Accounting Education

ISSN: 0963-9284 (Print) 1468-4489 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raed20

Active learning in small and large classes

Brock Murdoch & Paul W. Guy

To cite this article: Brock Murdoch & Paul W. Guy (2002) Active learning in small and large
classes, Accounting Education, 11:3, 271-282, DOI: 10.1080/0963928021000031448

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0963928021000031448

Published online: 05 Oct 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 317

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raed20
Accounting Education 11 (3), 271–282 (2002)

Active learning in small and large classes

B RO C K M UR D O CH * an d PAU L W. GU Y
California State University, Chico, USA

Received: July 2001

Revised: January 2002; June 2002
Accepted: July 2002

Abstract
This research investigates the effect of class size on introductory accounting student performance
within the context of an active learning environment. In-class group activities were implemented as
an integral part of the learning environment in both small and large sections. Although the class size
issue has been investigated before, this paper focuses on whether active learning methods are
differentially effective in large and small classes when learning is measured by performance on
exams emphasizing analytical problems and essay questions. Because practical and ethical reasons
prevented students from being randomly assigned to large and small sections, the research
methodology controls for confounding in uences. SpeciŽ cally, we control for the covariates age,
attendance, gender, grade point average, and homework completion. Small class students scored
signiŽ cantly higher on the Ž nal exam than did students in the large section.
Keywords: active learning, class size, covariates, critical thinking skills, group activities

Introduction
This paper reports on a research project which investigates the effect of class size on
Introductory Accounting students’ performance within the context of an active learning
environment at a university in the USA. Although the class size issue has been investigated
before, this paper focuses on whether active learning methods are differentially effective in
large and small classes when learning is measured by performance in examinations
emphasizing analytical problems and essay questions. Accounting educators should not be
convinced that results showing equal performance on multiple choice examinations for
small and large sections, when only the lecture method is used, can be generalized to
learning environments in which group activities are used extensively and examinations
require analytical reasoning, decision-making, and explanatory written responses.

Literature review
The issue of class size and its impact on student learning has been a long-standing
controversy across disciplines and education levels (Siegel et al., 1959; Simmons, 1959;
Shane, 1961; Laughlin, 1976; McConnell and Sosin, 1984; Williams et al., 1985).
Conclusions have varied across disciplines. Simmons (1959) observed a higher failure rate
and lower overall achievement for intermediate algebra students in large class settings.

* Address for correspondence: Dr. Brock Murdoch, Professor of Accounting, California State University,
Chico, College of Business, Department of Accounting and MIS, Chico, CA 95929-0011, USA. E-mail:
bmurdoch@csuchico.edu

Accounting Education
ISSN 0963–9284 print/ISSN 1468–4489 online © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/096392802100003144 8
272 Murdoch and Guy

However, Siegel (1959), Laughlin (1976), and Williams et al. (1985), in analyses across
many disciplines, all concluded that class size does not affect student learning.
On the issue of accounting class size, Anderson (1964) argued that, while small classes
with excellent teachers are optimal, large classes with excellent faculty are better than
small classes with less qualiŽ ed teachers. A study by Baldwin (1993) focused on this very
issue. It investigated whether an established teacher with an excellent reputation as a
lecturer could achieve results in a mass lecture section that were equal to or better than
doctoral students could achieve with smaller sections. Baldwin concluded that there was
no signiŽ cant difference in students’ performance. Similarly, Hill (1998) found no
performance advantages for small classes. Indeed, when Hill controlled for grade point
average (GPA) and attendance, the large section outperformed the small section in both
Ž nal examination score and overall course grade.

