Cooperative learning activities: Managerial

accounting
Peek, Lucia E; Winking, Charlene; Peek, George S . Issues in Accounting Education ; Sarasota
 Vol. 10, Iss. 1,  (Spring 1995): 111.

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT
The Accounting Education Change Commission has urged faculty members to move away from lecture format and
to experiment with new instructional methods where students become active participants in the learning process.
The Commission suggests that students learn best by doing and should be encouraged to work in groups on
unstructured problems. A discussion is provided of the concepts of cooperative learning that can be used to
enhance students' active participation in the learning process. Cooperative learning techniques are formal
structured group methods that have been widely used across many disciplines and grade levels. Four lessons are
presented based on cooperative learning techniques that have been used successfully in an introductory
managerial accounting principles class.

FULL TEXT
 
THE Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC) has promulgated "Objectives of Education for
Accountants: Position Statement Number One." One issue the statement addresses concerns instructional
methods. The AECC urges faculty members to move away from a purely lecture format where students take on the
role of "passive recipients of information" (AECC 1990, 309). Rather, students should become active participants in
the learning process. The Commission suggests that students learn best by doing; they should be encouraged to
work in groups on unstructured problems. The AECC's "The First Course in Accounting: Position Statement
Number Two" conveys a similar message about instructional methods in the Introductory Accounting course:
"Teachers of the first course in accounting should put priority on their interaction with students and on interaction
among students" (AECC 1992, 4). Cooperative learning techniques were developed as formal structured group
methods to enhance students' active participation not only in their own learning processes but also in the learning
processes of their classmates. The instructor can use cooperative learning techniques to foster learning and
interaction among students in both introductory and major accounting classes.

Many instructors are reluctant to use group work in accounting principles classes due to the size of the class, the
time consumed by group work, and the problem of free riders in group situations. Cooperative learning techniques
involve structured group tasks which reduce the problems of free riders since all members of the group have tasks
to perform. The instructor structures the group tasks and consequently has some control over the time consumed
by the group interactions. Cooperative learning exercises need not be tremendously time consuming. The
education literature abounds with research and discussion on the use of cooperative learning techniques across
disciplines, as well as grade levels. Papers addressing cooperative learning have appeared in the accounting
literature (e.g., Bryan and Prater 1991; and Cottell and Millis 1992, 1993). Cottell and Millis (1992) provide a
discussion of the concepts of cooperative learning and a general description of the implementation of the
techniques into an intermediate financial accounting course. In their more recent paper, Cottell and Millis (1993)
introduce different cooperative learning structures and show examples from a broad range of accounting classes.

PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 12

Our paper provides a discussion of the basic concepts of cooperative learning, along with four in-depth lessons
based on cooperative learning techniques used in an introductory managerial accounting principles class.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Cooperative learning techniques are based on the premise that in the real world students will work in heterogenous
groups to solve problems. The groups may be considered heterogeneous due to many factors, including
intellectual and technical ability or cultural diversity. The Big 8 in Perspectives on Education: Capabilities for
Success in the Accounting Profession reinforced the idea that interpersonal skills, "the ability to work with other
human beings[,l is an important part of public practice" (1989, 7). Public accountants have to be able to work and
communicate not only with their accounting peers, but with client personnel in a variety of functions. In a private
corporation, management accountants have to be able to work in teams with personnel from finance, engineering,
operations, and marketing. Regardless of their majors, to be successful in business careers students need to
practice and improve their team and interpersonal skills as part of the educational curriculum. This objective can
be met partially through the use of cooperative learning techniques.

The learning environment in most classroom settings promotes competition, an atmosphere students will have to
cope with in the real world, but the workplace environment will also require that they function effectively in
cooperative situations. Aronson and Goode (1980, 49), pioneers in developing cooperative learning techniques,
state:

Even using jigsaw (a cooperative learning technique) in the classroom for only a few hours a week, as we did in our
studies, directs children's attention to the importance of interpersonal relations and gives them the social skills
they will need more and more as they move into the world.

