Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Accounting Education

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

Best Practice

Best practices for group assessment tasks

Lyndie Bayne ⇑, Jacqueline Birt, Phil Hancock, Nikki Schonfeldt, Prerana Agrawal
Business School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

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

Article history: The development of teamwork skills for future employability has been noted as a critical
Received 9 August 2020 skill that graduates require. This paper reports on best practices for the assessment of
Received in revised form 7 February 2022 group work and the development of teamwork skills. We explore distinctions between
Accepted 13 February 2022
‘in-class versus take-home’, ‘multiple choice versus essay style’ and ‘online versus paper-
Available online 28 February 2022
based’ group assessments. Interviews were conducted with 21 key stakeholders involved
with two final-year financial accounting units at an Australian university. Overall, we find
Keywords:
that students perceive value from a variety of group assessment types throughout their
Teamwork skills
Cooperative learning
degree for the development of teamwork skills. Benefits and challenges relating to various
Core competencies group assessment types are presented. We tabulate our best practices for group assess-
Academic dishonesty ment tasks and offer techniques to improve the effectiveness of group assessments in
Group assessments developing teamwork skills.
Accounting profession Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Assessment of learning outcomes

1. Introduction

The focus on teamwork skills for employability has increased dramatically over the last few decades (Christensen et al.,
2019; Gartland & Rood, 2018; Gueldenzoph & May, 2002; Hansen, 2006; Healy et al., 2018; Kutlubay & Uslay, 2019). Studies
have highlighted that ‘[e]mployers consistently mention collaboration and teamwork as being a critical skill, essential in
almost all working environments’ (Tarricone & Luca, 2002, p. 54). Professional bodies and employers have also emphasised
the importance of teamwork skills as a desired graduate attribute (GCA, 2015).
In this paper, we examine the development of teamwork skills in accounting students. The development of teamwork
skills contributes to the set of skills-based competencies students entering the accounting profession need as specified in
‘The AICPA Pre-certification Core Competency Framework’ (AICPA, 2018). In particular, teamwork skills relate to the follow-
ing professional competencies: collaboration, leadership, communication and project management. The importance of team-
work skills has also been recognized in Australia with the Australian Accounting Learning Standards (Australian Learning and
Teaching Council, 2010; Hancock et al., 2016) and the International Accounting Education Standards (IAESB, 2017) including
learning standards with an emphasis on teamwork skills. Specifically, IES 3 includes teamwork in their Learning Outcomes
for Professional Skills (IES 3 Para A9-A14) and IES 6 in their Principles of Assessment (Para 9). Further, Kavanagh and
Drennan (2008) highlight that students rate teamwork and public presentation skills as the most important learning out-
comes and emphasise the importance of developing these skills in the accounting classroom.
Given this demand for teamwork skills from industry, accounting education bodies and students, many universities have
not only embedded group assessments in the curriculum (Healy et al., 2018; Oosthuizen et al., 2021) to facilitate the devel-
opment of teamwork skills, but have also included it as one of the course learning outcomes 1(McClellan, 2016). Yet many

⇑ Corresponding author.
1
See for example https://www.sydney.edu.au/handbooks/business_school_PG/coursework/mba/mba.shtml

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2022.100770
0748-5751/Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

suggest that embedding group assessments into the curriculum does not ensure the development and improvement of team-
work skills and that the ‘sink or swim’ approach to such assessments makes it difficult to achieve the desired learning outcomes
(Vik, 2001).
Hence, we investigate the perceived effectiveness of a range of group assessment types in developing students’ teamwork
skills. In particular, we explore distinctions between ‘in-class versus take-home’, ‘multiple choice versus essay style (in-
class)’ and ‘online versus paper-based’ group assessments. Interviews were conducted with 21 key stakeholders (students,
tutors, unit coordinators and administrative support staff) involved with two final-year financial accounting units at an Aus-
tralian university. Final year students (undergraduate and postgraduate) were selected to gain their perspectives on the
diverse group assessment types experienced throughout their degrees.
The paper contributes to prior group assessment literature by contrasting the effectiveness of different types of group
assessments, whereas many prior studies investigate group assessment types individually (Ballantine & McCourt Larres,
2007; Christensen et al., 2019; Lancaster & Strand, 2001; Lightner et al., 2007) or overall perceptions of group work
(Healy et al., 2018). We add to the scarce literature considering the package of group assessments that accounting students
experience during their degrees, such as Healy et al. (2018). Contributions are also made to the paucity of literature exploring
the effectiveness of online versus paper-based assessments in developing teamwork skills. Finally, the paper provides rec-
ommendations for best practices, which may be useful to educators in meeting the demands from employers and the revised
accounting learning standards.
In the sections below, we first provide a background on diverse assessment tasks, followed by an outline of the research
method employed. We then present our results and highlight best practices for group assessment. The results are discussed
followed by the last section which summarises our work, states our conclusions, limitations and avenues for further
research.

2. Background

2.1. Group assessment tasks and teamwork skills

In this paper, we use the term ‘group assessments’ to denote ‘a small number of students who are together responsible to
perform a specified task’. Further, our study focuses on group ‘assessments’ rather than group ‘work’, where the latter con-
sists of many activities which may or may not be assessed. We use the term ‘teamwork skills’ in this study to include ‘skills in
cooperation, communication, cultural awareness, listening, interviewing, negotiation, conflict resolution and problem solv-
ing’ (Christensen et al., 2019, p. 195) as well as project management (Berry, 2007) and leadership (Healy et al., 2018) within a
group context. In our background section, we retain the original terms used by prior studies, but note that some authors use
the terms interchangeably.

2.2. Cooperative learning

Why do educators use group assessment tasks? Is it to reduce marking load or to help students develop teamwork skills?
Employers desire professional accountants who work productively in teams to facilitate synergies, accountability, time man-
agement and conflict resolution (Oosthuizen et al., 2021). Hence, educators need to be conscious of the benefits of cooper-
ative learning when setting group assessment tasks. Cooperative learning (Healy et al., 2018; Lancaster & Strand, 2001;
Michaelsen et al., 2014; Shawver, 2020) has at least three main benefits:

1. Provides an active learning experience for students;

2. Encourages students to learn from each other; and
3. Provides the opportunity for students to enhance important transferable skills like communication, problem solving, pre-
sentations and conflict management (Healy et al. 2018).

2.3. Types of group assessments

Although not without challenges (Bacon, 2005; Bay & Pacharn, 2017; Hall & Buzwell, 2012; Prokofieva et al., 2015), var-
ious forms of group assessments including multiple choice, essays, projects, case studies and oral presentations have been
used by educators as an attempt to enhance learning, develop transferable skills and increase a sense of belonging (Berry,
2007; Deeter-Schmelz et al., 2002; Delaney et al., 2013; Doran et al., 2011; Healy et al., 2018). These assessment tasks
can be conducted in different settings ranging from in-class to take-home. They can be submitted through a number of
means including physically or remotely using various platforms such as a LMS, Twitter, blogs etc. In this paper, we report
on different assessment types as outlined in Fig. 1, completed, and submitted, either online or as paper-based. These types
and methods of group assessments are selected, as they are what is used at the focal Australian University.