Hypothesis development
The Baldwin (1993) study has limitations that suggest additional research may add to the
knowledge regarding class size in accounting courses. In his research, Baldwin admitted
that an award-winning teacher taught the large section while doctoral students taught the
smaller sections and that this instructor ‘perceived some pressure to do a good job so as not
to injure an otherwise Ž ne teaching reputation’ (p. 110). Baldwin’s objective was not to
control for variables other than size, but to compare results from Introductory Accounting
taught in a mass-lecture format by an outstanding teacher to results obtained by doctoral
student instructors in smaller sections. Finally, Baldwin states, ‘Another limitation
common to this type of experimentation is that the outcome assessment tool used was a set
of multiple choice examinations’ (1993, p. 110).
Hill (1998) also acknowledged limitations of basing measures of performance on
multiple choice examinations and the lecture method. She recognized that ‘multiple choice
examinations do not allow instructors to evaluate high-order cognitive skills . . .’ (p. 62).
Additionally, Hill indicated that alternative pedagogies, such as cooperative learning and
group activities, were not considered feasible by the instructors participating in her
research. Consequently, the lecture method was used in all sections.
This research examines issues similar to those investigated by Baldwin and Hill in a
different learning and testing environment. In contrast to the Baldwin and Hill studies, how
class size interacts with an active learning environment (i.e., group activities) to affect
performance on examinations emphasizing critical thinking skills is examined. It might be
argued that group cases can be used more effectively in small classes to enhance critical
thinking skills because the instructor has more time to devote to both groups and individual
students within groups. Consequently, superior performance is expected in smaller classes
on examinations consisting of analytical problems and essays. There is evidence that
multiple-choice questions fail to distinguish between different levels of ability (Rogers and
Bateson, 1991; Phillips, 1999; Rayburn and Rayburn, 1999; Burton, 2001). Both Baldwin
and Hill acknowledged that the ability to generalize their Ž ndings is limited by their
exclusive use of multiple-choice examinations.
It is maintained that the ability of Baldwin and Hill to generalize their Ž ndings, as
acknowledged by Hill, is also limited by reliance on the lecture method. Empirical data are
lacking with respect to the relationship between class size and performance, within the
context of group activities, when examinations are developed to evaluate critical thinking
Active learning in small and large classes 273

skills. Both the general and accounting literature on class size, however, takes the position
that small classes enhance learning and critical thinking (Simmons, 1959; Schattke and
McAllister, 1962; Anderson, 1964; McCormick, 1967; McKeachie, 1970; Kempner, 1970;
McConnell and Sosin, 1984). Arguments that active learning methods result in improved
learning and critical thinking skills are persuasive (Christensen, 1991; Garvin, 1991;
Wilkinson and Dubrow, 1991; Cottell and Millis, 1993). Intuitively, it would be expected
that the instructor in smaller classes is more able to facilitate group interaction, resulting
in more stimulating discussions of analytical and theoretical issues. To the extent that such
issues are tested in greater depth by problem and essay examinations, students who have
learned more have the opportunity to exhibit this deeper knowledge. While active learning
techniques have been linked to superior learning (Rau and Heyl, 1990; Burns and Mills,
1997), it is not clear that group activities, speciŽ cally, are effective in large class settings.
It would be expected that group cases is less common in large classes due to the increased
need for the instructor to spend time with each group.
Consistent with the foregoing arguments, this study predicts that students in small
classes will perform better than students in large classes in examinations that include
analytical problems and essay questions. It is believed that these types of examinations
more effectively test critical thinking skills. Consequently, it is expected to Ž nd evidence
to support the alternative hypothesis below:
Ha: Students in small classes emphasizing group activities will perform better on
analytical problems and essay questions than students in large classes emphasizing
group activities.
The null hypothesis is that there is no performance difference between the small and large
groups.

Description of the study

In the early 1990s, one campus in a state university system in the USA reengineered its
Ž rst year of Accounting with a grant from the US Department of Education’s Fund for the
Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE). These Ž rst two semester courses, as
reengineered, are predominantly user-oriented, a change from the prior traditional
preparer-oriented Ž rst year of Accounting. The reasons for the change were related to the
Accounting Education Change Commission’s (1990) call for universities to move away
from the rule-based and procedure-oriented focus of most Introductory Accounting courses
to curricula that emphasize thinking critically, solving unstructured problems, making
decisions, and communicating effectively.
Five sections of the Ž rst semester of Introductory Accounting were offered in the Fall of
1998. This course is a mix of Ž nancial and managerial accounting concepts and was
designed to focus on the aforementioned critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-
making, and communicating skills. Of the Ž ve sections offered, four were smaller classes,
with enrolments of 38, 39, 40, and 37. The other was a large section with 280, for a total
of 434 originally enroled. Although it would have been preferable to have assigned
students randomly to small and large classes, practical and ethical considerations prevented
such a process. Students chose which section of the course in which to enrol. There were
274 Murdoch and Guy

