Assessing students’ learning during pandemic: responses to crisis period at Singapore’s higher education institutions

ABSTRACT

This study presents reflections from accounting lecturers in Singapore on the challenges and opportunities of conducting assessments during the crisis period of COVID-19. We seek to answer the following research question: What were the responses of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Singapore to the pandemic to maintain order in the accounting course assessment? We interviewed ten lecturers representing higher education institutions in Singapore that offer undergraduates and diplomas in accounting. Drawing on chaos theory in crisis management literature, we elaborate our findings thematically in five areas: assessment policies, formative and summative assessments, the role of technology, academic integrity, and addressing students’ problems. Finally, we summarize our findings and conclude with lessons learned regarding accounting assessment in the crisis period.

KEYWORDS:

• Accounting assessment
• COVID-19
• higher education
• crisis period
• Singapore

Introduction

Since the beginning of 2020, COVID-19 has been ravaging countries worldwide, causing devastation and immense suffering to the countries. Eventually, the spread of the disease became unstoppable, giving countries worldwide no other alternative than to impose and maintain a nationwide controlled movement. With the pandemic outbreak, organizations were forced to quickly adapt to the changing situation, seek immediate solutions, and adjust their day-to-day operations with their employees, customers, and stakeholders (Passetti et al., 2021). The disruption and depression that COVID −19 caused worldwide also impacted the learning ecosystem. Many higher education institutions (HEIs) suffered greatly from the pandemic (Mok et al., 2021; Pasion et al., 2021). Suddenly, academic routines were somewhat disarray, and faculty unaccustomed to change had to adjust their pedagogy from face-to-face to online classes to maintain student engagement and ensure their students’ learning success (Sangster et al., 2020). Additionally, students too, had to adapt to the online environment to continue their studies (Mali & Lim, 2021; Othman, 2021).

While online or virtual learning is not new and was adopted by many universities before the pandemic, its adoption was not forcefully mandated (Fogarty, 2020). COVID −19 left faculty and students with no choice but to participate in the provision of distance education when the worldwide government forced universities to close (Mok et al., 2021; Sangster et al., 2020). Like other countries, Singapore’s HEIs have faced challenges and difficulties since the pandemic outbreak (Ng, 2021; Sangster et al., 2020). From April 7, 2020, the Singapore government imposed a ‘circuit breaker’ whereby all academic activities at HEIs in Singapore were suspended.¹ Online teaching became a default mode for teaching during the circuit breaker. At the time of writing, Singapore’s HEIs have started a hybrid mode, with a mixture of face-to-face and online lessons. Singapore has six autonomous universities (equal to public universities)² and five polytechnics. Of the six universities, five offer programs in accounting. Four polytechnics in Singapore offer diploma programs in accounting. These HEIs face many challenges in changing their pedagogy and maintaining students’ learning during the pandemic.

Assessment is one of the essential components of teaching and students’ learning impacted by COVID-19 (Fogarty, 2020; Sangster et al., 2020). The right and relevant assessment system determine an accounting curriculum’s success (Smith, 2004; Stout et al., 2005). Accounting evaluation is critical because the accounting discipline requires accreditation by a professional association. The pandemic has prompted regulators and professional bodies to issue guidelines for accounting assessment. For example, the Financial Reporting Council has granted professional accountancy bodies a temporary concession allowing them to use alternative assessments (Ballantine & Jones, 2020). On the other hand, CPA Australia and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand expect at least 50 percent of the total assessment for each subject covering competency areas to be invigilated.³ Consequently, HEIs that offer accounting programs must follow the accreditation requirements during the pandemic. At the same time, HEIs need to ensure that their assessment aligns with their defined successful and qualifying learning outcomes (Smith, 2004). COVID-19 enforced HEIs in Singapore to implement crisis management to ensure educational resiliency.