2
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

Fig. 1. Types and methods of group assessments.

2.4. Online versus paper-based assessments

The use of online learning environments and online assessments to augment face-to-face learning environments is grow-
ing (Gikandi et al., 2011), especially with the impact of COVID-19, yet there is only embryonic research in this area. The
transformative effect of COVID-19 on accounting education has been described by Sangster et al. (2020) as increasing chal-
lenges in designing alternative modes of assessment, and conducting assessments in an online (remote) environment. A
major challenge is ensuring the validity and reliability of assessments in online environments where fundamental issues
include validity, reliability and dishonesty (Gikandi et al., 2011).

2.4.1. Academic dishonesty

Bujaki et al. (2019) emphasised that academic misconduct is more prevalent in assignments compared to exams as the
opportunity to commit academic dishonesty is higher when it is perceived that the likelihood of getting caught is low. Prior
research has identified various preventive (e.g., multiple versions, exams unique to each student, new assessments each year,
check for unauthorised material, sign-in and ID check) and detective controls (e.g., software to detect plagiarism) that can be
employed to control academic dishonesty (Davis et al., 1992; McCabe et al., 2001).
The shift of assessments online due to COVID-19 has raised concerns about the potential impact on academic integrity
(Newton, 2020; White, 2020). Golden and Kohlbeck (2020) raised concerns that online classes (courses) are more susceptible
to academic dishonesty, particularly when assessments are not being monitored. Cheating during online assessments, espe-
cially conducted at home rather than in-class, is an issue, which needs new ideas and strategies (White, 2020). Rowe (2004)
found that while plagiarism has received much attention, other problems of dishonesty in online assessment have received
insufficient attention. Rowe (2004) states that ‘in general, we believe educators are too unaware and/or deliberately obliv-
ious to these problems, and most countermeasures proposed are insufficient’ (p.1), referring to the ‘wilful ignorance’ (p.2) of
many instructors and administrators of the possibilities for cheating in online assessments. Within the context of group
assessments, this study will add to the above literature by examining students’ perspectives on cheating and perceived dif-
ferences between the effectiveness of online versus paper-based group assessments in developing teamwork skills.

3. Methodology

This field study uses a qualitative research method based on in-depth interviews with students, instructors and admin-
istrative support staff. The research issues examined are:

1. The perceived benefits and challenges of different group assessment tasks in developing student’s cooperative learning
and teamwork skills.

3
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

2. What best practices can be employed to enhance the effectiveness of group assessments to improve cooperative learning
and teamwork skills?

3.1. Setting

Semi-structured interviews were used to gather qualitative data from various stakeholders involved with two final-year
financial accounting units at an Australian university in Semester 1, 2018 (refer to Appendix A for the interview protocols).
The aim was to ensure that students were accustomed to group work and the faculty familiar with assessing the work and
assigning grades.
The first unit (UGU) was a final year undergraduate financial accounting unit (from the three-year Bachelor of Commerce
degree) and the second unit (PGU) was a final year postgraduate financial accounting unit (from the two-year Masters in
Professional Accounting (MPA) program). Many units in the respective programs have a group assessment of some type.
The most common are take-home assignments, but some units embed group presentations, in-class multiple choice, essays,
and case studies. Although group assessments occur in all years of the respective degrees, we selected the two final-year
units for the following reasons. First, final year students would have experienced a variety of group assessment tasks. Second,
these two units exposed students to unique in-class assessments such as group multiple choice and group essay style assess-
ments. Last, these units conducted both the in-class group assessments (i.e., group multiple choice and essay style) online,
thereby providing students with exposure to online in-class group activities. Hence, selecting students who had completed
these units was considered appropriate for this study.
In addition, the instructors (the unit coordinator of both units and tutors of the UGU) had extensive experience in teach-
ing accounting units and have been involved in setting and marking a range of group assessments. The administrative sup-
port staff also has many years of experience in assisting unit coordinators with their group work and assessments. The
administrative support staff has also been instrumental in assisting with the set-up of group assessments online and in deal-
ing with students’ queries.
UGU had 455 enrolments and PGU 48 enrolments. The students in UGU were evenly distributed amongst domestic
(Australian) students (54%) and international students (46%), as well as female (49%) and male (51%) students. PGU
was comprised of 79% international students, mainly from China, where the majority were ‘English as an additional lan-
guage’ (EAL) students. Gender split for PGU was 60% female and 40% male students. This composition is consistent with
the composition of other accounting units at the focal university; hence these units were considered representative of
the general cohort. Further, consistent with other core units offered in the Accounting major at the focal university, both
the units had three hours of student contact time including lectures/seminars and workshops/tutorials over a 12-week
semester.

3.2. Group assessments

In relation to the ten core accounting major units for the Bachelor of Commence at the focal university, eight had a group
assessment component in 2018. By far the most prevalent type was the group assignment (case study), used by seven of
these eight units. Most group assignments were take-home (6 out of 7), while one unit conducted the case study in-class.
Only one undergraduate unit (the focal UG unit in this study) used group tests, which were conducted online and in-
class. Most units only used one type of group assessment; however, one unit used a combination of take-home assignment,
in-class discussion and oral presentation. Typically, group assessments accounted for 20% of total assessments. Seven of the
eight units using group assessments used self-selection to allocate teams, whereas the focal UG unit used random allocation.
The modal number of students in a group was four, ranging from three to six. Six of the eight units conducting group assess-
ments used a peer review system, predominantly SPARKPLUS 2. Only three of the eight units discussed how to conduct group
work in class and only one unit used a group contract.
In relation to the nine core MPA units for postgraduates, five had a group assessment component. Three of the five units
used group assignments (case studies), of which two were take-home assignments and one an in-class assignment. One unit
used group presentations and one unit (the focal PG unit) used online in-class group tests. The group assessments accounted
for around 20% of the grade. The modal number of group members was four. Three units used random allocations to groups
and two units allowed students to self-select. Four of the five units used peer assessment in the form of SPARKPLUS. All five
units discussed how to conduct group work in class, and none used a group contract.
In relation to the two focal units of the study (UGU and PGU), group assessments comprised of multiple choice and essay
style assessments. Both group assessments were conducted online during the workshop or seminar in week three (multiple
choice) and week five (essay) of the semester. This was the first year that the group assessments were conducted online in

2
SPARKPLUS is an online peer and self-assessment tool which requires students to complete self and peer assessments of their own and group members’
performance. It can be used to allocate differential marks to individual team members based on evaluations of contributions by all team members. SPARKPLUS
provides a rating factor (called an RPF) which is then applied to the group mark to obtain the individual mark. For example, if the group’s score is 70% and the
student attained an RPF score of 1.1, then the student is awarded a final mark of 70% x 1.1 = 77% for that assessment. RPF scores normally lie between 0 and 1.2.
However, it is very rare for peers to assign a score of zero to another team member even if the person did not contribute anything. Alternative online tools to
support peer learning include CATME https://www.catme.org and Feedback Fruits https://feedbackfruits.com/

4
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

these units.3 The UGU students were randomly allocated by the unit coordinator into groups of five to six students according to
workshops. PGU students were allowed to form their own groups of five or six students.