a few transfers, additions, and deletions involving all sections that occurred during the Ž rst
two weeks of the course.1
The large section met on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays (MWF) from 10:00 to
10:50 am. The four small sections met (i) MWF from 11:00 to 11:50 am, (ii) Tuesdays and
Thursdays (TTh) from 11:00 am to 12:15 pm, (iii) TTh from 12:30 to 1:45 pm, and
(iv) TTh from 2:00 to 3:15 pm.
Identical course content, syllabus, assignments, and scheduled activities were used in
both small and large sections. Cases were extensively used to promote discovery learning.
The cases were decision-making ones in which students were given both relevant and
irrelevant data. Students worked in groups during class to analyse these data in order to
make a decision. For example, an early case asked students to decide whether a bank
should make a short-term business loan when the borrower had considerable equity, but
little in the way of liquid assets. A later case required students to determine, for a new
Ž rm, which was the better inventory method, FIFO or LIFO, for purposes of supporting a
bank loan request and for maximizing cash  ow.
Instructors in the small sections circulated during the time allocated to these group
activities, providing clariŽ cation and assuring that groups stayed on task. The large section
had several student mentors (upper division Accounting majors) who assisted the large
section instructor, since the one instructor could not monitor all groups.
There were 15 group cases during the 15-week semester. Fourteen of these cases were
done during class time, with each student individually responsible for reading the case, and
sometimes completing preliminary work, prior to coming to class. The sole group case to
be done outside of class time was the preparation of a small business plan, including pro
forma Ž nancial statements. Each group was responsible for presenting its business plan to
the rest of the class.
Most students were randomly assigned by the instructor to a group of Ž ve. A few groups
were assigned a minimum of four or a maximum of six students because the number of
students in each section was often not divisible by Ž ve. Approximately 40% of all class
time was set aside for students to work in group activities and to get feedback on these
activities. The course had an overall emphasis on student and instructor interaction, with
each instructor requiring students to defend their individual as well as group decisions.
Graders were provided to all instructors to grade both individual and group assignments.
Total points allocated to group activities and individual homework assignments were 230
and 270, respectively. Group members were required to attend on the day the group case
was done in class to receive points for that case. The mid-term and Ž nal examinations were
each worth 200 points. Course grades were assigned by the individual instructor based on
the points earned by each student out of a possible 900.
At the end of each of four learning modules, each student Ž lled out an evaluation form
for everyone in the group, including herself or himself. These evaluations were used by the
instructor to reward or penalize individual group members, if necessary, so that more
deserving group members received more points. Point reallocations were very unusual,
however. Judging by the group evaluation forms, most students worked reasonably hard in

1
Similar to most US universities, ‘shopping for classes’ occurs during the Ž rst few class periods. So as to
include only serious students in the study, ofŽ cial rolls at the end of the second week of classes were used as
the sample.
Active learning in small and large classes 275

their groups. Most differential evaluations re ected differences in student ability rather
than differences in effort. We believe the real value of the students’ peer evaluations was
that they motivated students to participate.
Some additional controls were added as well. SpeciŽ cally, this study includes the
following characteristics and controls that differentiate it from Baldwin (1993) and Hill
(1998):

c Experienced tenured faculty, familiar with the course, taught all sections.
c Examination questions were known only to the researchers prior to administering
the examinations to students. Instructors were not involved in examination
preparation or grading.
c Grading of examinations was the responsibility of a professor emeritus with
considerable experience in grading academic and professional examinations (i.e.,
the CPA and CMA examination). The grader did not know which examinations
were from the small sections and which were from the large section.

Method

Data collection
Three different male faculty members of similar experience were used to teach the Ž ve
different sections of the course. Indeed, all three faculty members who taught the course
were part of the original FIPSE grant team who developed course materials in the early
1990s. Student evaluations from prior semesters for these faculty for the same course were
examined and did not indicate any signiŽ cant differences among them.
Attendance and homework data were recorded for all students. Student assistants
collected and evaluated homework assignments as to completeness. Assignments were not
graded as to correctness, since this type of evaluation may have measured the same type
of aptitude represented by GPA (discussed later as a covariate). Students were given full
credit if their homework was complete and submitted on time.
Performance measures were obtained from a Ž nal examination administered to all
students at the same time. At the research university, mid-term examinations are
administered in regular class periods at the instructor’s discretion while Ž nal examinations
occur at the same time for all students enroled in the course. The researchers tried to
implement special procedures to provide for a common mid-term examination so that
information leakage from earlier mid-terms to later ones would not be an issue. However,
a large proportion of students were unable to take the mid-term examinations at the
common examination time. Consequently, performance measures are based solely on the
Ž nal examination.