Our study aims to gain insight into the response of HEIs in Singapore to the crisis period, particularly in terms of accounting course assessment. We seek to answer the following research question: What were the responses of HEIs in Singapore to the pandemic to maintain order in the accounting course assessment? Our study uses chaos theory in the crisis management literature to answer this research question (Koehler et al., 2014; Murphy, 1996; Seeger, 2002; Ulmer, 2012). Chaos theory assumes that organizational responses occur immediately after the event and can trace self-organizing processes after ramifications (Kiel & Elliott, 1997; Thiétart & Forgues, 1995). The theory states that a system rearranges itself around a new underlying order, which may be similar to the previous order or completely different (Fuller et al., 2022).

Contribution

We add to the research on accounting education during the crisis period (O’Connell, 2022; Sangster et al., 2020). Crisis management is still a scarce topic in accounting education. Using chaos theory (Koehler et al., 2014; Murphy, 1996), our study examines Singapore’s HEIs’ response to the COVID −19 pandemic. An unpredictable event such as the pandemic led to extreme uncertainty and threat while ensuring that HEIs could maintain the order of accounting assessments. Additionally, this uncertainty may also provide opportunities for HEIs to develop resilience. We interviewed ten accounting lecturers at HEIs in Singapore. Through chaos theory, we contribute to the literature in education by focusing on the response of faculty members in Singapore’s HEIs to the crisis period. Following the theory, we then thematically elaborated our findings on five themes that demonstrate Singapore’s higher education institutions’ efforts to maintain order in their accounting assessment: assessment policy, formative and summative assessments, the role of technology, academic integrity, and addressing students’ problems. Our study is unique in the context of Singapore. Our findings may be helpful to other universities in other countries and support future post-pandemic accounting education.

The next section of this article provides a brief overview of accounting assessment and the COVID-19 challenges in accounting assessment. We then describe our research method and data. Next, we explain the results and analyze the interview data collected. Lastly, we end with concluding remarks offering lessons learned from COVID-19 that could be valuable to future accounting education.

Literature review

Chaos theory

Chaos theory has its roots in mathematical and natural science disciplines (Lorenz, 1963). The theory assumes that chaotic systems are characterized by apparent randomness. However, underlying patterns, interconnections, feedback loops, repetitions, self-organization, fractals, and self-organization can be found in complex chaotic systems (Loye & Eisler, 1987; Thiétart & Forgues, 1995). Over the years, social science disciplines (e.g. economics, psychology, management, education, and politics) have adopted chaos theory to explain certain events and social phenomena (Kiel & Elliott, 1997). While chaos theory has also been applied to education research, its context is not in crisis periods. Instead, it explains how education administrators can overcome administrative intricacies and transform the educational processes (Blair, 1993; You, 1993). Chaos theory has also been used to explain teachers’ intervention that can potentially affect students’ learning journey (Cvetek, 2008).

Chaos theory is increasingly relevant in the COVID −19 pandemic (Altinay & Kozak, 2021; Kumar & Sharma, 2021). During a pandemic, it is difficult to maintain normal educational operations, and dramatic changes can occur unexpectedly. Educational institutions may face numerous challenges. The pandemic impacts the student learning experience, pedagogical approaches to learning, course assessment, and the allocation of educational resources (Mali & Lim, 2021; Othman, 2021; Sangster et al., 2020). Several factors can influence the effectiveness of a lesson, such as a student’s unexpected comment or a slight variation in how the teacher conducts classroom activities (lectures or assessments). In times of crisis, when situations are highly unpredictable, the changes in activities can have a significant impact (Cvetek, 2008). For example, changing the assessment from offline to online can create chaos and enforce HEI to maintain order. By applying chaos theory, our study exemplifies how a chaotic event creates a new type of order in accounting assessment. Through the lens of chaos theory, we attempt to explain how HEIs in Singapore overcame the chaotic situation due to the pandemic and examine the embedded structure of order during the crisis period. This structure of order is evident in institutions’ actions to sustain their educational operations during the crisis.