3.3. Semi-structured interviews

The unit coordinator of both units conducted the semi-structured interviews in November 2018, four months after the
unit results were finalised in June 2018. This timing mitigated any concerns of imbalanced power relationships between
the interviewer and interviewees since the results were already finalised. The students enrolled in the focal units were
invited to participate in the interviews by sending emails from the LMS. The invitations explained the purpose of the
research and emphasised the voluntary nature of the participation. An incentive of $30 vouchers was offered to increase par-
ticipation. Two further email reminders were sent to increase the number of student participants. Students who were inter-
ested were directed to an online sign-up sheet of available interview times and interviews were conducted over a two-week
period in November 2018. Each interviewee was asked to sign a consent form that allowed the data to be recorded, tran-
scribed and used in anonymous form, in accordance with the ethics approval obtained for the study.
The recruitment of students ceased when data saturation was reached in the student interviews, which was when further
interviews were no longer yielding new themes. In total, the perspectives of 21 interviewees were obtained: 16 students (10
from UGU and 6 from PGU), all tutors from UGU (3), administrative support staff (1) and the unit coordinator of both units.
On average, interviews lasted 25 minutes. All interviews (except one phone interview) were conducted face-to-face and by
the same interviewer (except for the interview with the unit coordinator where another primary researcher conducted the
interview).
Interviewee details and pseudonyms used are summarised in Table 1; students are referred to as, for example, PG-A
meaning postgraduate student A and UG-L meaning undergraduate student L. Table 1 shows that the interviewees had even
representation from females and males and Australian and other nationalities, suggesting that a variety of stakeholder per-
spectives are represented. The demographics of the interviewed students were in line with the demographics of the focal
units, suggesting that interviewed students may be representative of the perspectives of various stakeholders in the unit.
Interviews revolved around three themes in relation to the development of teamwork skills: 1) perceptions of the value of
group assessments; 2) various assessment types: such as in-class versus take-home assessments, multiple choice versus
essay style, online versus paper-based assessments, and 3) opinions of best practices. The questions focused on the intervie-
wees’ experience with the UGU and PGU assessments and sought their perceptions concerning all group assessments they
had experienced at the university.
The interviews were professionally transcribed and then checked by a research team member for accuracy. NVivo was
used to organise the data into themes emerging from the interview data. Double coding was used where two members coded
a sample of five transcripts and compared notes. An interpretivist approach was used, which allowed for the presence of
multiple realities, different stakeholders’ perspectives, taking account of the contexts of the phenomena under study, as well
as enabling a contextual understanding and interpretation of data (Carson et al., 2001).

4. Results

In this section, we first present interviewees’ overall perceptions of the benefits and challenges of group assessments in
developing students’ teamwork skills. We then provide perspectives on the perceived effectiveness of diverse group assess-
ment types.

4.1. Benefits and challenges of group assessments in developing teamwork skills

The perspectives on the benefits and challenges are summarised in Table 2. Students and instructors (tutors and the unit
coordinator) all perceived value in group assessments for developing teamwork skills, while acknowledging challenges. The
overwhelming majority of students, at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, expressed the view that they valued the
inclusion of group assessments in their curriculum; only one of the sixteen students preferred exclusively individual assess-
ments. The value placed on experiencing group assessments as well as the challenges are illustrated by a postgraduate stu-
dent as follows (bold font used for emphasis):

3
To mitigate cheating, the multiple- choice assessment consisted of 10 randomised questions drawn from a question pool of 40 questions with randomised
solution order. The assessment was structured to open for students in each workshop (seminar) at the correct day and time. Unique passwords were provided
by workshop tutors in each workshop (seminar) to begin the assessment. The multiple- choice assessment was administered as a closed book exam and
workshop tutors physically monitored students to ensure they were only accessing the assessment material and no other material on their computers. Groups
had 30 minutes to complete the multiple--choice questions.For UGU, 11 unique essay style assessments were set, with each relating to a company’s annual
report; for PGU one essay style assessment was used. Each essay style assessment had two parts, the first part (40%) was more theoretical, and the second part
(60%) required utilisation of the annual report. For example, part A may require an explanation of the difference between the old and new accounting standard
on leases and Part B may ask the students to discuss how the new lease standard will affect the accounting ratios of the assigned company. The essay style
assessment was open book and students could access the relevant annual report and any other material. Unique essay style assessments were required for each
workshop session in UGU to mitigate the risk of unauthorised collusion by students with workshops on different days and times. Groups had 1 hour to
complete the essay.

5
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

Table 1
Interviewee details.

Interviewees:
Postgraduate students (6 students: PG-A – PG-F)
Gender
Male 3
Female 3
Nationality
Domestic (Australian) 3
International (Other than Australian) 3
Undergraduate students (10 students: UG-G – UG-P)
Gender
Male 4
Female 6
Nationality
Domestic (Australian) 5
International (Other than Australian) 5
Tutors (Tutor-U – Tutor-W) 3
Administrative staff 1
Unit coordinator 1

Table 2
Perceived benefits and challenges of group assessments in developing
teamwork skills.

Benefits  Conflict management skills

 English language skills (international students)
 Experience different cultures
 Managing personalities
 Simulates workplace
 Social ties
Challenges  ‘Divide and conquer’
 English second language
 Free-rider
 Group management
 Mark allocation

I think experience is everything. I think people have to go through the pain of working with other people and I don’t think
there is any way that one can change the personalities of people or the free-rider problem. (PG-A)
The main benefits included working with people from different cultures, developing conflict management skills, prepa-
ration for the workplace, learning to work with different personalities and developing relationships and social ties. Interna-
tional students also found group assessments, where the group included domestic students, assisted with the development
of English skills. There was no apparent difference in the perspectives on benefits of undergraduate and postgraduate stu-
dents. The benefit of working with people from different cultures is highlighted by international UG-I, even though she
believes she could score higher in individual assessments:
I used to be – as an individual . . . technically, I can score higher compared to a group . . . But after all these units . . . it feels
that when you engage to people as a team, you’re exposed to their culture . . . I can get to know those local people. (UG-
I)
International PG-D illustrates the perceived benefit of improving English skills:
If we have more chance to speak to other language students, it’s better for us . . . if we have more group meetings with
the local students, we can . . . talk to them and exercise [English skills]. Sometimes they are really friendly. (PG-D)
The importance of developing teamwork skills for the workplace was highlighted by domestic PG-F who had just been
through a recruitment process with a Big-4 firm where a group assessment (one hour in groups of five) was part of the
recruitment process, where groups were:
given a case study about a business that needs to transform due to various factors and it has a lot to do with technology. And we
had to work as a team. (PG-F)
Common challenges to developing teamwork skills identified were the free-rider problem and associated fair mark allo-
cation issues, ‘divide and conquer’ approach where parts of a group assessment were essentially performed independently,
and logistical group management problems. Some domestic students reported lower English language skills of international