Dependent variable
The dependent variable is the correct score, out of 164 non-multiple choice points, for the
Ž nal examination. Problems in the Ž nal examination required each student to choose
relevant information from an array of data, perform analysis, and interpret or explain the
meaning of his or her analysis.
276 Murdoch and Guy

Independent variables
The independent variable of interest in this investigation is class size. However, since it
was not possible to select students randomly into large and small classes, it is necessary to
control for other variables that may confound the effect class size has on Ž nal examination
score. Potential confounding in uences for which we controlled are aptitude (GPA),
motivation (attendance and homework completion), gender, and age. GPA at the research
university 2 is used as the measure of aptitude. Students who have done well in other
academic courses are expected to do well in Accounting (Wooten, 1998). Both Baldwin
(1993) and Hill (1998) found GPA to be highly correlated with examination
performance.
Several researchers have studied the effect of gender on performance, often with
contrary results. Mutchler et al. (1987) concluded that females outperformed males and
that female-instructed Accounting students outperformed male-instructed students. Lipe
(1989), however, was unable to replicate these Ž ndings, while Doran et al. (1991) found
that males scored signiŽ cantly higher in examinations than females. Tyson (1989)
concludes that any superiority of female performance in Accounting is related to females’
higher work needs and not to ‘extrinsic or accounting-related factors’ (p. 159). Similarly,
Buckless et al. (1991) concluded using scholastic aptitude test (SAT) or American College
Testing Assessment Test (ACT) as a covariate reduces the gender effect related to
examination scores to insigniŽ cance.
Hill (1998) determined class attendance to be signiŽ cantly correlated with examination
performance in the Ž rst Introductory Accounting course. Both attendance and homework
completion are considered by the authors to be good measures of student motivation.
Baldwin (1993) and Hill (1998) both included student’s age as a potential covariate, but
only Baldwin found age to be ‘signiŽ cantly associated with performance’ (p. 102),
ostensibly because it measures maturity, which may be a substitute for motivation.

Statistical analysis
As discussed above, confounding variables that may affect performance were controlled
for, exclusive of size. The following regression is used to predict students’ scores on the
Ž nal examination:
Final exam score = b 0 + b 1Size + b 2Age + b 3Att + b 4Gender + b 5GPA + b 6HW
where Final exam score = Points correct on Ž nal examination
Size = 0 for small section and 1 for large section
Age = Age in years
Att = Percentage of class periods attended
Gender = 0 for female and 1 for male
GPA = Grade point average (4 = A, 3 = B, 2 = C, 1 = D, 0 = F)
HW = Percentage of total homework assignments completed
A one-tail t-test for the size variable is used to determine the signiŽ cance of the size
variable in the regression.

2
GPA at the university where the research was conducted, rather than overall GPA, was used because of
potential institutional grading differences among the many colleges and universities (mostly community
colleges) from which students transfer.
Active learning in small and large classes 277

Results

Table 1 displays the numbers of students who were eliminated from statistical tests and the
reason for elimination. Of the 434 original enrolments, a total of 355 students took the
Ž nal examination, representing an overall completion rate of 81.8% (355 of 434 students).
The small sections had a completion rate of 79.9% (123 of 154 students) and the large
section had a completion rate of 82.8% (232 of 280 students). Although course completion,
(or its complement, attrition) is not the focus of this study, it is important to discern
whether course completion differs between large and small sections. SigniŽ cantly different
course completion might indicate undetected differences in the two samples.

Table 1. Sample size

Number of students: All % Small % Large %

Originally enroled 434 100.0 154 100.0 280 100.0
Who did not complete the course 79 18.2 31 20.1 48 17.2
Taking Ž nal examination 355 81.8 123 79.9 232 82.8
(completion rate)
In Ž rst semester with no GPA 99 22.8 41 26.6 58 20.7
Used in hypothesis test 256 59.0 82 53.3 174 62.1

A student was considered to have not completed the course if he or she was enroled after
the second week of the course, but did not take the Ž nal examination, regardless of the
reason. University rules require those who ofŽ cially drop out after the Ž rst two weeks to
have a serious and compelling reason to do so. Examples of serious and compelling
reasons are illness, family crisis, Ž nancial hardship, and similar excuses not related to
course performance. Poor performance is not considered a serious and compelling reason.
A chi-square test showed there is no evidence that course completion differed between
small and large sections.3
Sample size was reduced further because Ž rst semester students did not have a GPA
from the research university, a necessary independent variable. This eliminated 99 of 355
students. Data from the surviving 256 students in the sample were included in hypothesis
tests.