Accounting assessment

In education, assessment plays a crucial role (Heitink et al., 2016; Stout et al., 2005). Assessments are conducted to evaluate an individual’s knowledge and skills, decide whether they have learned, what was expected of them, and as a tool for the instructor in future planning (Smith, 2004; Stout et al., 2005). Assessments should produce observable student performance that leads to inferred competency (Broadbent et al., 2021; Heitink et al., 2016). This begins with determining which learning outcomes should be formally credited and ongoing assessment to ensure that the student’s learning journey aligns with the learning outcomes (Stout et al., 2005).

In general, assessments can be divided into formative and summative assessments (Heitink et al., 2016). Formative assessment is continuous throughout the study period to help faculty provide relevant feedback to their students (Heitink et al., 2016). Summative assessment, on the other hand, aims to quantitatively evaluate student performance against a specific standard or benchmark (Broadbent et al., 2021). Various tools can be used for formative and summative assessments, such as tests and exams, including quizzes, written assignments, multiple-choice questions, short-answer questions, essay-based exams, and interactive student responses (Chui et al., 2013; Smith, 2004).

Other than the types of assessments, educators also need to consider students learning styles for the assessment. Students learn differently; for example, some prefer active participation, while others prefer to observe. Some prefer to work in groups, while others prefer to work alone. Some prefer passive learning through lectures, while others prefer active learning through experimentation and application (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Kolb & Kolb (2005) proposed four learning styles: divergers, assimilators, converters, and accommodators. Divergers see concrete situations differently. Their imagination is deep and emotional, and they are good at generating ideas. Assimilators deal less with people and are more concerned with abstract ideas. Converters are effective at finding practical applications for ideas and theories. Instead of dealing with people, they tend to reason hypothetically deductively. Accommodators prefer to learn practically and rely on intuition and information from others rather than books and lectures. Tan & Laswad (2015) found that students with an ‘assimilating’ learning style performed better on several assessments than those with a ‘diverging’ or ‘accommodating’ learning style.

Online learning management systems provide assessment features that allow instructors to create assessment tools. For example, instructors can make assessments interactive using a clicker or game-based learning platform (Chui et al., 2013). Instructors can also score student responses immediately. Before COVID −19, the use of technology in accounting assessment was a matter of personal choice (Fogarty, 2020). Unsurprisingly, accounting educators’ resistance was the critical barrier to technology adoption in accounting education (Watty et al., 2016). However, during COVID −19, instructors had no choice but to use technology to help them deliver course materials and assess student performance (Sangster et al., 2020).

COVID-19 challenges for accounting assessment

The sudden transition to online assessment due to COVID-19 presented unique challenges for students and faculty (Mali & Lim, 2021; Othman, 2021). Both instructors and students have experienced increased fatigue and anxiety. Faculty must adapt to the technology and quickly learn to teach virtually, develop virtual and hybrid instruction course profiles, and formulate the appropriate formative and summative assessments (Othman, 2021). At the same time, students must also quickly adapt to the change from offline to online learning and use multiple technologies (Mali & Lim, 2021). Besser et al. (2022) reported that students were overwhelmingly negative about online courses and assessments. For example, first-year students lacking online experience were anxious when confronted with a controlled and limited online assessment.

Using technology in course delivery and assessment can solve some problems caused by COVID-19 (Fogarty, 2020; Sangster et al., 2020). For example, lecturers and students can deliver lectures and take exams without leaving their homes. However, other problems can quickly arise and may not be easily solved, for example, technical problems (e.g. internet connection and software issues) that students face during online exams. Academic dishonesty is also a problem for HEIs conducting online examinations (White, 2021). Newton (2020) for example, explains that COVID-19 created more opportunities for students to engage in academic dishonesty. White (2021) echoed Newton (2020) by suggesting that COVID-19 rationalizes cheating and misconduct behavior among students.

