Issues in Accounting Education
Developing writing skills of accounting students using Writing Circles
ABSTRACT
Today’s employers expect accounting graduates to possess both writing skills and technical
skills. The Pathways Commission reports that an expectation gap exists between what employers
require and the writing skills of new graduates (Stout et al. 2015). This article presents writing
circles as an innovative teaching technique that helps close this expectation gap.
Writing circles consist of a group of students who meet regularly to provide support and
feedback about each other’s writing projects. Each student brings a writing sample, usually two
pages, to the writing circles, and group members provide feedback according to a simple-to-use,
prescribed methodology.
To test the effectiveness of writing circles, researchers administered the writing circles in two
accounting information systems classes. Students were randomly assigned to one of two
conditions – (1) tutoring at the learning center (LC) or (2) participating in a writing circle (WC)
– in order to examine the effects of these interventions on student writing scores.
Researchers found both interventions improved writing skills but WCs were more effective in
improving style and grammar. In addition, WCs required students to exercise their listening,
editing, and critical thinking skills. Finally, WC students expressed more satisfaction with the
overall experience over LC students.
Keywords: Business communications, writing skills, accounting education, writing circles, peer
review
1
Developing writing skills of accounting students using Writing Circles
I. INTRODUCTION
The importance of written communication skills is well-documented in the accounting
literature. Recently, a joint IMA/AAA MAS Curriculum Task Force1 presented a general
framework for accounting education and listed ‘communications’ as one of the five foundational
competencies needed for accounting students’ long-run career success (Lawson et al. 2014). The
CPA Horizons 2025 Report, also lists ‘communication skills’ as one of the core competencies
needed to be a successful CPA (AICPA 2011). In Teaching What Matters, Hurt (2007) identified
‘writing’ as a key skill needed by accounting professionals. The International Education
Standards (IESs) lists ‘communications’ as one of its established eight standards for professional
accountants (International Federation of Accountants 2010). Even standardized tests, such as the
Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT)2 and Certified Public Accountant (CPA)
examination, now score aptitude in writing.
Although efforts to improve writing skills have been attempted in the past, researchers
report accounting graduates still lack the written and oral communication skills needed to
become successful professionals (Reinstein and Houston 2004; Matherly and Burney 2009;
Jones 2011, Lawson et al. 2014). Recruiters and CPA firm partners repeatedly state at
educational conferences that accounting graduates need better communication skills (Jones 2011;
1
The IMA is the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) and the AAA MAS is the Management Accounting
Section of the American Accounting Association (AAA). The IMA and AAA are professional organizations with
members from both accounting education and practice.
2
The GMAT, a standardized examination testing verbal and quantitative aptitude, is required for entry into many
graduate programs in business in the United States.
2
American Accounting Association 2013). An additional challenge is that accounting majors do
not seem to value the development of writing skills as highly as technical skills. For example, on
a 7-point Likert scale, students rated learning math at 5.91 compared to writing at 4.59,
indicating students prefer developing math skills over writing skills and thus highlighting a
potential problem in motivating students to develop their writing skills (Meixner, Bline, Lowe,
and Nouri 2009).
In response for the need to improve writing skills, this article presents writing circles as
an innovative peer review methodology designed to improve the writing skills of accounting
students. Writing circles consist of a group of students who meet regularly to provide support
and feedback about each other’s writing projects. Each student brings a writing sample, usually
two pages, to the writing circles, and group members provide feedback according to a simple-touse, prescribed methodology.
Currently, accounting research on peer review techniques is limited. Rushton, Ramsey
and Rada (1993) argued that research on peer review is easily abandoned before any writing
improvement can be detected. Cho and MacArthur (2011) compared peer-review and notreatment control groups and found that students in the peer review groups are more likely to
improve their writing skills when compared to others. This study extends Cho’s study by
comparing feedback from peers to that of experts, finding peer review to be as effective (if not
more effective) in improving writing over expert review (e.g. using instructors or writing tutors).
The authors believe these findings have valuable practical implications for accounting
programs. First, writing circles are virtually cost free because no additional personnel need to be
hired to run them. Simply, the instructor gives instructions to student groups on how to conduct
3
the circles. Second, writing circles provide students with fast feedback; they do not have to wait
for appointments and comments from instructors or tutors to improve their writing. Thus, using
writing circles can serve as a ‘win-win’ for both educational institutions and students, especially
at a time when universities are cutting back staffing and tutoring programs.
This paper is organized as follows: In the next two sections, the relevant literature is reviewed
and hypotheses are developed based on this review. The following sections discuss the
methodology used in the study as well as the results from both quantitative and qualitative
analyses. The study concludes with sections that indicate the contributions and limitations of this
study as well as suggestions for future research.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Need for Writing Skills Development
Improving accounting students’ writing skills has been an enduring issue of concern in
accounting education for many years. Researchers have reported accounting graduates as
deficient in the area of communication skills as early as 1980 (Ingram and Frazier 1980). In
1986, the Bedford Committee encouraged educators to develop accounting students’ writing
skills (AAA Committee on the Future Structure, Content, and Scope of Accounting Education
1986). In 2000, Albrecht and Sack reported in Charting a Course through a Perilous Future that
practitioners ranked writing as the “most” critical skill needed by students (and faculty ranked it
second). Fast forward to today, the need for improved writing and communication skills is still
ranked as a top skill needed by college graduates.