Preliminary statistics
Table 2 displays preliminary statistics (means and proportions) for the dependent variable
(Ž nal examination score) and independent variables (age, attendance, gender, GPA, and
homework completion percentage) for the small sections and the large section. A one or
two-tail p-value for the signiŽ cance of the difference between the small and large means
(t-tests) or proportions (chi-square) is also displayed, as is the conclusion as to whether the
difference is statistically signiŽ cant. A one-tail test is used when the a priori expectation
is that the appropriate characteristic would be greater for the small sections. A two-tail test

3
A chi-square of 0.596 was calculated with a corresponding p-value of 0.44.
278 Murdoch and Guy

Table 2. Preliminary statistics: means/proportions for small and large sections

Small = S Large = L A priori

Variable (n = 82) (n = 174) Expectation* p = value** Conclusion
Final exam score 91.39 78.63 m S> m L 0.0013 Small classes scored
higher
Age 22.65 20.76 m S¹ m L 0.0003 Small class students were
older
Attendance % 88.81 84.58 m S> m L 0.0075 Small classes had better
attendance
Gender (male %) 54.88 58.62 pS ¹ pL 0.5720 No signiŽ cant difference
GPA 2.756 2.597 m S¹ m L 0.0497 Small class students had
higher GPA
HW completion 79.69 76.73 m S> m L 0.1120 No signiŽ cant difference
%
Final exam score Points correct on Ž nal examination
Age Age in years
Attendance % Percentage of class periods attended
Gender (male %) Percentage of male students in the sample
GPA Grade point average (4 = A, 3 = B, 2 = C, 1 = D, 0 = F)
HW completion % Percentage of total homework assignments completed
*The main a priori hypothesis is that students in small classes have higher Ž nal exam scores. For the covariates
attendance and homework, the a priori expectation is that students in small classes will attend more frequently and
complete more homework. For the covariates age, gender, and GPA, the a priori expectation is that there may be a
difference between small and large classes (due to a lack of random assignment of students to sections) without any
conjecture as to the direction of the difference.
** Final exam score, Age, Attendance %, GPA, and HW completion % represent means and the p-values are from t-
tests. Gender (Male %) is a proportion and the p-value is from a chi-square test.

is used when the expectation is that there may be a difference between small and large
sections, but the direction of the difference is not clear a priori.
Table 3 is a matrix showing the correlations among all variables. In all cases, the signs
of correlations between the dependent and independent variables are consistent with
expectations, given prior research and/or theoretical considerations. If independent
variables are highly correlated, a condition called multicollinearity, the regression
coefŽ cients can become unstable and the signiŽ cance tests and the interpretations of the
individual variables may be misleading (Neter et al., 1996, pp. 289–90). The correlations
among the independent variables are small or moderate, with the largest correlations being
.523 between HW completion and attendance, and .501 between HW completion and
GPA.
To see if the independent variables in combination might show multicollinearity, for
each independent variable we computed a diagnostic statistic called the variance in ation
factor (VIF) (Neter et al., 1996, pp. 386–87). If the independent variables are uncorrelated
(a rare situation in practice) the VIFs will be 1. It is suggested that VIFs above 10 could
indicate serious multicollinearity. However, the largest VIF here is 1.613 (for HW) and the
main variable of interest, size, has a VIF of 1.091. Consequently, multicollinearity is not
a problem.
Active learning in small and large classes 279

Table 3. Correlation matrix (n = 256)

Final HW
exam Completion
score Size Age Attendance Gender GPA %
Final exam score 1
Size –0.187 1
Age 0.136 –0.223 1
Attendance % 0.247 –0.152 –0.048 1
Gender –0.001 0.035 0.111 –0.161 1
GPA 0.399 –0.123 –0.038 0.387 –0.216 1
HW Completion % 0.398 –0.076 –0.056 0.523 –0.127 0.501 1
Final exam score Points correct on Ž nal examination
Size 0 for small section and 1 for large section
Age Age in years
Attendance % Percentage of class periods attended
Gender 0 for female and 1 for male
GPA Grade point average (4 = A, 3 = B, 2 = C, 1 = D, 0 = F)
HW completion % Percentage of total homework assignments completed