Method and data

This study aims to document and identify challenges, opportunities, and lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore’s HEIs. We conducted qualitative research through multiple interviews to gain rich and meaningful insights. We employed interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA), exploring participants’ personal and social worlds through the meaning they attach to particular experiences, events, and states (Smith et al., 2009). IPA aims to explore personal experiences and focuses on how a person perceives or represents an object or event. We elicited participants’ experiences via interviews (Chen, 2022). Through interviews, participants can justify, and explain their actions and opinions, which we cannot obtain from the quantitative study (Tracy, 2020). We interviewed ten faculty representing Singapore’s HEIs that offer accounting-related degrees and diploma programs. We considered the sample size of our study based on the data saturation assumption, which means that a small sample size is sufficient to obtain reliable results (Suddaby, 2006). The threshold is reached when adding new respondents does not provide additional information. When using such a strategy, the number of participants/cases in previous studies varied from five to more than ten (Laguir et al., 2019; Sarens & de Beelde, 2006). Additionally, Guest et al. (2020) suggest that six to seven interviewees are sufficient to reach data saturation when the sample is homogenous. The interviewees were all faculties and selected based on their expertise and involvement in teaching accounting at Singapore HEIs. The interviews were semi-structured using an 11-question guide and were conducted via zoom and email from December 2021 to January 2022. The zoom interviews lasted between 30–50 min.

After collecting audio data from the interviews, we transcribed the data using an artificial intelligence-based text transcription tool (otter.ai). The tool provided the keywords based on the most frequent words in the interview text. Following the IPA steps, we derived subordinate and superordinate themes to analyze participants’ experiences (Chen, 2022; Cotterill, 2015; Smith et al., 2009). Our subordinate themes were based on the keywords provided during the automated transcription. The original transcripts were re-examined, and the text associated with each subordinate theme was highlighted. We manually coded the data based on the subordinate themes. Afterwards, we created superordinate themes. Categorization was then performed manually to group each subordinate topic into particular superordinate themes. To maintain sensitivity to the unique experiences of individuals, each case was analyzed independently, and we presented the excerpts in the findings and discussion section. We calculated Cohen’s kappa to analyze the inter-rater reliability of our coding. The analysis showed high agreement for subordinate themes (κ = 0.82), and superordinate themes (κ = 0.80) (McHugh, 2012). Table 1 contains the respondent details. Table 2 shows our super and sub-ordinate themes used for coding the interview transcripts.

Table 1. Interviewees Description

Code	Interviewee’s Role	Teaching Expertise	Interview Type
IV1	Associate Professor	Accounting Information Systems	Zoom
IV2	Senior Lecturer	Managerial Accounting, Accounting Information Systems	Zoom
IV3	Senior Lecturer	Financial Accounting	Zoom
IV4	Lecturer	Financial Accounting, Management Accounting	Zoom
IV5	Lecturer	Financial Accounting, Management Accounting	Zoom
IV6	Senior Lecturer	Financial Accounting	Zoom
IV7	Assistant Professor	Finance	Email
IV8	Professor	Accounting Information Systems	Email
IV9	Adjunct Associate Professor	Auditing	Email
IV10	Professor	Financial Accounting, Finance	Zoom

Table 2. Super and Sub-Ordinate Themes Emerging from the Data.

Subordinate themes	Superordinate themes
Accreditation	Assessment Policies
Adjustments	Assessment Policies
Arrange	Academic Integrity
Challenges	Addressing Students Problems
Cheating	Academic Integrity
Formative Assessments	Formative And Summative Assessments
Guideline	Assessment Policies
Online Proctoring	Academic Integrity
Students	Addressing Students Problems
Summative Assessments	Formative And Summative Assessments
Technology	The Role of Technology

Findings and discussion

Assessment policies

At the institutional level, HEIs in Singapore always have assessment policies in place, which were adjusted in multiple ways when crises occurred during the circuit breaker period. All participants shared that all summative assessments were moved to online mode, while most saw a shift in weighting from summative to formative assessments:

We have never done online examinations on a large-scale basis, and the anxieties among faculty and students were very high. So, we must create a system and a simple structure that can meet our needs during a crisis (IV10).

