The interactive roles of individual motivational characteristics and delivery method in upper-level accounting courses

ABSTRACT

This paper examines how self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation and test anxiety interact with the delivery method (online vs. face-to-face) in upper-level classes (third- and fourth-year students) in their association with course performance. Previous research in accounting [e.g. Chen et al., 2013. Online accounting education vs. in-class delivery: Does course level matter? Issues in Accounting Education, 28(1), 1–16] shows that this higher level is where the delivery method matters most, but conclusions differ as to whether face-to-face or online enjoys a decisive advantage [e.g. Aldahray, 2022. Do accounting students always perform better online? The COVID-19 experience. Accounting Education (Nov), 1–19; Chen et al., 2013; McCarthy et al. 2019. Intermediate accounting and auditing: Does course delivery method impact student performance? Journal of Accounting Education, 46, 26–42]. The findings, based on a survey of 238 students and analyses of variance with more detailed consideration of interactions noted, reveal interesting dynamics between individual student characteristics and suggest that these characteristics play an important role in course performance, possibly offsetting any perceived quality differential for one delivery method over the other. For example, the results underscore an important role played by intrinsic motivation in the learning process. The findings also suggest differential implications for post-secondary institutions in different environments, such as those that generally attract students who are more motivated and prepared versus (vs.) those in which these characteristics vary greatly among students.

KEYWORDS:

• Accounting education
• online education
• self-efficacy
• intrinsic motivation
• test anxiety
• delivery method

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 As an alternative analysis, we also broke down the responses into low and high intrinsic motivation. There is no significant two-way self-efficacy/test anxiety interaction in either group (p > .10 in each case); instead, self-efficacy is significant at .01 or less in both groups. Test anxiety is marginally significant (p = .07) when intrinsic motivation is low and is not significant when intrinsic motivation is high (p > .3).