Hypothesis test and conclusion

The hypothesis concerns student performance in examinations consisting of analytical
problems and essay questions. The one-tail alternative hypothesis is reproduced below:
Ha: Students in small classes emphasizing group activities will perform better on
analytical problems and essay questions than students in large classes emphasizing
group activities.
Partial regression coefŽ cients, a priori expected coefŽ cient signs, t-statistics, and p-
values for each of the six independent variables from the regression are reported in Table
4. These six variables combined explain 25.4% of the variation in Ž nal examination
score.
The t-value for size is –1.876 with a one-tail p-value of .03. Accordingly, it is concluded
that utilizing group learning techniques in small sections results in a higher level of
learning than utilizing these same techniques in large sections.
The independent variable of interest, size, has a partial regression coefŽ cient of –7.301.
This indicates that for same sex students with equal age, attendance, GPA, and HW, the
Ž nal examination scores in the small sections would be predicted to be an average of more
than 7 points higher. Although, small sections students scored an average of over 12 points
higher on the Ž nal examination (see Table 2), only about 7 points of this difference is
associated with smaller class size. Because multicollinearity is not an issue (see discussion
above), there are no concerns about the conclusion of the hypothesis, nor with the
foregoing statement about how class size affects Ž nal examination score.

Limitations
Common limitations related to conducting student performance research are also present
here, although the authors attempted to control for these. This research was conducted at
280 Murdoch and Guy

Table 4. Regression for predicting Ž nal examination points

Regression:
Final exam score = b 0 + b 1Size + b 2Age + b 3Att + b 4Gender + b 5GPA + b 6HW
n = 256
R2 = 0.254

Independent variable CoefŽ cient A priori t-statistic p-value

Expectation*
Intercept –12.702
Size –7.301 b 1< 0 –1.876 0.031
Age 1.030 b 2 0
> 2.255 0.012
Att (attendance %) 0.011 b 3>0 0.069 0.473
Gender (male %) 5.308 b 4¹ 0 1.459 0.146
GPA 14.248 b 5>0 4.163 0.000
HW (completion %) 0.472 b 6>0 3.871 0.000

ANOVA

Df SS MS F p-value
Regression 6 65 639.5 10 939.9 14.125 0.000
Residual 249 192 850.7 774.5
Total 255 258 490.2
Final exam score Points correct on Ž nal examination
Size 0 for small section and 1 for large section
Age Age in years
Attendance % Percentage of class periods attended
Gender 0 for female and 1 for male
GPA Grade point average (4 = A, 3 = B, 2 = C, 1 = D, 0 = F)
HW completion % Percentage of total homework assignments completed
* The main a priori hypothesis is that students in small classes have higher Ž nal exam scores. For the covariates age,
attendance, GPA, and homework, the a priori expectation is that older students with better attendance, higher GPAs,
and who complete more homework score higher in the Ž nal exam. There is no a priori expectation as to which gender
scores higher in the Ž nal exam.

one university, in one semester, and for one course in one country. Since students could
not be randomly assigned to classes, aptitude and motivation differences are real
possibilities. Accordingly, the research method controlled for these differences, as well as
for gender and homework completion (another measure of motivation).

Conclusions and suggestions for future research

It was hypothesized in this research that group learning techniques could be used more
effectively in small classes than in large and would result in superior examination
performance in small classes. This hypothesis is supported by the research.
Although this Ž nding may suggest that group activities should only be used in small
classes, it does not directly address the issue of whether group activities may also improve
Active learning in small and large classes 281

learning in large classes. Past research has shown that class size does not affect
performance when using the lecture method and objective examinations (Baldwin, 1993;
Hill, 1998). Comparing the use of active-learning methods (e.g., group activities) in large
classes to the lecture method in large classes, coupled with problem and essay
examinations, will provide further evidence of the effectiveness of active learning
methods. Is the often cited belief that large classes preclude the effective use of active
learning methods warranted?
Addressing other research issues regarding the effect of group activities on performance
is also recommended. Some possibilities are examining (i) the effectiveness of group
activities in small and large classes with only multiple choice testing, (ii) the effectiveness
of group activities without awarding points for participation, and (iii) the effectiveness of
student peer evaluations.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Tony Catanach, Paul Krause, Richard Lea, and two
anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on this paper.