Many universities in Singapore follow guidelines from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), Singapore Accounting Standards (SAC), Certified Practising Accountant (CPA) Australia, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). Due to the crisis nature of the circuit breaker period, these professional accountancy bodies made an exception to allow the pass/fail option for accounting-related course results to meet their accreditation requirements. While the invigilation was relaxed during COVID-19 (e.g. the invigilation can be conducted online), the requirement that at least 50 percent of the overall evaluation scores be invigilated remains unchanged. After the hiatus, the invigilation has returned to where they were prior to COVID-19 times (e.g. physical invigilation).

To allay student and faculty fears and anxieties about online exams, Singapore’s HEIs have conducted training sessions for students and faculty to familiarize them with the tools. They have held numerous sessions with faculty, either one-on-one, in groups, or in town halls meeting (IV2 and IV10). Faculty were also asked to provide clear instructions to students on how to take the exam (IV2, IV6, and IV10).

Impact of COVID-19 on formative and summative assessments

The impact of COVID −19 on formative assessments varied across HEIs in Singapore. Overall, they have to be more flexible in their assessments than before COVID −19 in terms of assessment types, scope, duration, and rubrics. Nevertheless, the assessments continue to meet accreditation requirements. For example, mini-quizzes were transformed into open-ended essays that required students to draw on past learning or weekly study material to write the essay (IV2). IV8 shared that ‘presentation and class participation was transferred to Zoom and observed. The group project and reflection essay were submitted and graded via the eLearning platform’. In another case, the formative assessment of tests and quizzes were redesigned into individual projects (IV4). IV5 noted that with the greater emphasis on projects and reflections as formative assessments, there is a shift towards transferrable skills, such as assessing the students’ research skills, presentation skills, and teamwork.

The main change to summative assessments, such as the final examination, during the circuit breaker period, was in the mode of the assessments, from traditional paper to online exams. After the circuit breaker and with the flexibility to conduct exams online, most institutions reverted to traditional paper exams, while some institutions permitted hybrid models. One form of the hybrid model involves administering online exams on campus. Another form of the hybrid model involved administering exams both on paper and online:

We also noticed that more instructors were doing online on campus so that the students were using the laptops in the exam hall, and then it had proper invigilation (IV1).

We had students who had to attend assessments face-to-face. And then, you know, for those who can’t, because of the COVID-19 restrictions, we had them zoom proctor at the same time. So, in that sense, it’s a hybrid (IV2).

All faculty agreed that the assessment scope, types, and rubrics had changed minimally due to accreditation (IV3). The only change was in the assessment of class participation (IV8):

Before COVID-19, class participation in class was measured on the frequency and quality of comments. During COVID-19 on Zoom, comments in chat were given class participation marks. For some of my other colleagues, I am aware that they allowed pre-recorded group presentations instead of live presentations (on Zoom) (IV8).

Due to the limitations of online exams, some institutions shortened the duration of the exams from three to two hours. For other institutions, the duration remained three hours, and the type of questions must also be adjusted:

For (financial statement) consolidation questions, where one question could be stretched to, maybe two to three pages for paper exams. But then, when it’s online, because of the constraints in the setting, we have to limit the length of the question to probably about one or one and a half pages at most per question. Due to these reasons, the topics that we can also test, in a way, are a bit more limited (IV6).

Most respondents indicated that there was little change in the assessment of the accounting module during COVID −19. Some instructors adjusted the questions to reduce the difficulty level (IV6). Some faculty indicated that they converted the questions from technical to conceptual because online exams are inappropriate for questions requiring extensive calculations, table creation, or diagramming. However, some students performed differently when questions were changed from technical to conceptual. These differences may result from students’ learning styles (i.e. accommodator, converger, diverger, and assimilator). For example, an accommodator is better at answering technical questions, while an assimilator excels at answering conceptual questions (Kolb, 2015):

For a shift towards more qualitative questions, some of them (students) will find that (it) is more accessible. But some students are weaker in that as they are not so good at writing. Some good students are technically sound, but their strength is not in essay writing, and they end up having more difficulties (IV5).

