemed to be a more useful predictor of overall results in Accounting than in Management. A com-
parison of how the Quitch questions were used in the two courses may explain this. In the accounting course, the type of
questions used was similar to those used in the final exam; that is, more engagement in the Quitch exercises prepared stu-
dents better for higher performance on the final exam. However, an effect seen in both courses, irrespective of the content
delivered, was that engagement with the course led to better student performance. It was also clear that first-year students
performed better than non-first year students, some of whom repeated the course, especially noted in Accounting.

5. Discussion

5.1. Engagement and attendance

Our findings suggest that ‘behavioral engagement’, when measured broadly as activities that are undertaken voluntarily,
leads to improved scholastic performance. The data indicates that attendance at a tutorial (which is not a mandatory part of
the course) and using Quitch helps to explain more than half of the variation in performance explained by the full stepwise
regression models that include prior knowledge. The results presented here provide support for the conceptual framework in
Fig. 1 (van der Meer at al., 2018). We see that a student who ‘opts in’ has a greater chance of academic success. The increase
in behavioral engagement is a positive influence on the student experience (van der Meer et al., 2018). Given the robustness
of the NCEA data entered into the model, this finding provides important evidence that prior learning, while still important,
is not the only way to succeed at university. The finding is important for educators who may assume that only students with
previous high academic performance will be able to ‘cope’ at university. Our findings show that it is how the student engages
with the course that may be the biggest contributor to success – a finding supported by previous research in higher educa-
12 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641

tion (Beatson et al., 2018, 2019; van der Meer et al., 2017). Educators should encourage students to fully engage with both
optional and mandatory parts of the course as this will help build towards student success regardless of prior academic
ability.

5.2. Engagement and gamification

Our results are also comparable to the general principle of gamification – that providing more opportunities in a struc-
tured environment enables the participant behavior to change. While gamification might use points, badges, and leader-
boards (Wood & Reiners, 2015), our results show that other educational activities such as supplementary instruction,
tutorials, engagement in LMS, and quiz participation are also valid opportunities for students to take action and, by doing
this, change their behavior in a way that brings about the desired performance changes.
While many university courses traditionally use ‘large’ assessments, one positive change suggested by gamification is that
multiple, small, assessments or activities could be developed earlier in the semester (Gregory et al., 2015). Points are earned
in Quitch by answering quickly and correctly. The more you achieve in Quitch, the faster you progress both earning badges,
and scoring points to make it to the top of the leader board. Our results indicate that it is the opportunity to be active that is
connected to final performance; many small activities, as suggested by gamification, matches this maxim. Therefore, our
results provide support for a fundamental principle of gamification: earning points, badges, and competing to improve a
leaderboard position can drive behavior.
Our results suggest that one of the most important elements of a gamified environment is the opportunity to take positive
actions that are associated with improved grades. Our findings of some connection between the points and results (account-
ing vs management) indicate that gamification can be used to motivate the development of skills relevant to the particular
task (in this case, passing an exam). In some cases, such skills development may not be possible. In Accounting, using
accounting principles can generate a range of similar calculation-based questions for use in Quitch and the questions will
be similar to those in the exam. In contrast, Management has a strong conceptual and critical perspective; therefore, the mul-
tiple choice questions used in Quitch over the semester provide less training opportunity to develop appropriate skills.
Regardless, the results show that more opportunities to take action and change behavior are related to improved outcomes.
One possible implication from our results is that previous studies that focus on the introduction of mobile apps (e.g.,
Pechenkina et al., 2017) or gaming/gamification techniques (Deterding et al., 2011), produce results by providing students
with more opportunities to ‘opt-in’ and participate. A well-designed system, such as a gamified app, provides multiple
chances to engage and be actively involved in the learning. The use of Quitch enabled students to be regularly ‘involved’
and actively engage in the course content over the semester, in addition to regular class materials. Using a platform such
as Quitch allows students to use a modern and attractive design over the use of a ‘standard’ LMS. It is possible that some
of the engagement merely comes from the novelty effect of using this platform. However, the way Quitch allows instructors
to ‘drip feed’ small, fun tasks over the semester reflects a gamification approach, where more enjoyable tasks, leader boards,
and badges can combine to encourage engagement and commitment to the activities, and, through this, ultimately learn the
course material.