References
Accounting Education Change Commission (1990) Objectives of education for accountants:
Position Statement Number 1. Issues in Accounting Education 5(1), 307–12.
Anderson, W.T. (1964) Large classes in elementary accounting. The Accounting Review 39(4),
1034–36.
Baldwin, B.A. (1993) Teaching introductory Ž nancial accounting in mass-lecture sections:
Longitudinal evidence. Issues in Accounting Education 8(1), 97–111.
Buckless, F.A., Lipe, M.G. and Ravenscroft, S.P. (1991) Do gender effects on accounting course
performance persist after controlling for general academic aptitude? Issues in Accounting
Education 6(2), 248–61.
Burns, C.S. and Mills, L.K. (1997) Bringing the factory to the classroom. Journal of Accountancy
183(1), 56, 58, 60.
Burton, R.F. (2001) Quantifying the effects of chance in multiple choice and true/false tests:
question selection and guessing of answers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
26(1), 41, 50.
Christensen, C.R. (1991) Premises and practices of discussion teaching. Education for Judgment, pp.
15–34. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Cottell, P.G. and Millis, B.J. (1993) Cooperative learning structures in the instruction of accounting.
Issues in Accounting Education 8(1), 40–59.
Doran, B.M., Bouillon, M.L. and Smith, C.G. (1991) Determinants of student performance in
Accounting Principles I and II. Issues in Accounting Education 6(1), 74–84.
Garvin, D.A. (1991) A delicate balance: ethical dilemmas and the discussion process. Education for
Judgment, pp. 287–303. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hill, M.C. (1998) Class size and student performance in Introductory Accounting courses: further
evidence. Issues in Accounting Education 13(1), 47–64.
Kempner, J.J. (1970) An argument for small class size. The Accounting Review 45(2), 364–66.
Laughlin, J.S. (1976) A sacred cow – class size. College and University 51(3), 339–47.
Lipe, M.G. (1989) Further evidence on the performance of female versus male accounting students.
Issues in Accounting Education 4(1), 144–52.
282 Murdoch and Guy

McCormick, F.L. (1967) Large group instruction in elementary accounting. The Accounting Review
42(3), 592.
McConnell, C.R. and Sosin, K. (1984) Some determinants of student attitudes toward large classes.
Journal of Economic Education 15(3), 181–90.
McKeachie, W.J. (1970) Research on College Teaching: A Review. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education cited in E.K. St. Pierre, M.P. Riordan and D.A. Riordan
(eds) 1990, Research in Instructional Effectiveness, p. 138. Harrisonburg, VA: Center for
Research in Accounting Education, School of Accounting, James Madison University.
Mutchler, J.F., Turner, J.H. and Williams, D.D. (1987) The performance of female versus male
accounting students. Issues in Accounting Education 2(1), 103–11.
Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J. and Wasserman, W. (1996) Applied Linear Regression
Models. Third Edn. Chicago: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Phillips, F. (1999) Business students’ learning preferences and associated task performance. Journal
of Education for Business 75(1), 27–32.
Rau, W. and Heyl, B.S. (1990) Humanizing the college classroom: collaborative learning and social
organization among students. Teaching Sociology 18, 141–55.
Rayburn, L.G. and Rayburn, J.M. (1999) Impact of course length and homework assignments on
student performance. Journal of Education for Business 74(6), 325–31.
Rogers, W.T. and Bateson, D.J. (1991) The in uence of testwiseness upon performance of high
school students on school leaving examinations. Applied Measurement in Education 4(2),
159–83.
Schattke, R. and McAllister, L. (1962) Large versus small classes in elementary accounting. The
Accounting Review 37(3), 557–61.
Shane, H.G. (1961) What research says about class size and human development. NEA Journal
50(1), 30–32.
Siegel, L., Macomber, F.G. and Adams, J.F. (1959) The effectiveness of large group instruction at
the university level. Harvard Educational Review 29(3), 216–26.
Simmons, H.F. (1959) Achievement in intermediate algebra associated with class size at the
University of Wichita. College and University 34(3), 309–15.
Tyson, T. (1989) Grade performance in Introductory Accounting courses: why females outperform
males. Issues in Accounting Education 4(1), 153–60.
Wilkinson, J. and Dubrow, H. (1991) Encouraging independent thinking, Education for Judgment.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 249–61.
Williams, D.D., Cook, P.F., Quinn, B. and Jensen, R.P. (1985) University class size: is smaller
better? Research in Higher Education 23(3), 307–18.
Wooten, T.C. (1998) Factors in uencing student learning in introductory accounting classes: a
comparison of traditional and nontraditional students. Issues in Accounting Education 13(2),
357–73.