The role of technology

All faculty agreed that technology played a significant role in conducting assessments during COVID −19. During the pandemic, technology contributed to a relatively smooth administration of assessments. Technology is used more extensively during the pandemic than before COVID-19. For example, respondents used the Respondus LockDown Browser application to administer the assessments and conduct online exam supervision (invigilation). The application can help faculty investigate suspicious activities that can be classified as cheating and exam misconduct. Technology also enables HEIs to be more agile, nimble, and flexible in a crisis period:

We basically use Zoom as the second device to help us invigilate, and we have Exam software to help us with the final exams. When it comes to formative assessment, we have all sorts of other platforms; for instance, we still can use Zoom and then have our own LMS that also has quizzes and file submissions with Turnitin, to authenticate and mark against plagiarism. So this is how technology plays a part. At the invigilation level, because all of us were practicing remote invigilation, we also need to make sure that invigilators can communicate closely. We design a mechanism for our invigilators to ensure they are always in communication chats and in a particular network to communicate appropriately. So these are some of the communication networks that we had to leverage on technology to help us collaborate at the assessment and invigilation level (IV2).

Digital platforms and remote learning have revolutionized education, allowing teaching to be done remotely and through digital means. I believe a new hybrid model of assessment may emerge. While not foolproof, online quizzes may eventually become an integral assessment component. With faculty now well-versed with online learning and assessments, this model may become a viable alternative option that faculty had never considered possible in the past (IV8).

However, sometimes technology is ‘a double-edged sword’. This was how some participants expressed their concerns and challenges when using technological tools (IV7). For example, in the Accounting Information Systems (AIS) course, many systems documentation and diagrams (e.g. entity-relationship diagram, data flow diagram, and business process modeling notations) make the exams’ delivery more complicated in an online proctored environment. AIS course requires extensive use of accounting technology (enterprise resource planning/ERP, data analytics, and diagramming). Therefore, faculty need to ensure that students can use the technology for online assessment.

I actually have to ask them (students) to write on papers, and after the exam, they have to scan and submit them as a separate file. I don’t think currently in the market; there is software that caters more for a diagram kind of exam format (IV1).

Technology not only has advantages but can also bring problems. For example, first-year students may not be familiar with online assessments. Students may also experience technical problems during online assessment (e.g. the Internet connections, inaccessibility of the online assessment platform, or other unexpected hardware or software problems) (IV2). To minimize the potential problems, faculty can teach students about the technology used for online assessment. HEIs must also be prepared for emergencies to respond to unforeseen circumstances due to technical problems (IV2).

Maintaining academic integrity for online assessments

The concept of academic integrity refers to the demonstration of virtues such as honesty, respect, trust, fairness, and responsibility in learning, teaching, and research (Bretag, 2020). While online assessment helps faculty evaluate student work more quickly and efficiently than paper assessments (IV8, IV6), maintaining academic integrity is challenging in online assessments.

Online assessments are logistically more efficient when a few markers are involved, as I don’t need to bring the papers to my lecturers (for marking). We don’t need to be together physically to mark the papers and check everything to make sure we sum up the marks correctly (IV6).

All respondents knew that academic integrity could be more compromised in online assessments. Many feared that students would copy their peers’ transcripts. Online proctoring tools have been used to address these concerns (IV9). For example, invigilation software was used when students used a webcam to record themselves during an online exam (IV6 and IV7). Other participants used Zoom Proctoring, which allows students to use another device, such as their cell phone, to be monitored remotely by examiners. Some faculty also disclosed that they made the questions stringent and prepared multiple versions of the same paper:

The questions are fundamentally the same, but the numbers are changed. This initiative was done to avoid students cheating (IV5).