5.3. Engagement and flow

Our results also support one of the assumptions of flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014); to be in the flow means to be
engaged in activities and this implies a constant, repeated engagement rather than tackling a small number of large assess-
ments, as is the traditional assessment design. While Flow has usually been studied at lower levels of study, over a short
period, our results suggest that concentration, interest, and engagement can be maintained in a state of Flow over a
multi-week period. The gamification and multiple chances to ‘opt-in’ and engage with activities (such as Quitch) allow stu-
dents to develop a rhythm and pattern of behavioral engagement. Our results show that this pattern of engagement corre-
lates well with superior academic outcomes, even allowing for past performance and aptitude in this subject area.
It is important to note that the early engagement indicators we used in this study do not necessarily mean that poor early
engagement ‘causes’ poor academic performance. In some cases, indicators of early levels of poor engagement could be con-
sidered ‘warning flags’, that something is happening for students that is affecting engagement with a course in a way that is
beneficial (Trussel & Burke-Smalley, 2018). For example, first-year students could be overwhelmed by all their new experi-
ences, both in the academic realm and the social/living context. Ideally, where possible, students that are detected as poor
engagers should be contacted as soon as possible to support them and help them to get on track (Tinto, 2017). The student
engagement model (Fig. 1) based on a synthesis of different models of student engagement, shows that there are factors that
influence or can contribute to student engagement beyond cognitive and behavioral factors. Emotional/affective engage-
ment, such as motivation, and relationships with staff and other students can hinder or support student engagement.

6. Conclusions

This study was designed to examine how student engagement contributes to academic achievement. Using data from two
compulsory, first-year classes at the university business school, we used several measures of student engagement while con-
 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641 13

trolling for a range of factors, including previous academic success. Our findings show that a range of voluntary activities are
associated with improved academic performance. The points (or achievement) in the use of the gamified mobile app, Quitch
has some relationship to the overall student achievement; however, a stronger indicator is merely the student use of the app.
Similarly, student use of tutorials and Blackboard LMS were associated with improved performance. Early engagement and
activities (as measured using the engagement indicators in the first three weeks) can be an important predictor of overall
achievement, allowing educators to identify candidates that are not engaging with the material and intervene to encourage
participation.

6.1. Implications

There are two important implications for educators and instructional designers. First, early in the teaching period, a range
of small activities should be introduced and monitored for participation. Student engagement with these activities can pre-
dict overall results and disengagement measures can be used to guide interventions. Second, careful instructional design of
activities to ensure congruency with the final exam and appropriate skills development may not be required. Rather, the
activities might be made small and manageable and allow the students to engage in the course and with concepts. The addi-
tional care taken to ensure alignment with skills developed over the semester may make a difference in some settings but
may represent an additional effort for every little difference in student performance. For example, where MCQs are devel-
oped to be similar to those in a final exam.

6.2. Limitations

There are several limitations based on the research design. Firstly, the research has collected information from different
sources of data, and we note some may be more valid than others. For example, quizzes are taken online outside of class
time, which means it is impossible to be certain that the person who accrues points in a quiz is the person who sat the quiz.
Secondly, there may be errors in the accuracy of recording student attendance at tutorials due to manual methods of record-
ing attendance. Lastly, although we have shown a correlation between voluntary actions taken by students and their final
grade, and this does not imply causation; however, we have controlled for ‘student ability’ by presenting results from models
including their past results through including the NCEA results. This means that our results cannot be interpreted as merely
being the more capable students that are taking the actions and therefore getting higher grades.