Like Aronson and Goode, we are not advocating the abolition of the lecture format or the competitive learning
environment, but rather suggest that more emphasis should be placed on cooperative learning situations. We are
advocating the use of cooperative learning groups several times throughout the semester to provide students with
the opportunity to practice their interpersonal and communication skills and also break the monotony of a straight
lecture format. There are many different cooperative learning methods discussed in the literature, but there are
four basic elements that underlie all of the methods.

Positive or Group Interdependence

A necessary element of cooperative learning exercises is positive or group interdependence. To foster cooperative
learning in a group the instructor must structure the group's assignment so that each group member is dependent
on the other members to complete successfully the group's task. There must be a need for interaction of the group
members.

To achieve group interdependence in the exercises presented here we used two different techniques based on a
cooperative learning method called Jigsaw that was developed by Aronson et al. (1978). In a competitively
structured lesson the instructor provides each student with all the information necessary to complete a task.
Using the Jigsaw method the instructor provides each student in a group with only a portion of the information--
i.e., a piece of the jigsaw puzzle. Each member of a cooperative learning group is responsible for becoming an
expert on a unique part of the subject matter. The students' ultimate task is to teach or explain their assigned parts
of the lesson to the other members of their group.

PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 12

Aronson and Goode (1980, 52-53) provide a general description of the implementation of the Jigsaw method. The
instructor divides the students into groups of five or six based on scholastic ability, leadership ability, and affective
bonds. The groups should be heterogeneous in terms of scholastic ability in order for the high achievers to help
the low achievers. Initially, the instructor may want to assign one person with leadership ability to each group, but
after the groups get started, the leadership role might be rotated among the group members.

Development of heterogeneous groups is a critical factor for the success of cooperative learning activities. Early in
a semester, the instructor may assign groups randomly because knowledge about students' abilities and
characteristics are unknown. As the instructor comes to know the students better, new groups may be assigned to
achieve true heterogeneity and to capitalize on the strengths and weaknesses of students. For example, after the
first test, students can be assigned to groups to assure a mix of high and low achievers.

After groups are formed the instructor provides each member of a cooperative learning team with separate
materials that represent a coherent segment of the lesson; the segment should be individually comprehensible--for
example, a portion of a data set or a complete definition. To assist the students in learning the concepts and
determining how they will teach their unique information to the members of the group, students will meet with their
counterparts from other cooperative groups. For example, in a lesson centered on learning cost behavior terms,
the group member who is assigned the material on variable and fixed costs would meet with members of the other
groups who were responsible for teaching the same terms. They would discuss the concepts, as well as ways to
teach the information on variable and fixed costs.

We also used another technique based on a method developed by David and Roger Johnson, which is known in the
literature as the Learning Together method. In a discussion of this method Johnson et al. (1991, 17) described
several ways to achieve group interdependence:

Positive goal interdependence--the group must have a clear goal;

Positive reward/celebration interdependence--group rewards;

Positive resource interdependence-group members must share materials;

Positive role interdependence--each member in the group is assigned a role that will assist the group to reach its
goal.

We focused on two specific techniques to achieve positive interdependence in our lessons: material or information
sharing and group rewards.

Through material sharing the instructor can create group interdependence by requiring that the group complete
one worksheet which represents the group's answer to a particular problem. Another resource sharing technique
that is similar to Aronson et al.'s (1978) Jigsaw method is the "jigsaw procedure." The instructor provides each
member of the group with a piece of the information that is necessary to complete the group's task. It is not
necessary for the student to become an expert on the information, but simply to share it with the group. For
example, in a lesson on Cost-Volume-Profit, the instructor gives the group a single worksheet to complete, while
each member of the group is given an index card with a piece of essential information, such as selling price per
unit or variable cost per unit. The students have to interact and share information to complete the worksheet; the
group members each have a piece of the puzzle they must share.

PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 12

The instructor can also enhance Group Interdependence by developing group rewards. The members of the group
will cooperate more fully to achieve their goal if rewards are linked to the group effort. For example, the group's
answer may be the basis for a grade, or a bonus system may be developed that rewards group members based on
the individual members' test scores. We based our group rewards on a simple idea suggested by Johnson et al.
(1991) by providing bonus points to the group members if all the members achieved at least eight points out of ten
on a quiz. The cooperative learning literature provides more elaborate methods to determine group rewards. For
example, in the Student Teams-Achievement Divisions cooperative learning method, Slavin (1990, 62-65)
developed a system for determining and awarding bonus points based on each student's base score and his/her
improvement on subsequent tests. Under either method the student has a vested interest in helping the other
group members master the material.

Individual Accountability

Another necessary element of a cooperative learning exercise is individual accountability. Each member of the
group must be held accountable for mastering the material. One method to achieve individual accountability is
through individual quizzes, which Slavin (1985) states is an element of Aronson' s Jigsaw method and which was
also suggested as an appropriate method by Johnson et al. (1941). The students learn the material in a group
setting, but are tested on an individual basis. Individual accountability reduces the problem of free riders; students
have to learn because they are going to be tested individually. They will also be helped and/or pressured by their
peers if group rewards are tied to individual efforts of the group members.

The "Numbered Heads Together" technique, which was developed by Russ Frank, achieves individual
accountability without formalized written test procedures (Kagan 1990, 11.1). Under this method groups are
formed at the beginning of the year and each member of the group is assigned a number. During a lesson Frank
may stop and ask a question. The group members put their heads together and determine a group response. Any
member of the group can be called upon at random to provide the group's answer. The group's success is
dependent on a correct response by the randomly selected group member. A member of the group who can easily
grasp the concepts is motivated to see that each member understands the answer because anyone in the group
may be chosen to respond. To ensure an understanding of the lesson's underlying concepts, the individual student
could be asked not only to supply the answer to the problem, but also to discuss how the group arrived at the
particular response. In situations where an individual quiz did not seem appropriate, we used the Numbered Heads
Together technique of randomly selecting students to present the group's response.

Heterogeneous Grouping

Cooperative learning groups should be structured to achieve a degree of heterogeneity among group members. As
indicated earlier, after the first test, students can be assigned to groups so that there is a mix of high and low
achievers. The high achievers will see the need to help the low achieving students because the group rewards are
dependent on the group's overall performance. Some students may object to this approach, but the need to
communicate with nontechnical personnel is an argument that may lead students to understand the value in the
exercise. The teacher should also be ready to handle and make adjustments in the system when low-achieving
students need special assistance or when the source of low achievement is not related to the student's ability but
rather to lack of motivation. The teacher may have to intervene by suggesting that the low-achieving student come
for extra help and communicating directly to unmotivated students the consequences of their behavior. Instructors
can assign individual group members to specific positions in the group, such as leader and report writer, though
we did not employ group roles in this situation. Rau and Heyl (1990, 146) require that the students appoint a new
leader and report writer each day. The leader is responsible for starting the group discussion, managing the

PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 4 of 12

group's time, and reporting on any problems the group had with the material. The report writer produces the
group's report based on the information provided by the group members. The group report is signed by all the
group members. By rotating group roles the students have experience as a leader, which is similar to a manager in
a business context. The Perspectives document (1989, 7) defines a competent manager as a person "able to
influence others; organize and delegate tasks; motivate and develop other people; and withstand and resolve
conflict." The group leader must exercise those skills in order to arrive at a group consensus. The report writer has
to develop a clear and concise report that integrates and summarizes the opinions of the group's members. The
instructor grades the group report and the students receive the group grade.

