Managerial Accounting Excel Assignments:
A Potential Leading Indicator of Exam Performance
Michael J. Krause
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
During the spring 2012 semester, I was a visiting
professor at Ithaca College. I taught two sections of
Managerial Accounting. In the college catalog, the
the course description for ACCT 226 specifically says
“projects include the use of basic computerized
spreadsheets.” In the course objectives I listed the
third objective as “to enhance skills in computerized
spreadsheets.” To implement this objective and to reflect the course’s catalog
description, I assigned to be graded nine Excel exercises. These exercises could earn
students 30 points which amounted to 10% of their total grade calculation. Rather
than dropping the lowest grade, three bonus points awarded to those who did well
on all homework submitted. The bonus points also served to offset any reasonable
errors made on any individual assignments. Grading was more on effort and setup
rather than on absolute mathematical accuracy. I tried to convince students to
organize their worksheet so as to place problem data at the top, and then feed the
data into the main body of the worksheet. The idea was to design a worksheet
template usable for more than one application of a particular topic.
This poster covers the first two exams and the related
assigned Excel projects for each unit. Both exams had
two companion Excel assignments. Both assignments in
the first unit required students to calculate the cost of
goods manufactured and the resulting cost of goods
sold. Repetitive nature of the first unit assignments
designed to emphasize to students the power of Excel as revealed when attempting a
second iteration of a particular topic. The second unit Excel assignments covered
different topics. One assignment generated a five step approach to assign cost in a
process costing environment. The other assignment dealt with the C-V-P model
with an ultimate payoff calculation of a point of indifference between two business
models with significantly different operating leverage strategies. All Excel problems
appeared in some shape or form on the unit exams.
Student performance on the two observed exams measured and evaluated based on
the multiple choice questions for two reasons. First, using Bloom’s Taxonomy to
guide question selection from text test bank establishes exams’ expectations balance
(see chart below). Second, multiple choice questions provide an objective measure.
Bloom’s
Taxonomy
Categories for
Multiple Choice
Knowledge and
Comprehension
Application
Total
Exam #1
Exam #1
Multiple
Multiple
Choice
Choice
Existence % Error rate %
Exam #2
Multiple
Choice
Existence %
Exam #2
Multiple
Choice
Error rate %
52.40%
46.00%
42.90%
44.90%
47.60%
100.00%
54.00%
100.00%
57.10%
100.00%
55.10%
100.00%
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
EXHIBIT 1 – Exam #1 Multiple Choice Error Rate vs. Excel Homework Grade
Spring
2012
Number of students
observed
Average multiple choice
error rate (max = 21)
Excel homework score
(max = 8)
Total Class
Performance
Achievers
Excel Grade > 4
Non-Achievers
Excel Grade < 5
75
63
12
5.95
5.54
8.08
Number of students
observed
Average multiple choice
error rate
Excel homework score
6.12
6.90
2.00
Total Class
Performance
Achievers
Excel Grade > 4
Non-Achievers
Excel Grade < 5
100.00%
84.00%
16.00%
Number of students
observed
Average multiple choice
error rate
Excel homework score
Bottom
Third
Multiple Choice Errors (Max = 21)
3.36
5.64
8.84
Excel HW Grade (Max = 8)
7.16
6.24
4.96
0
4
8
Multiple Choice Errors (Max = 21)
2.00
5.88
11.44
Excel HW Grade (Max = 9)
8.96
8.4
5.84
1
1
9
Top
Third
Middle
Third
Bottom
Third
14.72
11.44
5.72
Exam #1 – Spring 2012
Non-Excel Achievers (Max = 75)
Non-Excel Achievers (Max = 75)
EXHIBIT 6- Class Test Performance
on Assigned Excel Subject Matter
Exam #1 – Spring 2012
100.00%
93.11%
135.80%
100.00%
112.75%
32.68%
Excel HW Grade (Max = 8)
6.92
5.92
5.52
Multiple Choice Errors (Max = 21)
4.72
6.00
7.12
Non- Excel Achievers (Max = 75)
1
5
6
Total Class
Performance
Achievers
Excel Grade > 5
Non-Achievers
Excel Grade < 6
75
64
11
6.44
5.95
9.27
7.73
8.64
2.45
EXHIBIT 4 – Exam #2 Multiple Choice Error Rate vs. Excel HW(Common-Sized)
Spring
2012
Middle
Third
Test Score on Subject Matter
Assigned for Excel HW (Max = 16)
EXHIBIT 3 – Exam #2 Multiple Choice Error Rate vs. Excel Homework Grade
Spring
2012
Number of students
observed
Average multiple choice
error rate (max = 21)
Excel homework score
(max = 10)
Top
Third
Exam #2 – Spring 2012
EXHIBIT 2 – Exam #1 Multiple Choice Error Rate vs. Excel HW(Common-Sized)
Spring
2012
EXHIBIT 5- Detailed Analysis of
Class Performance on the Exams
Total Class
Performance
Achievers
Excel Grade > 5
Non-Achievers
Excel Grade < 6
100.00%
85.33%
14.67%
100.00%
92.39%
143.94%
100.00%
111.77%
31.69%
CONCLUSIONS
The proposal for this poster admitted that Excel use is no longer
deemed innovative. However, Excel use can cause one to reflect
on the theme of this convention “seeds of innovation.” If students
fail to put forth efforts with a simple tool like Excel, should future
pedagogical research prioritize identifying unwilling students?
In this poster, Excel non-achievers defined as those who fail to obtain 50% of
available homework points when grading not based upon simple math accuracy.
1. Exams’ credibility established in poster’s introductory chart that used Bloom’s
Taxonomy as a benchmark to measure errors along with test achievement goals.
2. Exhibits 2 and 4 suggest that Excel non-achievers (less than 17% of the class)
lowered the total class test performance average while earning homework grades
which were less than 33% of the total class average. (See also Exhibits 1 and 3).
3. Exhibits 5 and 6 give conflicting insights. When sorting performance by multiple
choice errors, a considerable majority of Excel non-achievers ended up in bottom
third of the class. But when sorting performance by a test question which mirrored
the Excel homework assignment, only 50% of non-achievers found in bottom third.
Conflict in point 3 forms a new research question. If students willing to memorize
but not willing to use other learning methods, will this fact presage poor results
on multiple choice testing since that format requires more critical thinking skills?