We make the tests and exams to be sufficiently stringent and tight, so there’s no time to talk to other people (IV3).

Another challenge is using technology to administer online exams to a large group of students. People were still required to assist in the online exam to ensure academic integrity. A 200–300 students require ‘staff intensive’ as additional proctors are needed (IV3). The online exam could also be ‘very disruptive to students.’ For example, when invigilators had to interrupt the online exam from time to time to remind some students to turn on their cameras when their screens were blank (IV4). This is an example of the ‘idiosyncrasies of online invigilation’ (IV8).

Addressing students’ problems

Students were most concerned about the strength and reliability of the Internet broadband connection for online assessments. Unexpected problems can occur quickly when the Internet connection is unstable (whether at home or campus) or when the online assessment platform server hangs. Students may be insecure about the Internet connection and have less trust in the university’s technical support to assist them during the assessment. Another common issue was the availability of a supportive environment:

Unlike physical examination, where they (students) sit in the exam hall, which is very conducive for taking the examination. Many of them took the exam from home during the pandemic. I have students who called me and said that the neighbour’s renovation was going on suddenly during the exam. And probably that (the noise) would affect their performance (IV8 and IV6).

Not every student has a conducive environment at home. The circuit breaker was a challenging period because they (students) are not allowed to come to campus, even if their house is noisy (IV1).

Additionally, faculty also received students’ concerns regarding ‘more typing than writing’ when doing online assessments:

I have one student who told me that he’s very slow in typing, and it affects his (exam) performance when it comes to the written exam. I think he definitely can do much better than typing (IV6 and IV8).

Students at universities using norm-referenced assessments were concerned about their performance and how their peers handle their challenges. They may worry about whether they were up to the challenges and not falling behind others or feel comfortable enough at home to take the assessments (IV2). While instructors were concerned about academic honesty, students were also worried about their fellow students’ academic integrity and whether universities have put enough rules and restrictions on these online assessments to prevent cheating. IV5 noted that the problem of free riders on formative assessments that involve group work is exacerbated because students do not physically meet each other. Some members disappeared or excused themselves while working on the group project. There were more conflicts and misunderstandings because they did not meet in person. Table 3 compares Singapore’s HEIs responses before and during COVID −19.

Concluding remark

The COVID −19 pandemic leaves both favorable and unfavorable legacies. We contribute to the education literature by using chaos theory to examine how faculty members of HEIs in Singapore responded to the crisis period. Using chaos theory, we can confirm that HEIs are capable of self-resilience and self-organization in uncertain, dynamic environments and in the face of significant disruptions. Our findings suggest five typical responses to COVID −19: adapting assessment policies, flexibility in formative and summative assessments, agility in using technology, maintaining academic integrity, and addressing student problems.

Table 3. Summary of Singapore’s HEIs Responses.

Response	Before COVID-19	During COVID-19
Assessment Policies	With the exception of pass/fail modules, the outcomes of most courses are expressed in grades, and the assessment is done offline.	The outcomes of all courses were graded as pass/fail, and the assessments were online, offline, or hybrid during the circuit breaker. Post-circuit breaker, the outcomes of the courses revert to expression in grade form.
Formative and Summative Assessment	Formative assessment is typically quizzes	Quizzes for formative assessment are converted to open-ended essays, presentations, and individual projects to maintain student engagement in the online environment.
	Summative assessment is typically in a classroom setting.	More flexibility in summative assessment. It can be done offline, online, or hybrid.
	Summative assessment typically takes three hours to complete.	Some universities have reduced the length of the summative assessment from three hours to two hours.
	Summative assessment includes extensive technical and conceptual questions	Some faculty have changed the technical questions to conceptual questions. Accordingly, the faculty also adjust the rubrics and assessment scope.
The role of technology	Technology is used as a support tool for learning, and its use is mainly voluntary	The use of technology has become more extensive and mandatory to maintain the resilience and agility of the educational system.
Academic integrity	People proctors the assessment	People and technology proctor the assessment
	Academic misconduct and dishonesty may occur but can be significantly reduced by human supervision.	Academic misconduct and dishonesty may be more complicated and require faculty to be more vigilant.
Addressing students’ problems	Students may have learning difficulties, but the instructional model allows instructors and universities to quickly solve student problems.	Students can quickly become restless and tired in an online environment. In addition, technology can also cause problems. Therefore, colleges need to be prepared for emergencies to resolve student problems quickly.