Johnson et al. (1991, 63) discuss assigning students to a number of different roles as a way to achieve positive
role interdependence. With an expanded number of roles each member of the group has to participate. They
suggest the following possible roles and responsibilities : Summarizer--summarizes the groups overall response;

Checker--checks that each member of the group is capable of reporting the group response;

Accuracy Coach--makes sure each member of the group is technically accurate in responding to the problem
assignment;

Recorder--records the group's response;

Research-runner--collects any additional materials;

Elaborator--relates material to previously studied material;

Encourager--encourages all the members of the group to participate;

Observer--observes how well the group is working together.

By performing these assigned roles the members of the group are responsible for effective interaction and
successful completion of the group's task.

Group Processing

Group processing is an important element of cooperative learning for promoting and evaluating the effective
interaction of group members. Johnson et al. (1991, 22-24) recommend that the instructor allow time at the end of
each group session for the group members to discuss whether group members' behaviors were helpful or
unhelpful. The instructor can also observe and assess group interations and may provide suggestions on ways for
members to improve their behavior.

ROLE OF THE TEACHER IN A COOPERATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

The most difficult aspect of cooperative learning methods for the instructor is the fact that now the instructor
must become an observer and facilitator in terms of conveying knowledge. Many instructors believe they are the
primary source of knowledge in the classroom; even the textbook may not be sufficient. It is thus very difficult to
step back and let the students discover and learn together. The instructor must remember that the students not
only learn concepts and ideas in a cooperative learning exercise, but they practice their interpersonal and
communication skills as well. In using the Jigsaw method and procedures students especially have to exercise

PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 5 of 12

their listening skills, which may not occur effectively in a classroom where the teacher lectures on the material and
the students are passive receivers, not actively involved in the learning process. In cooperative learning, the
instructor takes on the task of organizing the materials and assisting the student groups. Johnson et al. (1991, 81)
indicate that the instructor is a "guide on the side," not a "sage on the stage."

It is not the intent of this paper to suggest that cooperative learning should be used in every class or for every
lesson. There are many times when the lecture method is the most effective and efficient method to achieve a
lesson's objectives. The lessons demonstrated in this paper involve using cooperative learning groups in
situations where the purpose is to reinforce concepts previously lectured on or in situations where student
discussion is required. The next section of the paper presents four examples of lessons based on cooperative
learning techniques.

LESSON DEVELOPMENT

In developing an exercise it is necessary to identify the group structure, the materials that will be needed, and to
incorporate the factors of group interdependence and individual accountability. Rau and Heyl(1990, 146) suggest
that groups should range in size from four to eight students. It will depend on the size of the class how large the
groups are, but there is a point beyond which the group size becomes unmanageable. Aronson and Goode (1980)
suggest groups of six students for the Jigsaw method. The instructor may have to develop materials specifically
for the lesson; however, it may be possible to use problems directly from the textbook or with very simple
modifications. The task has to be structured so the group members are positively interdependent yet, there must
be an element of individual accountability so that each individual member of the group is motivated to participate.
Tables 1 to 4 provide basic lesson materials: the managerial accounting topic, the objective of the exercise, group
structure, materials, and methods used to achieve Group Interdependence and Individual Accountability. (Tables 1-
4 omitted) All the lessons have been used in an introductory managerial accounting course, a required course for
all business majors, and progress from simple introductory lessons to complex decisionmaking situations.

Managerial Accounting Cost Terms and Definitions

The first cooperative learning lesson in the semester covered the managerial accounting cost terms and
definitions contained in the second chapter of Garrison's (1991) Managerial Accounting text. This topic is covered
adequately in the book, and many times the instructor just reads the definitions from the book and covers an
exercise that illustrates the different cost terms. We chose to start with what we believed to be a simple exercise in
the hope that the students and the instructor would have a chance to become accustomed to the implementation
of cooperative learning groups. We based this lesson on the Jigsaw method, except that due to time limitations we
did not have students with the same topic meet with their counterparts from the other groups. Instead, we used a
modified approach called Within-Team Jigsaw (Kagan 1989/ 1990, 13-15). We gave the same topic to two
members in each group who then met and discussed the information and how they would teach it to the other
members of the group. Table 1 summarizes the parts of this lesson.