6
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

group members as a challenge, while other domestic students embraced this challenge and associated it with the real work-
place. Domestic postgraduate students appeared more tolerant of the EAL issues than undergraduate counterparts. The dif-
ficulties experienced by some domestic students are expressed by UG-K:
this semester as well, language barriers, big problem . . . the two white ones talk and our team and then the other two [Asian],
so that sort of defeats the whole purpose of it and I suppose teamwork. (UG-K)
In contrast, domestic UG-J displays a positive way of addressing the English language skills challenge and explains how
her attitude has improved over the years of study:
I know in first year, it used to really annoy me, but now I’m like, ‘‘It’s fine.” Working with people, you understand a bit
more. (UG-J)
The free-rider issue is highlighted by domestic PG-A:
I think the most important thing that . . . prevents teamwork from happening is that free-rider problem . . . but there’s very
little ways that it can be helped – the SPARKPLUS does help in preventing that from happening. (PG-A)
As indicated above, students conveyed that the use of a peer assessment tool was helpful in mitigating the free-rider
problem and resulted in a fairer allocation of individual marks received for group assessments.

4.2. Effectiveness of diverse group assessment types

Next, we compare perspectives on key group assessment classifications, namely in-class versus take-home assessments,
multiple choice versus essay style (in-class) assessments, online versus paper-based group assessments and other group
assessment types, in relation to the development of teamwork skills.

4.2.1. In-class versus take-home group assessments

There were mixed views from students on a preference between in-class versus take-home assessments in developing
teamwork skills. The perspectives are summarised in Table 3.
Many students, at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, said they benefitted from a combination of in-class and
take-home group assessments, since they develop slightly different teamwork skills, as indicated by the following:
I wouldn’t say that it’s better to have the out-of-class, it’s better to have the in-class, I would say they are equally important
and very beneficial to make people work-ready. (PG-A)
I think a mix of both [in-class and take-home] would be better. (UG-G)
Common problems associated with take-home group assessments were logistical, such as scheduling meetings, and free-
rider problems. Some students felt that in-class assessments assisted in overcoming some of these take-home challenges by
solving logistical scheduling problems (since the class is scheduled) and discouraging free-riding as well as cheating (since
the instructor is watching). While cheating was not a prominent theme in the data, PG-C suggested that in-class group
assessments had the benefit of reducing cheating, explaining that with take-home assessments, multiple teams may get
together to assist each other. Other students valued take-home group assessments since they provide a longer period over
which to get to know the team members, understand their strengths and weaknesses, and discuss the assignment, all
enabling the development of teamwork skills. The unit coordinator and tutors suggested that students benefitted from expo-
sure to both in-class and take-home group assessments and that group assessment tasks within a degree should be coordi-
nated to ensure this coverage.

Table 3
Perceptions on in-class versus take-home assessments in developing teamwork skills.

Type of group In-class Take-home

assessment group assessments group assessments
Benefits  Less cheating  Better for managing English second language
problems
 Less ‘divide and conquer’  Get to know group members better
 Less free-riding  More time to address different strengths and
weaknesses
 Less logistical problems due to scheduling  More time to hold members accountable
 Simulates workplace  Simulates workplace
Challenges  Limited time to address English second language problems  Cheating
 Limited time to understand group members’ strengths and  ‘Divide and conquer’
weaknesses
 English second language problems
 Free-rider problem
 Lack of face-to-face contact and skills
development
 Logistical problems

7
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

4.2.2. Multiple choice versus essay style (in-class) group assessments

The perspectives from students were mixed as to whether in-class multiple choice or essay style assessments were more
beneficial for developing teamwork skills. The perspectives are summarised in Table 4.
There were students who thought that essay style assessments help to identify and deal with free-riders while others
thought free-rider problems were exacerbated with the use of essay style. Some students, on the other hand, thought that
multiple choice assessments enabled more discussion because there was less chance of a ‘divide and conquer’ approach and
the effect of weaker English language skills was less of an issue than with essay assessments.
The unit coordinator and tutors expressed the benefit of both multiple choice and essay style questions, citing observa-
tions of more discussion with the multiple choice style than with essay style where there was more evidence of ‘divide and
conquer’ with groups dividing into smaller groups to complete parts of the essay assessment. In addition, in the essay style,
more of the ‘discussion’ was observed to take place online through, for example, Google Docs, where students used such
online collaborative tools.

4.2.3. Online versus paper-based group assessments

Students generally favoured online assessments to encourage the development of teamwork skills, rather than paper-
based, mainly because they simulated the work environment; however, they indicated the need to be able to work in both
online and paper-based environments. They reported that for the multiple choice group assessments it did not make much of
a difference whether the assessment was online or paper-based. However, students generally expressed that online assess-
ment was more conducive to essay style group assessments (in-class and take-home) than other forms of assessment. How-
ever, participants identified benefits and challenges regarding both online and paper-based assessments in general. It
appeared that some students had not yet become accustomed to using online, real-time, collaborative tools available on,
for example Google and Microsoft, which can make online collaboration more effective. The results are summarised in
Table 5.
An administrative support staff spoke of the change management needed to assist lecturers to move from paper-based to
online assessments and highlighted that the most common online assessments currently used were the combination of indi-
vidual, multiple choice, and take-home assessments administered through the LMS. Her experience was that once lecturers
overcome their hesitance relating to concerns about internet connectivity and cheating with online assessments, they never
go back to paper-based assessments.

4.2.4. Other assessment types

While group oral presentations were not common in the accounting units, they were more prevalent in units such as mar-
keting. Students had mixed perceptions about the benefit of presentations over other types of group assessments. UG-J
thought that a group presentation combined with a group assignment provided additional team skills development as illus-
trated by the following:

Table 4
Perspective of multiple choice versus essay style (in-class) group assessments for developing teamwork skills.

Type of in-class group Multiple choice Essay style

assessment
Benefits  Allowed for more discussion, less ‘divide and conquer’  Can identify and deal with free-riders more
easily
 Easier to deal with English second language issues  More opportunity to collaborate
 Need a team to complete within the
 Useful for group decision making and conflict management  allowed time, cannot be completed
skills individually
Challenges  Easy to complete individually  English second language problems
 Less collaboration More free-riders  Free-rider problems
 Logistical problems
 More ‘divide and conquer’

Table 5
Perspective of online versus paper-based group assessment for developing teamwork skills.