6.3. Future research

More work should be done on the behavioral engagement of business students. This research shows that how students’
engage with the course is an important part of the learning experience. When they ‘opt-in’ they have better academic out-
comes. There are possibilities here to use the research presented to perform interventions. For example, if we can provide
evidence to the current student cohort that behavioral engagement leads to better academic success then, perhaps, there
would be greater levels of engagement. Also, it would be valuable to determine whether the pattern of results is repeatable
and generalizable.

Funding

This research was supported by the University of Otago 2017 CALT grants.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the reviewers and delegates at the RMIT Accounting Educators Conference 2018 for their valuable
comments. We would also like to thank the University of Otago 2017 CALT grants who financially supported this research.

References

Albaqami, T. (2016). Effective methods of teaching business education. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 7(1), 1052–1055.
Alcock, J., Cockcroft, S., & Finn, F. (2008). Quantifying the advantage of secondary mathematics study for accounting and finance undergraduates. Accounting
& Finance, 48(5), 697–718.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in Internet-based MBA courses. Business Communication
Quarterly, 63(4), 9–26.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
Barna, B., & Fodor, S. (2017). In An empirical study on the use of gamification on IT courses at higher education (pp. 684–692). Cham: Springer.
Bastiaens, T. J., Wood, L. C., & Reiners, T. (2014). New landscapes and new eyes: The role of virtual world design for supply chain education. Ubiquitous
Learning: An International Journal, 6(1), 37–49.
Beatson, N. J., Berg, D. A., & Smith, J. K. (2018). The impact of mastery feedback on undergraduate students’ self-efficacy beliefs. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 59, 58–66.
Beatson, N. J., Berg, D. A., & Smith, J. K. (2019). The influence of self-efficacy beliefs and prior learning on performance. Accounting & Finance.
Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher
Education, 40(6), 641–664.
14 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641