As indicated, six students were assigned randomly to each group since it was too early to assign students to
groups based on academic achievement. Two students in each group were given a worksheet that contained the
definition and examples of cost terms from one of the following cost categories: Variable and Fixed Costs; Direct
and Indirect Costs; and Controllable and Noncontrollable Costs. Each pair of students in the group had to become
experts on their assigned cost category and were responsible for teaching the terms to the other members of the
group. For example, two students became experts on variable and fixed costs and taught the concepts to the
group, while two other students became experts on direct and indirect costs and taught those concepts to the

PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 6 of 12

group. The factor of Group Interdependence is achieved because the group members are responsible for one
segment of the assignment and are dependent on other group members for the remaining two segments.
Individual Accountability was achieved by giving all the students a quiz on all the cost terms at the end of the
group sessions. A group reward was factored in by giving the students in the group an extra point on their
individual quiz grade if everyone in the group scored an eight or more out of ten on the quiz. While this lesson is
quite simple, it contains all the significant cooperative learning characteristics, and it allows both students and
instructor to become comfortable with a cooperative learning approach.

Cost-Volume-Profit

In the Cost-Volume-Profit exercise, shown in table 2, the instructor gave the members of the group individual index
cards with the necessary information to calculate breakeven and the units needed to be sold to achieve a targeted
profit. We based the techniques used in this lesson on Johnson and Johnson's Learning Together method and the
Jigsaw procedure for information interdependence. In this lesson students worked in groups to complete a single
worksheet. Each student in the group received a unique piece of the necessary information to solve the problem;
they were evaluated using the Numbered Heads Together technique and given a group grade.

Five different index cards containing the necessary information were distributed to individual members of the
group. The information on the index cards was as follows:

Card l--Selling Price per unit;

Card 2--Variable Cost per unit;

Card 3--Total Fixed Cost;

Card 4--Fixed Cost per unit based on 1,000 units;

Card 5--Targeted Profit.

Each student in the group had to read the information on his/her particular card to the group. The group members
had to listen to the information and synthesize the information that was needed to solve the problem since
extraneous items were included. Individuals were randomly called upon to present the group's response for the
breakeven and targeted profit volumes. Each member in the group had to know the answer and how it was
calculated. If the answer was correct, the group members were each awarded 10 points. If the answer was
incorrect, partial credit was given based on the severity of the group's error.

As an extension of the problem the groups were then asked to consider changes in the original data, such as a
decrease or increase in variable or fixed costs caused by changes in production or the marketing plan. The groups
had to decide whether to recommend the proposed alternatives. The instructor can give groups different scenarios
for changes in production and marketing plans, so that it is possible to cover a wide range of alternatives in a fixed
class period. The instructor again randomly called on students in each group to respond and support their
answers.

The ideas presented so far have involved group work completed within one class period. The instructor could
divide this exercise into two sessions. In the first class session the students could determine the basic cost-
volume-profit calculations based on the original data. The groups can then be given the proposed changes in

PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 7 of 12

production or marketing plan and asked to prepare a short report outside of class on whether they support the
proposed changes. At the next class meeting the groups can give an oral presentation on their recommendations.
One person in the group may end up writing up the report or presenting the results to the class, but with the
Numbered Heads Together technique everyone in the group has to understand the concepts and be prepared to
respond.

Absorption and Direct Costing

As shown in table 3, Absorption and Direct Costing, the main group is separated into two subgroups. Following the
Jigsaw concept, one subgroup will become experts on absorption costing and one subgroup will become experts
on direct costing. The assignment given to the subgroups is to calculate unit cost and net income. The two
subgroups will then join together and share their results. An additional part of the total group assignment is to
reconcile the difference in income between the two methods. Another interesting question to pose to the groups is
whether as managers they would want to be evaluated based on absorption or direct costing income?

