Students’ preferences for teaching and exam delivery modes in accounting education post-COVID-19 pandemic

Figures & data

Figure 1. Teaching and exam approaches.

Table 1. Instrument constructs and items.

Part A student’s characteristics (Questions 1 -9)	Course discipline Year studying in Gender Age Disability Caregiver Commute time to the university Working Personal access to PC/Wi-Fi/quiet study area during lockdown
Part B – Students preference to teaching mode. (Questions 10–20)	On-campus/Online synchronous /Hybrid synchronous and why? What would an ideal hybrid synchronous teaching look like?
Part C – Students preference to exam mode. (Questions 21–22)	On campus two or three hours invigilated and why? Online two or three hours invigilated and why?

Table 2. Summary of participants’ details.

Characteristics and other details	Frequency %
Degree studying
Accounting and Finance	68
Business with Accounting	23
Economics with Accounting	9
Year of degree studying
First	42
Second	38
Third	20
Gender
Male	40
Female	58
Prefer not to say	2
Age
18–24 years	71
25+ years	29
Disability
Yes	4
No	92
Prefer not to say	4
Caregiver
Yes	15
No	83
Prefer not to say	2
Working whilst studying
Yes	65
No	35
Commuting time to university
Under 30 min	17
30 min to 1 h	48
One-two hours	31
Two or more hours	4
Access to PC/Laptop
Yes	95
No	5
Access to Wi-Fi
Yes	97
No	3
Access to quiet study area
Yes	84
No	16

Table 3. Teaching delivery mode preference.

Teaching Delivery mode	Frequency %
Hybrid synchronous	47
On campus face to face	33
Online synchronous	20

Table 4. Correlation students’ online synchronous delivery mode preferences.

	Online	Disability	Caring	Commute	Working	Access to PC	Wi-Fi	Study Area
Online	1.000
Disability	−0.0908	1.000
Caregiver	0.1477	0.1758*	1.000
Commute	0.0146	0.2331**	0.1984*	1.000
Working	−0.0148	−0.0116	0.1247	0.1673	1.000
Access to PC	0.1164	−0.2381**	−0.4317***	−0.1641	−0.1736*	1.000
Wi-Fi	−0.0610	−0.2400**	−0.5976***	−0.3203***	−0.1330	0.4968***	1.000
Study area	−0.1463	−0.0690	−0.3663***	−0.1579	−0.3187***	0.2865***	0.4174***	1.000

Table 5. Correlation students’ on-campus delivery mode preferences.

	On Campus	Disability	Caring	Commute	Working	Access to PC	Wi-Fi	Study Area
On Campus	1.000
Disability	0.0236	1.000
Caregiver	−0.2325**	0.1758*	1.000
Commute	−0.2945***	0.2331**	0.1984*	1.000
Working	−0.0770	−0.0116	0.1247	0.1673	1.000
Access to PC	−0.1326	−0.2381**	−0.4317***	−0.1641	−0.1736*	1.000
Wi-Fi	0.1270	−0.2400**	−0.5976***	−0.3203***	−0.1330	0.4968***	1.000
Study area	0.1826*	−0.0690	−0.3663***	−0.1579	−0.3187***	0.2865***	0.4174***	1.000

Table 6. Correlation students’ hybrid synchronous delivery mode preferences.

	Hybrid synchronous	Disability	Caring	Commute	Working	Access to PC	Wi-Fi	Study Area
Hybrid	1.000
Disability	0.0502	1.000
Caregiver	0.1018	0.1758*	1.000
Commute	0.2665***	0.2331**	0.1984*	1.000
Working	0.0846	−0.0116	0.1247	0.1673	1.000
Access to PC	0.0323	−0.2381**	−0.4317***	−0.1641	−0.1736*	1.000
Wi-Fi	−0.0712	−0.2400**	−0.5976***	−0.3203***	−0.1330	0.4968***	1.000
Study area	−0.0557	−0.0690	−0.3663***	−0.1579	−0.3187***	0.2865***	0.4174***	1.000

Table 7. Multiple logistic regression on online synchronous teaching delivery mode preference.

Online	Coefficient	Std. Err.	Z	P > [Z]	[95% Conf. Interval]
Caring1	0.8234668	0.4773873	1.72	0.085	−0.112195	1.759129
Gender MFN	1.755762	0.7275102	2.41	0.016	0.3298684	3.181656
Disability1	−1.553942	0.9192024	−1.69	0.091	−3.355545	0.247662
_Cons	−4.572793	1.394948	−3.28	0.001	−7.306841	−1.838745

Table 8. Multiple logistic regression on on-campus teaching delivery mode preference.