Bharucha, J. P. (2017). Building student engagement through collaborative practice in business management education. International Journal of Virtual and
Personal Learning Environments (IJVPLE), 7(2), 1–12.
Boshier, R. (2001). Lifelong learning as bungy jumping: In New Zealand what goes down doesn’t always come up. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
20(5), 361–377.
Carnaghan, C., Edmonds, T. P., Lechner, T. A., & Olds, P. R. (2011). Using student response systems in the accounting classroom: Strengths, strategies and
limitations. Journal of Accounting Education, 29(4), 265–283.
Chen, P. S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement.
Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232.
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(1), 55.
Clark, T., & Barbour, M. (2015). Online, blended and distance education in schools: Building successful programs. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing LLC.
Cronk, M. (2012, June). Using gamification to increase student engagement and participation in class discussion. In EdMedia: World conference on
educational media and technology (pp. 311–315). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Toward a psychology of optimal experience. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Flow and the foundations of positive psychology
(pp. 209–226). Dordrecht, Germany: Springer.
Denny, P. (2013). The effect of virtual achievements on student engagement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems
(pp. 763–772). ACM.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th
international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9–15). ACM.
Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
18(3), 75.
Duff, A. (2004). Understanding academic performance and progression of first-year accounting and business economics undergraduates: The role of
approaches to learning and prior academic achievement. Accounting Education, 13(4), 409–430.
Engler, R. (2010). School leavers’ progression to bachelors-level study. Tertiary Sector Performance Analysis and Reporting, Strategy and System
Performance, Ministry of Education.
Gartner. (2013, August 19). Gartner’s 2013 Hype Cycle for emerging technologies maps out evolving relationship between humans and machines. Gartner.
Retrieved January 3, 2018, from <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2575515>.
Gregory, S., Reiners, T., Wood, L. C., Teräs, H., Teräs, M., & Henderson, M. (2015). Gamification and digital games based learning in the classroom. In M.
Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies: Big Issues and Critical Questions (pp. 127–141). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Hamari, J. (2017). Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 469–478.
Holmes, A. F., & Rasmussen, S. J. (2018). Using Pinterest to stimulate student engagement, interest, and learning in managerial accounting courses. Journal of
Accounting Education, 43, 43–56.
Jakubowski, M. (2014, March). Gamification in business and education – Project of gamified course for university students. In Developments in business
simulation and experiential learning: Proceedings of the annual ABSEL conference (Vol. 41).
Jones, G. H. (2014). Humor to the rescue: How to make introductory economics an appealing social science for non-majors. American Journal of Business
Education, 7(2), 151–156.
Kaciuba, G. (2012). An instructional assignment for student engagement in auditing class: Student movies and the AICPA Core Competency Framework.
Journal of Accounting Education, 30(2), 248–266.
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773.
Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education
Research & Development, 37(1), 58–71.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20–23.
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009). Effects of differential feedback on students’ examination performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15
(4), 319.
Luthans, K. W., Luthans, B. C., & Palmer, N. F. (2016). A positive approach to management education: The relationship between academic PsyCap and student
engagement. Journal of Management Development, 35(9), 1098–1118.
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(1), 153–184.
Muntean, C. I. (2011, October). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In Proc. 6th international conference on virtual learning ICVL (No.
42, pp. 323–329).
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 195–206).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Quick stats (nd). <https://www.otago.ac.nz/about/quickstats.html> date Accessed 28 August 2018.
Olelewe, C. J., Agomuo, E. E., & Obichukwu, P. U. (2019). Effects of B-learning and F2F on college students’ engagement and retention in QBASIC
programming. Education and Information Technologies, 1–26.
Overland, C. (2017). Using roleplaying simulations and alternate reality gaming to develop professional behaviors in pre-service music teachers: A
qualitative case study. Contributions to Music Education, 42, 107–127.
Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1).
Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Wolfle, L. M. (1986). Orientation to college and freshman year persistence/withdrawal decisions. The Journal of Higher
Education, 57(2), 155–175.
Pechenkina, E., Laurence, D., Oates, G., Eldridge, D., & Hunter, D. (2017). Using a gamified mobile app to increase student engagement, retention and
academic achievement. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(31).
Poole, S. M., Kemp, E., Patterson, L., & Williams, K. (2014). Get your head in the game: Using gamification in business education to connect with Generation
Y. Journal for Excellence in Business Education, 3(2).
Reiners, T., Wood, L. C., & Dron, J. (2014). From chaos towards sense: A learner-centric narrative virtual learning space. In J. Bishop (Ed.), Gamification for
human factors integration: Social, education, and psychological issues (pp. 242–258). Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference.
Reiners, T., & Wood, L. C. (2015). Gamification in education and business. Cham, Germany: Springer.
Rohde, F. H., & Kavanagh, M. (1996). Performance in first year university accounting: Quantifying the advantage of secondary school accounting. Accounting
& Finance, 36(2), 275–285.
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2014). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow
theory. In Applications of flow in human development and education (pp. 475–494). Dordrecht, Germany: Springer.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2017). Through the eyes of students.. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(3), 254–269.
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy, 11(1), 1–15.
Trussel, J. M., & Burke-Smalley, L. (2018). Demography and student success: Early warning tools to drive intervention. Journal of Education for Business, 93(8),
363–372.
 N. Beatson et al. / Journal of Accounting Education 50 (2020) 100641 15

Turan, Z., Avinc, Z., Kara, K., & Goktas, Y. (2016). Gamification and education: Achievements, cognitive loads, and views of students. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(7).
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2004). Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college.
Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.
van der Meer, J., Scott, S., & Pratt, K. (2018). First semester academic performance: The importance of early indicators of non-engagement. Student Success, 9
(4), 1–12.
van der Meer, J., Wass, R., Scott, S., & Kokaua, J. (2017). Entry characteristics and participation in a peer learning program as predictors of first-year students’
achievement, retention, and degree completion. AERA Open, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417731572.
Watty, K., McKay, J., & Ngo, L. (2016). Innovators or inhibitors? Accounting faculty resistance to new educational technologies in higher education. Journal of
Accounting Education, 36, 1–15.
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton Digital Press.
Wood, L. C., & Reiners, T. (2015). Gamification. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (3rd ed., pp. 3039–3047).
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167–177.