Type of group Online Paper-based

assessment
Benefits  Can all contribute to essay simultaneously (through the  Can all see rather than look at one computer (this group did
use of Google Docs) not use Google Docs)
 Good for short time frame
 Logistically easier Simulates workplace  Suits simple tasks
Challenges  Crowding round the computer (group did not use Goo-  Difficult to collaborate on written work
gle Docs)

8
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

the presentation is more like working together to formalise it. So, it’s a different kind of aspect of working as a team.
(UG-J)
However, PG-F commented that oral presentations still have the common group assessment problems such as the free-
rider issue:
I think you still get the element of free-riders and people maybe not contributing and then they’ll just read off the slide.
(PG-F)
In response to our research issue 1, our findings indicate that students and instructors perceived a benefit from the use of
a variety of group assessment types and the evolution in the development of teamwork skills over time when group assess-
ments are used regularly throughout the degree. The evolution of teamwork skills is indicated by PG-A who suggested that
group assessments are:
creating new learning opportunities for different skills . . . and getting different outcomes so when I first started this
degree, . . . people were reluctant to do anything in the groups and now people are very good in groups. (PG-A)
There was no apparent difference in preferences between group assessment types along the following lines: undergrad-
uate/postgraduate, domestic/international, gender nor student /instructor lines. The only exceptions were perhaps more tol-
erance of weaker English language skills by postgraduate students. Concerns were raised by some domestic students about
group members with weaker English language skills. Many international students preferred groups that included domestic
students to enable them to develop their English language skills.

5. Best practices and recommendations for group assessment tasks

In this section, we summarise techniques for enhancing the effectiveness of group assessments arising from the study by
making best practices recommendations. Table 6 outlines recommendations of best practices for group assessment tasks to
promote the development of teamwork skills. Items with an asterisk represent recommendations not commonly found in
prior literature, representing a unique contribution from our study to best practices.
As shown in Table 6, the recommendations focus on six areas namely: group setup, preparatory activities before the
group assessment, group assessment design, activities during the assessment and semester, self and peer assessment and
diverse assessment types throughout a degree.

Table 6
Best practices recommendations for group assessment tasks.

Topic Recommendation
A. Group setup
 Mark allocation Around 15 to 20 percent of the total grade.
 Classroom layout Flat classrooms with round tables.
 Group selection Random allocation. However, international students valued being in a group that included
domestic students, indicating instructor-select method is also beneficial.
 Group size Four.
B. Preparatory activities before the group assessment
 Lecture/module on teamwork Students should receive more instruction on teamwork skills prior to group assessments
(e.g., a compulsory module on transferable skills).
 Explanation of purpose of group assessments The relevance of group assessments for industry should be strongly highlighted and
illustrated to students.
 Familiarise students with online group collaboration Familiarise students with web based collaborative tools (e.g., Google, Microsoft, and social
tools* media platforms).
C. Group assessment design
 Set assessments that encourage teamwork and limit Group assessment questions should be designed to necessitate collaboration through
abuse of ‘divide and conquer’ approach* linkage between questions.
 Measures to combat cheating, especially in online Instructors need new measures to address cheating, particularly in the more recently used
assessments* online assessment setting.
D. Activities during the assessment and semester
 Continuous teambuilding Multiple teambuilding exercises should be used throughout the course, including
icebreaker activities and non-assessed group work, as a prelude to assessed group work.
 Instructor encouragement/ tone Instructors should provide guidance regarding problems encountered and set a positive
tone.
E. Self and peer assessment
 Assessment of teamwork Instructors should include ‘teamwork’ as a criterion in the marking grid in the absence of
other peer assessment tools.
 Peer assessment such as SPARKPLUS Peer assessment tools, such as SPARKPLUS, should be used to mitigate the free-rider
problem and to allocate marks for group assessments to individuals more fairly.
F. Diverse group assessment types
 Planning and monitoring* Program coordinators should plan and monitor the use of diverse group assessment tasks
throughout the degree programs.

*Items represent recommendations not commonly found in prior literature.

9
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

5.1. Group setup

As shown in Table 6 (Item A) students commonly suggested that a weighting of 15 to 20 percent for group assessments
was optimal. They preferred a flat classroom layout with round tables. Group sizes no larger than four members were sug-
gested, with four being the optimal number. Most students preferred to be randomly allocated to groups, rather than self-
selecting, as this simulates the workplace and also avoids offending friends. International students, however, valued being
allocated to groups that included domestic student(s). While many domestic students interviewed embraced the opportu-
nity to work with international students and accepted that some students had weaker English language skills, some found
working with students with weaker English speaking and writing skills very challenging. The unit coordinator indicated that
there have not been many complaints about the random group allocation used over the last three years in UGU. Perhaps pro-
gram directors and coordinators should ensure that students experience a mix of different types of group selection methods
across the various degree programs.
Our findings confirm prior research on issues in the development of teamwork skills, e.g., a flexible classroom design
encourages collaborative learning (McVay et al., 2008; Rands & Gansemer-Topf, 2017), domestic and international students
have different attitudes towards teamwork (Prokofieva et al., 2015; Strauss et al., 2011), and the optimal group size being
three to four members (Ballantine & McCourt Larres, 2007; McVay et al., 2008). We further contribute to the literature on
group selection as prior research has conflicting results, with some recommending randomly allocated groups (Berry,
2007; Mamas, 2018), instructor formed groups (Ballantine & McCourt Larres, 2007; Edmond & Tiggeman, 2009), and self-
selected groups (Strauss et al., 2011).

5.2. Preparatory activities before the group assessment

Item B in Table 6 indicates that many students and instructors suggested the need for more instruction on teamwork
skills prior to group assessments; this could be in the form of a compulsory online teamwork skills module. Other students
were more sceptical about a ‘teamwork lecture’ stating that if it was too general students may not engage with the class.
Related to this, students suggested that instructors should explain and emphasise why teamwork skills are important
employability skills. The development of teamwork skills are incorporated into a foundation unit in management at the Aus-
tralian university but not all students complete the unit. The instructors suggested that students should be made aware of
useful online collaborative tools, available from, for example, Google, Microsoft, and social media platforms. Our recommen-
dations reinforce prior research that instructors should be more explicit about the importance of teamwork in developing
generic skills (Delaney et al., 2013), and include additional activities to develop generic skills, such as problem-solving
and interpersonal communication skills (Edmond & Tiggeman, 2009; Prokofieva et al., 2015).

5.3. Group assessment design

In Table 6, Item C emphasises the importance of the group assessment design to help avoid the ability of students to
employ a ‘divide and conquer’ approach and provide the opportunity for more discussion and collaboration. Our recommen-
dations in this study are in addition to what is reported in prior literature relating to self and peer assessment (refer to sec-
tion 5.5 below). Instructors should be more intentional in the design of group assessments to ensure questions in a group
assessment are sufficiently integrated to necessitate linkage between parts of a question and collaboration between team
members to complete the assessment.
Another design aspect related to safeguards to prevent cheating, especially in the growing online assessment environ-
ment. For example, PG-C explained that cheating could be reduced in online, in-class assessments by firstly placing the ques-
tions within a ‘test’ screen in the LMS. Then require students to answer within the test screen which has limited copy and
paste facilities, as opposed to asking students to upload a word document essay answer, which can be shared by email with
other students or others providing solutions.