We have identified five lessons that accounting could learn from the pandemic. First, accounting assessments should be constantly assessed for agility, flexibility, and quality assurance in a changing world. Agility is necessary to incorporate technology into the assessment component and support. Flexibility is essential in times of crisis, while quality assurance ensures that students acquire the appropriate skills and knowledge. COVID −19 was a good testing ground to demonstrate the effectiveness of online assessment technologies and methods using best practices and frameworks. Second, the role of technology in accounting education is critical. Technology is part of the accounting curriculum and allows faculty to deliver lectures and exams during the pandemic. Teaching accounting technology and teaching with technology requires skills in digital pedagogy. Using online connectivity and digitization means more than just ‘putting lessons online.’ Digital pedagogy is necessary for students to be successful on online exams. Third, emergency preparedness in times of crisis is critical. HEIs must mobilize digital resources and provide on-demand services to set up infrastructure and troubleshoot issues with digital learning platforms, especially during the proctored assessment. Fourth, although technology enables the delivery of lectures and assessments, maintaining academic integrity in the online environment has always been challenging. Even though today’s technology allows proctors or faculty to automatically track potential academic integrity violations, the need for human engagement remains critical. Fifth, while online assessment offers flexibility without space constraints, locations other than a college classroom may not provide a conducive assessment environment and affect student performance.

Three limitations should be considered. First, the data are unique to the Singaporean context. A cross-country comparison could further deepen our understanding. Second, our participants are faculty and mainly teach financial accounting. A proportional sample size for the five core accounting subjects (i.e. financial accounting, managerial accounting, accounting information systems, auditing, and taxation) might provide better insights. Third, we did not collect data from students in this study, so all results are from an academic perspective. Finally, future research could further elaborate and explore our five common HEIs responses and the five lessons learned and whether they are applicable in post-pandemic education.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL-Supp/S254-2020/Published/20200407?DocDate=20200407

2 https://www.moe.gov.sg/post-secondary/overview/autonomous-universities/

3 https://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/become-a-cpa/academic-institution-support/professional-accreditation-guidelines/section-5-frequently-asked-questions

Appendix

Interview Questions

1. How did you conduct formative and summative assessments before and during Covid-19?

2. Is there a standard guideline (e.g. for conducting the assessment, grading, exam types) for your university faculties to conduct an assessment during Covid-19? Are the faculties allowed to exercise some flexibility and adjustment to the standard?

3. Are there any scope, type and rubrics change for assessment of accounting related modules before and during Covid-19? What are the changes?

4. What is the level of the accounting related-modules assessment difficulty before and during Covid-19?

5. Before and during Covid-19, did you experience any difficulty meeting the requirements of professional bodies and regulatory bodies to assess related modules? Did you experience any significant challenges during Covid-19 for this matter?

6. What role do you think technology plays in the assessment of accounting-related modules before and during Covid-19? (E.g. academic integrity issues, design of appropriate exams or alternatives to exams/assessments).

7. What are the challenges and issues that students face in assessment before and during Covid-19?

8. What would you suggest to improve the assessment of accounting modules practices during Covid-19?

9. What are the main challenges you have experienced in assessing students in Accounting during Covid-19?

10. What opportunities do you see in assessing students in Accounting during Covid-19?

11. What lessons have you learned from this Covid-19 for assessment practice in accounting?