Campus	Coefficient	Std. Err.	Z	P > [Z]	[95% Conf. Interval]
Caring1	−2.064841	1.056526	−1.95	0.051	−4.135594	0.0059122
Gender MFN	−0.1708302	0.4414518	−0.39	0.699	−1.03606	0.6943995
Disability1	0.1140738	0.377533	0.30	0.763	−0.6258773	0.8540248
_Cons	−0.206279	0.7447121	−0.28	0.782	−1.665888	1.25333

Table 9. Multiple logistic regression on hybrid synchronous teaching delivery mode preference.

Hybrid	Coefficient	Std. Err.	Z	P > [Z]	[95% Conf. Interval]
Caring1	0.4837812	0.4308274	1.12	0.261	−0.3606249	1.328187
Gender MFN	−0.5681616	0.4076821	−1.39	0.163	−1.367204	0.2308806
Disability1	0.0888645	0.3423428	0.26	0.795	−0.5821152	0.7598441
_Cons	0.682185	0.6829119	1.00	0.318	−0.6562978	2.020668

Figure 2. Reasons given by students for on-campus teaching preferences, by percentage.

Figure 3. Reasons given by students for their online teaching preference, by percentage.

Table 10. Exam mode preference.

Exam mode	Frequency %
On campus	44
Online synchronous	38
Hybrid both options available to students (on campus and online exam)	19

Table 11. Correlation students’ online synchronous exam preferences.

	Online	Disability	Caring	Commute	Working	Access to PC	Wi-Fi	Study Area
Online	1.000
Disability	−0.0345	1.000
Caregiver	0.2597**	0.1758*	1.000
Commute	0.2520**	0.2331**	0.1984*	1.000
Working	−0.1012	−0.0116	0.1247	0.1673	1.000
Access to PC	−0.1089	−0.2381**	−0.4317***	−0.1641	−0.1736*	1.000
Wi-Fi	−0.1082	−0.2400**	−0.5976***	−0.3203***	−0.1330	0.4968***	1.000
Study area	−0.2000*	−0.0690	−0.3663***	−0.1579	−0.3187***	0.2865***	0.4174***	1.000

Table 12. Correlation students’ on-campus exam preferences.

	On-campus	Disability	Caring	Commute	Working	Access to PC	Wi-Fi	Study Area
On-campus	1.000
Disability	0.0337	1.000
Caregiver	−0.2242**	0.1758*	1.000
Commute	−0.2378**	0.2331**	0.1984*	1.000
Working	0.1262	−0.0116	0.1247	0.1673	1.000
Access to PC	0.1122	−0.2381**	−0.4317***	−0.1641	−0.1736*	1.000
Wi-Fi	0.1584	−0.2400**	−0.5976***	−0.3203***	−0.1330	0.4968***	1.000
Study area	−0.2060**	−0.0690	−0.3663***	−0.1579	−0.3187***	0.2865***	0.4174***	1.000

Table 13. Correlation students’ hybrid synchronous exam preferences.

	Hybrid	Disability	Caring	Commute	Working	Access to PC	Wi-Fi	Study Area
Hybrid	1.000
Disability	0.0000	1.000
Caregiver	−0.0372	0.1758*	1.000
Commute	−0.0104	0.2331**	0.1984*	1.000
Working	−0.0349	−0.0116	0.1247	0.1673	1.000
Access to PC	−0.0075	−0.2381**	−0.4317***	−0.1641	−0.1736*	1.000
Wi-Fi	−0.0671	−0.2400**	−0.5976***	−0.3203***	−0.1330	0.4968***	1.000
Study area	−0.0138	−0.0690	−0.3663***	−0.1579	−0.3187***	0.2865***	0.4174***	1.000

Table 14. Multiple logistic regression on students’ online synchronous exam preference.

Online Exam	Coefficient	Std. Err.	Z	P > [Z]
Caring1	1.093634	0.4972232	2.20	0.028
Gender MFN	0.436196	0.4390959	0.99	0.321
Disability1	−0.3301174	0.4824912	−0.68	0.494
_Cons	−1.411788	0.758128	−1.86	0.063

Table 15. Multiple logistic regression on students’ on-campus exam preference.

On Campus Exam	Coefficient	Std. Err.	Z	P > [Z]
Caring1	−1.226692	0.6425648	−1.91	0.056
Gender MFN	−0.3670611	0.4203305	−0.87	0.383
Disability1	0.1794596	0.3865513	0.46	0.642
_Cons	0.509193	0.7125112	0.71	0.475

Table 16. Multiple logistic regression on students’ hybrid synchronous exam preference.

Hybrid Exam	Coefficient	Std. Err.	Z	P > [Z]
Caring1	−0.1969043	0.5570527	−0.35	0.724
Gender MFN	−0.0309386	0.5086833	−0.06	0.952
Disability1	0.0234383	0.4265452	0.05	0.956
_Cons	−1.382534	0.8587369	−1.61	0.107