5.4. Activities during the assessment and semester

In Item D students and instructors highlighted the benefits of encouraging continuous teambuilding opportunities to
allow for better functioning groups and more opportunity to develop teamwork skills. The inclusion of icebreaker activities
for teambuilding is consistent with prior research (Edmond & Tiggeman, 2009; Healy et al., 2018; McVay et al., 2008;
Prokofieva et al., 2015); although it was acknowledged that icebreaker activities are not always effective. Students (such
as UG-M) suggested the benefit of a series of ongoing group assessments during the semester so that groups had multiple
opportunities to work together, learning about each other’s strengths and weaknesses over time. Tutor-U also recommended
continuous team-building opportunities, including non-assessed quizzes, stating that ‘in industry the whole thing with team-
work is about building team spirit.’ (Tutor-U)
Students also highlighted the importance of instructors providing encouragement about group assessments and a positive
tone. PG-B described how a lecturer played an important role in providing an enabling environment for better development
of teamwork skills in a management accounting course, by offering guidance on dealing with problems as they emerge, such

10
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

as free-rider problems, as well as a positive attitude to group work. Prior research report many of the problems encountered
with group work, but offer little guidance in how educators can contribute to more efficient group functioning.

5.5. Self and peer assessment

As shown in Table 6 (Item E), some students recommended that ‘teamwork’ should be included as a criterion in the mark-
ing grid for group assignments, to emphasise the process of working in a group, rather than just the outcome. Students also
indicated the benefit of using a self and peer assessment tool to assist in mitigating the free-rider problem and to allocate
marks for group assessments to individuals more fairly. Our results support prior recommendations that instructors should
implement strategies that allow them to award marks reflecting individual contributions of team members (Delaney et al.,
2013; Edmond & Tiggeman, 2009; Mamas, 2018; Strauss et al., 2014) and that mitigate the free-rider problem. The unit coor-
dinator confirmed that over the last three years of unit-coordination, there were very few student complaints when the self
and peer assessment tool ratings were published even from students who receive low ratings from peers. Students who have
contributed less to the tasks and who receive a low rating from peers generally accept the validity of the tool.

5.6. Diverse group assessment types

A further recommendation (Item F) relates to the value of diverse group assessment types during the degree, which need
planning and monitoring from program directors and coordinators. This recommendation will expose students to different
teamwork experiences which will be beneficial when experiencing different team-situations at work and is a unique contri-
bution of this study.

6. Discussion and key recommendations

The benefits and challenges of group assessments (summarised in Table 2) are generally consistent with the prior liter-
ature which typically looked at group assessment types individually (Ballantine & McCourt Larres, 2007; Bay & Pacharn,
2017; Healy et al., 2018). The Healy et.al (2018) paper claims it ‘‘adds to the literature as unlike previous studies it docu-
ments the students’ cumulative experience of group work over a four-year period” (p.287). Similar to Healy et al. (2018),
we look at student experiences over the period of a degree, but we examine the use of different types of group assessment
tasks.
Many of the benefits and challenges in our study were particular to the student composition, where there is a large per-
centage of international students in both undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Benefits like ‘working with people from
different cultures’ and ‘developing English language skills’ and challenges such as ‘English as an additional language prob-
lems’ are likely to be more prominent than would be expected in a more culturally and linguistically homogenous
environment.
An interesting finding is that gender was not mentioned by interviewees as an issue nor were there any notable differ-
ences in perceptions about group assessments along gender lines, in contrast to studies such as Healy et al. (2018). A possible
explanation is the equal proportion of male and female students at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels in account-
ing degree programs that contributes to gender being a non-significant issue. Another interesting finding is that while work-
ing with members with weaker English language skills was cited as a challenge by some, others saw it as a benefit of group
assessments. Thus, the issue was not perceived to be cultural, but instead language related, although interconnections
between culture and language are acknowledged.
It is also noteworthy that when students were asked about benefits and challenges of group assessments in developing
teamwork skills, they included discussion of items not commonly mentioned in the literature, such as the benefit of ‘devel-
oping English language skills’ and ‘fostering social ties’. While fostering social ties could be classified as a separate area of
‘social benefits’ (Healy et al., 2018), students also used it in this context to describe the development of friendships which
enable better group operations.
The perceptions of students and instructors on various classifications of group assessments -in-class versus take-home
(Table 3), multiple choice versus essay style (in-class) (Table 4), combined report and presentation, and online versus
paper-based (Table 5) - highlighted that diversity of group assessments was valued as they enabled diverse aspects of team-
work skills to be developed and mitigated various challenges.
The cooperative learning and constructive alignment theories (Healy et al., 2018; Lancaster & Strand, 2001; Michaelsen
et al., 2014) provide the basis for the overarching key recommendation arising from the best practices paper. The construc-
tive alignment approach recognises ‘‘knowledge is constructed by the activities of the learner” (Biggs, 2014, p.9). In programs
where teamwork skills is a specified learning outcome, as it is at the AACSB accredited Australian university, we recommend
that program directors and coordinators can benefit from the findings of this paper. To ensure students gain the most from
cooperative learning and consistent with constructive alignment, program directors and coordinators and teaching faculty
need to plan the use of various group assessments to ensure there is diversity in group assessment types across programs.
The recommendation is important given that prior literature (Christensen et al., 2019), as well as the current interviews,
indicate the predominance of take-home group assignments in undergraduate degrees. Thus, the first key contribution of

11
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

the study is to compare perceptions of the benefits and challenges of various classifications of group assessment types, not
previously provided in the literature.
The second key contribution is the provision of perceptions of online versus paper-based group assessments (Table 5), an
area with scarce prior studies. Some of the recommendations of best practices arising from this study and presented in
Table 6 relate to this relatively new and growing online assessment practice.
Our third key contribution is the recommendations of best practices techniques to improve the effectiveness of group
assessments in developing students’ teamwork skills, as summarised in Table 6. These will be useful to educators in meeting
the demands from industry, accounting learning standards (IAESB, 2017) and the AICPA’s Pre-certification Core Competency
Framework (Professional competencies, AICPA (2018)). Items with an asterisk denote new recommendations, not commonly
discussed in prior literature, representing contributions from this study. Our study contributes to prior literature by calling
for the familiarisation of students with online collaboration tools (Item B in Table 6). Another set of recommendations con-
tributing to the literature relates to the importance of the design of group assessments to mitigate challenges such as a ‘di-
vide and conquer’ approach and cheating (Item C in Table 6). The study highlights the need to set assessment tasks that are
integrated and thus necessitate discussion and collaboration between group members, thereby enhancing the development
of teamwork skills. Assessment design also needs to include new measures to mitigate cheating, especially in the online
group assessment environment, an area not comprehensively covered in prior literature. Our study highlights the success
of the use of SPARKPLUS (Willey 2017), as a technique for preventing and penalising free-riders; SPARKPLUS is not commonly
studied in the literature but we recognise other tools are available and may be equally effective.
Finally, contribution is made to prior group assessment literature by comparing the perceived effectiveness of a variety of
group assessment types. Prior literature tends to focus individually on particular group assessment types or examine the
cumulative experience of group work. With these contributions, our paper addresses the call for research on best practices
in the development of ‘‘soft skills” (Albring & Elder, 2020, p. 65): ‘‘There has been a consistent concern that accounting grad-
uates lack effective communication and interpersonal skills, often referred to as ‘‘soft skills.’’. . . Research evidence is needed
on how to best develop these skills in the curriculum.”