In developing the scenarios for the groups the instructor should include situations where the sales volumes and
production volumes are equal and unequal. The final discussion of the groups' results can include a discussion of
the effect of production volumes on net income using absorption costing. The instructor might also direct the
discussion to the issues surrounding the choice of costing systems in terms of management performance and
evaluation. As with the Cost-Volume-Profit Analysis assignment, the Absorption and Direct Costing assignment
may be spread over several class sessions and may include writing and oral presentation formats. The
performance evaluation question especially moves the assignment away from a simple numbers drill.

Transfer Pricing

In the Transfer Pricing exercise presented in table 4 the main group is divided into two natural subgroups: the
Battery Division and the Auto Division. This exercise might be set up in class and continue outside of class. In the
first group session, students receive their initial assignments: the Battery and Auto Divisions must determine an
acceptable transfer price. The Battery Division groups would then meet outside of class to determine their
strategy. The next class session would involve negotiations between the two divisions. The final part of the
assignment requires that each division develop an income statement based on the transfer price. It is interesting
to note that the element of Group Interdependence does not have to be artificially created in this exercise; the two
divisions are interdependent in the real world.

The instructor can enrich this exercise by providing each group with different scenarios. Some Battery Divisions
may have idle capacity, while others may be operating at full capacity. The Auto Divisions may be presented with a
variety of prices in the external markets. The presentation of the groups' results extends the lesson to cover a
variety of situations. Again students can be asked to give an oral presentation of their results to the class, or
groups could write up proposals to present to top management.

DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNICATION SKILLS

The Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC) states that successful accountants must possess
communication skills. "Communication skills include both receiving and transmitting information and concepts,
including effective reading, listening, writing, and speaking" (AECC 1990, 307). A single lesson based on
cooperative learning can reinforce the basic communication skills. The cooperative learning exercises are
structured so that the members of the group must listen effectively to obtain the necessary information to achieve

PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 8 of 12

the group's goal. Instructors may not always require a formal written response, but students do have to read, listen,
and speak.

In cooperative learning students are no longer passive observers in the classroom; they are active problem solvers
seeking information and sharing ideas with others. Students are able to practice their presentation skills within
their small group. With increased self-confidence they can then advance to presentations before the whole class.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that instructors begin with a simple, single-topic, structured problem and move to more complex,
multiple-topic, structured problems when initiating cooperative learning group assignments. However, in actual
practice students are more likely to encounter team tasks that focus on solving complex unstructured problems.
As students move to more advanced topics and develop higher levels of understanding, and become accustomed
to group interactions, the instructor may feel more comfortable presenting groups with unstructured problems to
solve. Cooperative learning techniques can easily be adapted to unstructued problems where several competing
alternatives are available. Using the Jigsaw method students can become experts on one alternative by discussing
the pros and cons with a subgroup assigned the same alternative. The students return to the main group and
report on their discussions. (For an extended example in an ethics lesson, see Peek et al. 1994.) This cooperative
approach generates a rich variety of thought as a basis for solving the unstructured problem. The elements of
Group Interdependence and Individual Accountability add structure to the groups' tasks even in solving inherently
unstructured problems. The cooperative learning techniques are adaptable to many business decision
environments, including systems development, strategy assessment, or development of ethical reasoning.
Through the cooperative learning exercises students not only learn technical subject matter, but they also may
learn ways to manage group interactions to effectively and efficiently determine solutions for unstructured
problems.

Cooperative Learning strategies have the potential to extend and expand the learning environment for accounting
principles students. These strategies have the potential to improve the learning of basic accounting concepts
through group interaction, to provide opportunities for practicing communication skills, and to develop or reinforce
professional skills needed for success. Cooperative learning concepts stress the value of teamwork and shared
responsibility, and they facilitate the enculturation of business students into the role of professionals in a business
organization.