7. Conclusions, limitations and future research

This paper highlights the value of including a package of diverse group assessment types within degree programs to pro-
vide the opportunity for the development of various types of teamwork skills, incorporating the suite of group assessments
depicted in Fig. 1. The benefits and challenges of various group assessment types have been outlined including: in-class ver-
sus take-home, multiple choice versus essay style (in-class), and online versus paper-based. We provide a comprehensive set
of recommendations of best practices group assessments to enhance the development of teamwork skills. The key recom-
mendation of the study, using the constructive alignment approach, is that program directors and teaching faculty need
to plan, coordinate and monitor the use of various group assessments to ensure there is diversity of assessment types used
across the program.
Limitations of this study are that the sample students were from one institution in one geographical region. Hence, the
results may not be generalizable to other Higher Education institutions or other disciplines with different student demo-
graphics (for example, in disciplines where all students have English as a first language or where there is a gender imbal-
ance). The current results may not apply to these different contexts. Further, participation by interviewees was voluntary
which means that there may be self-selection bias.
Future research can explore ‘academic dishonesty’ which has been identified in our study as a barrier to successful strate-
gies with group assignments. Irrespective of how well an assignment or a piece of assessment is designed, unless it is under-
taken by students as intended (i.e. with academic integrity), the achievement of student learning is questionable.
Consequently, it is imperative to identify and develop preventive and detective controls that are particularly relevant and
appropriate for the online (remote) learning environment.
Further research can examine how perceptions and best practices for group assessments have transformed post COVID-
19. Our data relates to 2018, which is before the transformative effect of COVID-19 on accounting education. Further exam-
ination of best practices of group assessments in the online environment is pivotal as remote working is now a common
practice in the accounting profession, and development of teamwork skills in an online (remote) environment is still in
its infancy.
Future studies could use larger sample sizes to examine the impact of gender differences in developing teamwork skills.
Studies could also make cross-cultural comparisons and compare perceptions between groups that are randomly allocated,
instructor selected and self-selected. Alternative research methodologies can also be used beyond interviews, to investigate
the scaffolding of teamwork skills development throughout programs and assess the development of teamwork skills.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
12
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the research funding received from AFAANZ. We wish to thank the Editor, Associate Editor and anony-
mous reviewers for their insightful comments that assisted in developing the paper.

Funding

This work was supported by an AFAANZ research grant.

Appendix A. Interview Protocols for student and instructor interviews

Student Interview Protocol:

1. Please describe your experience of the two group assessments (MCQ and essay) in UGU or PGU.
2. Do you think the group assessments (MCQ and essay) assisted you in thinking about and developing your teamwork
skills?
a. If yes - How?
b. If no – why?
3. Which teamwork skills were developed?
a. Prompt if needed e.g. Coordination of a team, Division of work, written, verbal
4. Before the group assessments:
a. Did you prepare beforehand as a group or think about how to approach the group assessments?
5. During the assessments:
a. What problems did your group experience?
b. What did your group do well?
6. After the assessments:
a. Did you think about how your group could have performed better?
7. Do you have any advice about teamwork for other students doing the group MCQ and group essays?
8. Do you think that conducting the assessments online helped develop online teamwork skills? Please explain.
9. Any other advice/comments on how to help you develop teamwork skills for the workplace?
10. Is there any way that your lecturers / workshop coordinators can assist you in developing your teamwork skills?

Many units use group projects as a group assessment tool.

11. Do you think you learned anything new or different about teamwork doing the in-class group assessments compared
to the teamwork lessons you learned through take-home group projects?
12. What are teamwork problems you experienced with take-home group projects?
13. What are the teamwork benefits you experienced with take-home group projects?
14. What advice do you have for other students about take-home group projects?
15. The effectiveness of group assessment tasks conducted online (compared to paper-based):
a. Do you prefer doing the group test (MCQ and group written) online (compared to on paper) or are you indifferent?
b. What are the benefits/disadvantages to online versus paper tests?
c. Do you have any advice for other students about doing the group MCQ and group essays online?
d. Do you think the fact that the assessment was done online impacted your group’s performance? In what way?

Instructor Interview Protocol:

1. What teamwork skills and strategies did you observe the students using during the group MCQ and group written tests or
when you marked the group written tests?
2. What teamwork challenges did you observe during the group MCQ and group written tests or when you marked the
group written tests?

Many units use group projects as a group assessment tool.

3. Do you think the students learned anything new or different about teamwork doing the in-class group MCQ and group
written tests compared to teamwork lessons learned through take-home group projects?
4. In your experience as an educator: What teamwork problems/benefits have you experienced with take-home group
projects?
5. What advice do you have for students about take-home group projects?
6. Do you advise the use of group presentations?

13
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

7. Any other advice/comments on how to help develop teamwork skills in students for the work place?
8. Are there any admin or pedagogical benefits to online versus paper?
9. Do you have any advice for other workshop coordinators about doing the group MCQ and group written tests online?