REFERENCES

Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC). 1990. Objectives of education for accountants: Position
statement No. 1. Issues in Accounting Education (Fall): 307-312.

--. 1992. The first course in accounting: Position statement No. 2. Issues in Accounting Education (Fall): 249-251.

Aronson, E., N. Blaney, C. Stephan, J. Sikes, and M. Snapp. 1978. The Jigsaw Classroom Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.

--, and E. Goode. 1980. Training teachers to implement jigsaw learning: A manual for teachers. In Cooperation in
Education, edited by S. Sharan, P. Hare, C. D. Webb, and R. Hertz-Lararowitz, 47-81. Provo, UT: Brigham Young
University Press.

PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 9 of 12

Bryan, E. L., and M. A. M. Prater. 1991. Cooperative learning groups. Proceedings of the American Accounting
Association 1991 Annual Meeting (August): 99.

Cottell Jr., P. G., and B. J. Millis. 1992. Cooperative learning in accounting. Journal of Accounting Education
(Spring): 95-111.

--, and --. 1993. Cooperative learning structures in the instruction of accounting. Issues in Accounting Education
(Spring): 40-59.

Garrison, R. H. 1991. Managerial Accounting, 6th ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Johnson, D. W., R. T. Johnson, and K. A. Smith. 1991. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4--Cooperative
Learning: creasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. George Washington University: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Higher Education.

Kagan, S. 1989/1990. The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership

(December/January): 12-15.

--. 1990. Cooperative Learning: Resources for Teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.

Peek, L. E., G. S. Peek, and M. Horras. 1994. Enhancing Arthur Andersen business ethics vignettes: Group
discussions using cooperative/collaborative learning techniques. Journal of Business Ethics (March): 189-196.

Perspectives on Education: Capabilities for Success in the Accounting Profession. 1989. New York. NY: Arthur
Andersen &Co., Arthur Young, Coopers &Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins &Sells, Ernst Whinney, Peat Marwick Main &Co.,
and Touche Ross.

Rau, W., and B. S. Heyl. 1990. Humanizing the college classroom: Collaborative learning and social organization
among students. Teaching Sociology (April): 141-155.

Sharan, S. 1990. Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research. New York, NY: Praeger.

Slavin, R. 1981. Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership (May): 655-660.

--. 1985. An introduction to cooperative learning research. In Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn, edited by
R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, and R. Schmuck. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

--. 1990. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Lucia E. Peek is a Professor at Western Illinois University, Charlene Winking is an instructor at John Wood
Community College, and George S. Peek is a Professor at Western Illinois University.

DETAILS

PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 10 of 12

Subject: Studies; Students; Learning; Higher education; Groups; Accounting policies;
Management accounting; Cooperative learning; Teaching methods; School
environment; Education

Business indexing term: Subject: Accounting policies Management accounting

Location: United States--US

Lexile score: 1490 L

Publication title: Issues in Accounting Education; Sarasota

Volume: 10

Issue: 1

Pages: 111

Publication year: 1995

Publication date: Spring 1995

Publisher: American Accounting Association

Place of publication: Sarasota

Country of publication: United States, Sarasota

Publication subject: Education--Teaching Methods And Curriculum, Business And Economics--Accounting

ISSN: 07393172

e-ISSN: 15587983

Source type: Scholarly Journal

Language of publication: English

Document type: PERIODICAL

Accession number: 00518023

ProQuest document ID: 210 945797

Document URL: https://login.proxy038.nclive.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/cooperative-learning-activities-managerial/docview/210945797/se-
2?accountid=10098

Copyright: Copyright American Accounting Association Spring 1995

Last updated: 2022-11-10

PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 11 of 12

 Database: eLibrary,ProQuest Central

LINKS

Database copyright  2022 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest

PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 12 of 12