References

AICPA (2018). The AICPA pre-certification core competency framework. Retrieved 5/11/21 from https://us.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/interestareas/
accountingeducation/resources/downloadabledocuments/aicpa-pre-certification-core-compentency-framework.pdf.
Albring, S. M., & Elder, R. J. (2020). Research initiatives in accounting education: Managing academic programs [Article]. Issues in Accounting Education, 35(4),
61–74. https://doi.org/10.2308/ISSUES-2020-020.
Australian Learning and Teaching Council (2010). Learning and teaching. Academic standards project. Business, management and economics. Learning and
teaching. Academic standards statement for accounting December 2010. Retrieved 27/04/18 from http://www.abdc.edu.au/data/Accounting_LS/
Accounting_Learning_Standards_-_February_2011.pdf.
Bacon, D. R. (2005). The effect of group projects on content-related learning. Journal of Management Education, 29(2), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1052562904263729.
Ballantine, J., & McCourt Larres, P. (2007). Final year accounting undergraduates’ attitudes to group assessment and the role of learning logs. Accounting
Education, 16(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280701234419.
Bay, D., & Pacharn, P. (2017). Impact of group exams in a graduate intermediate accounting class. Accounting Education, 26(4), 316–334. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09639284.2017.1292465.
Berry, E. (2007). Group work and assessment—Benefit or burden? The Law Teacher, 41(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2007.9959723.
Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5–22.
Bujaki, M., Lento, C., & Sayed, N. (2019). Utilizing professional accounting concepts to understand and respond to academic dishonesty in accounting
programs. Journal of Accounting Education, 47, 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2019.01.001.
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative marketing research. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849209625.
Christensen, J., Harrison, J. L., Hollindale, J., & Wood, K. (2019). Implementing team-based learning (TBL) in accounting courses. Accounting Education, 28(2),
195–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2018.1535986.
Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. (1992). Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching of
Psychology, 19(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1901_3.
Deeter-Schmelz, D., Kennedy, K. N., & Ramsey, R. P. (2002). Enriching our understanding of student team effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(2),
114–124. https://doi.org/info:doi/.
Delaney, D., Fletcher, M., Cameron, C., & Bodle, K. (2013). Online self and peer assessment of team work in accounting education. Accounting Research Journal,
26(3), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-04-2012-0029.
Doran, J., Healy, M., McCutcheon, M., & O’Callaghan, S. (2011). From beyond the grade: Reflections on assessments in the context of case-based teaching.
Irish Journal of Management, 31(1), 3–19.
Edmond, T., & Tiggeman, T. (2009). Accounting experiences in collaborative learning. American Journal of Business Education, 2(7), 97–100 https://doi.org/10.
19030/ajbe.v2i7.4588.
Gartland, D., & Rood, D. K. (2018). No ’1’ in team. Retrieved 31/1/19 from https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2018/jan/how-teamwork-helps-
protect-cpa-firms.html.
GCA (2015). Graduate careers Australia, graduate outlook 2015. The report of the 2015 graduate outlook survey: Perspectives on graduate recruitment
http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Graduate-Outlook-Report-2015-FINAL1.pdf.
Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4),
2333–2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004.
Golden, J., & Kohlbeck, M. (2020). Addressing cheating when using test bank questions in online Classes. Journal of Accounting Education, 52, 100671. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2020.100671.
Gueldenzoph, L. E., & May, G. L. (2002). Collaborative peer evaluation: Best practices for group member assessments. Business Communication Quarterly, 65
(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/108056990206500102.
Hall, D., & Buzwell, S. (2012). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 14(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467123.
Hancock, P., Freeman, M., Watty, K., Birt, J., & Tyler, J. (2016). Accounting learning standards. Retrieved 18/9/18 from https://www.afaanz.org/sites/
default/files/uploaded-content/website-content/new-teaching-and-learning-standards-final-2016_1.pdf.
Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82(1), 11–19.
https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19.
Healy, M., Doran, J., & McCutcheon, M. (2018). Cooperative learning outcomes from cumulative experiences of group work: Differences in student
perceptions. Accounting Education, 27(3), 286–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2018.1476893.
IAESB (2017). International accounting education standards board, handbook of international education pronouncements (2017 ed.). Retrieved 27/04/18
from http://www.ifac.org/system/files/publications/files/2017-Handbook-of-International-Education-Pronouncements.PDF.
Kavanagh, M. H., & Drennan, L. (2008). What skills and attributes does an accounting graduate need? Evidence from student perceptions and employer
expectations. Accounting & Finance, 48(2), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2007.00245.x.
Kutlubay, O., & Uslay, C. (2019). The varying role of social ties on team performance: Evidence from the marketing classroom. Marketing Education Review,
29, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2019.1565943.
Lancaster, K. A. S., & Strand, C. A. (2001). Using the team-learning model in a managerial accounting class: An experiment in cooperative learning. (Statistical
Data Included). Issues in Accounting Education, 16(4), 549.
Lightner, S., Bober, M. J., & Willi, C. (2007). Team-based activities to promote engaged learning. College Teaching, 55(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.3200/
CTCH.55.1.5-18.
Mamas, C. (2018). Exploring peer relationships, friendships and group work dynamics in higher education: Applying social network analysis. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 42(5), 662–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1302568.
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219–232. https://
doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_2.
McClellan, C. (2016). Teamwork, collaboration, and cooperation as a student learning outcome for undergraduates. Assessment Update, 28, 5–15.
McVay, G. J., Murphy, P. R., & Wook Yoon, S. (2008). Good practices in accounting education: Classroom configuration and technological tools for enhancing
the learning environment. Accounting education (London, England), 17(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280600843369.
Michaelsen, L. K., Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Team-based learning practices and principles in comparison with cooperative learning and problem-
based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25, 57–84.
Newton, D. (2020). Cheating rises with online education. The Washington Post.
Oosthuizen, H., De Lange, P., Wilmshurst, T., & Beatson, N. (2021). Teamwork in the accounting curriculum: Stakeholder expectations, accounting students’
value proposition, and instructors’ guidance. Accounting Education, 30(2), 131–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2020.1858321.

14
L. Bayne, J. Birt, P. Hancock et al. Journal of Accounting Education 59 (2022) 100770

Prokofieva, M., Jackling, B., & Natoli, R. (2015). A tale of two cohorts: Identifying differences in group work perceptions. Asian Review of Accounting, 23(1),
68–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-10-2013-0063.
Rands, M. L., & Gansemer-Topf, A. M. (2017). The room itself is active: How classroom design impacts student engagement. Iowa State University Digital
Repository.
Rowe, N. C. (2004). Cheating in online student assessment: Beyong plagiarism. On-Line Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Summer, 1–8.
Sangster, A., Stoner, G., & Flood, B. (2020). Insights into accounting education in a COVID-19 world. Accounting education (London, England), 29(5), 431–562.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2020.1808487.
Shawver, T. J. (2020). An experimental study of cooperative learning in advanced financial accounting courses. Accounting Education, 29(3), 247–262. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2020.1736589.
Strauss, P., U-Mackey, A., & Crothers, C. (2014). ’They drag my marks down!’ - challenges faced by lecturers in the allocation of marks for multicultural group
projects. Intercultural education (London, England), 25(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2014.905361.
Strauss, P., Alice, U., & Young, S. (2011). ’I know the type of people I work well with’: student anxiety in multicultural group projects. Studies in higher
education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 36(7), 815–829. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.488720.
Tarricone, P., & Luca, J. (2002). Employees, teamwork and social interdependence - a formula for successful business? Team Performance Management: An
International Journal, 8(3/4), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590210433348.
Vik, G. N. (2001). Doing more to teach teamwork than telling students to sink or swim. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 112–119. https://doi.org/
10.1177/108056990106400413.
White, A. (2020). May you live in interesting times: a reflection on academic integrity and accounting assessment during COVID19 and online learning.
Accounting Research Journal, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-09-2020-0317
Willey, K. (2017). SPARKPLUS an innovative e-learning tool to develop student’s judgement, professional skills and improve their learning and their learning
experience. In 10th annual international conference of education, research and innovation (16–18 Nov), Seville, Spain.

15