4
The Pathways Commission (Behn et al. 2012), created by the AAA and AICPA,3 charted
a national strategy for the next generation of accountants and recommended creating ‘curricular
models for the future.’ In response, the joint IMA/AAA MAS Curriculum Task Force (Lawson et
al. 2014) listed competencies that all accounting majors are lacking which include writing skills.
Furthermore, other professional organizations such as AACSB, FEI, and IFAC,4 recommend that
accounting graduates learn effective communication skills.
2.2 Learning How to Write
Learning how to write is a complex process that takes many years to master. Kellogg
(2008) describes the writing process as one that develops over two decades as students learn
composition from late adolescence to young adulthood. He portrays a linear model of writing
maturation as one with three stages: (1) beginning – telling what one knows, (2) intermediate –
writing is transformed for the author’s benefit and (3) final – writing is for the reader’s benefit.
Kellogg (2008) believes students learn writing skills through writing programs that emphasize
deliberate practice.
The theory of ‘social constructivism’ offers a slightly different explanation as to how
students learn to write. Social constructivism suggests that learning occurs as students construct
knowledge together (Vygotsky 1986). Real learning happens as students take new knowledge
and integrate it with their prior knowledge (Zirbel 2005). This method requires teachers to
encourage students to make sense of their own thoughts (Zirbel 2005).
3
The AICPA is the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the premiere U.S. organization for CPAs.
The AACSB is the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, one premiere accrediting bodies of
business schools. The FEI is the Financial Executives Institute, and the IFAC is the International Federation of
Accountants.
4
5
The dynamics theory of skills development suggests that learning is not as linear as
Kellogg suggests, but is variable (Rose, Rouhani, and Fischer 2013). As individuals and contexts
vary, so does the learning experience. Fischer and Knight (1992) discovered the concepts of
dynamic theory by analyzing the reading of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd graders. Research at that time
suggested that there was one linear pathway to reading, but Fischer and Knight (1992) found
students used three pathways to learn reading. This early finding has been confirmed with later
research describing learning as a constructive web where ‘people often join together to construct
parts of their developmental webs (Fischer and Bidell 2006, p. 329).’ Thus, dynamic theorists
would likely suggest that there are multiple pathways to becoming a successful writer. Therefore,
the use of different pathways that include feedback from either or both peers and experts, would
likely lead to improved student writing.
2.3 Methods Used to Improve Writing
Universities use many methods to help students improve their writing skills. Techniques
include using experts such as tutors at a campus learning center (LC), peer review techniques,
and instructor feedback. Learning centers provide one-on-one tutoring sessions for students with
an expert writer. Peer review, popularized in the 1970s, occurs when students help other students
improve their writing in a friendly atmosphere (Elbow 1973). In some cases, instructors provide
writing support by adding writing instruction (or modules) to their classes and/or give direct
feedback to students on projects (DaCrema and Stout 2012; Stout 2014).
Scaffolding, a method where students are provided with structure, is another approach to
improve student writing. For example, reading SEC documents and writing according to a
specific set of guidelines significantly improved the readability of students’ papers (Reinstein
6
and Houston 2004). Using a rubric for self-assessment also increased writing scores. (Sin, Jones,
and Petocz 2007). Wygal and Stout (1989) adopted writing modules for upper level accounting
classes which improved students’ writing skills. Finally, a web-based practice and feedback
program improved the writing skills of tax students (Cleaveland and Larkins 2004).
When improving writing, students’ emotions should also be considered. Faris, Golen and
Lynch (1999) found that accounting majors showed a significantly higher degree of writing
apprehension than non-accounting majors. Marshall and Varnon (2009) found 17% of
accounting students experienced ‘high’ writing anxiety, and increasing the number of writing
assignments did not reduce it. On the other hand, deLespinasse (1985) discovered that writing
assignments not only improved writing, but increased student interest and confidence as well.
Practicing the art of writing seems to help students gain confidence which may result in lower
writing anxiety and thus improve student writing skills.
2.3.1 Use of Experts
Students may seek help from experts for their writing assignments which might include
contacting faculty members, learning centers, and/or professionals. Some students go to the LC
when they recognize they need help (Boquet 1999) or a professor might require them to go.
Accounting faculty members can also serve as writing experts, but sometimes faculty feel
insecure when assigning or evaluating the writing of their students (Plutsky and Wilson 2001). In
addition, some faculty members feel they cannot allocate sufficient time to both content and
writing instruction. This is one reason why faculty members will often refer students to the LC
for remedial writing help (Brammer and Rees 2007).
7
The LC helps students with a variety of writing tasks including paper editing, thesis
development, and filling out graduate school applications. Faculty need to know that today’s LC
views itself as an interactive, collaborative learning center, not just a ‘fix it’ shop. LCs want to
develop good writers as well as independent thinkers (Boquet 1999; Bruffee 1984). Students are
encouraged to act as co-participants in the writing process as writing tutors learn as much as they
teach (Bruffee 1984).
Studies in accounting education have found that writing skills improve when students are
exposed to writing experts. Mohrweis (1991) conducted an empirical study and found that
writing consultants helped students improve their writing skills and quiz grades. Lynn and
Vermeer (2008) developed a writing program where students completed six business memos
over two semesters. Accounting professionals, who served as advisory board members, evaluated
two of those memos. As a result of the input of experts, the quality of the memos – organization,
style, and grammar – improved significantly by the second memo.
A systematic writing program was implemented at a university in three junior level
accounting classes – tax, cost, intermediate (Riordan, Riordan, and Sullivan 2000). A writing
expert taught students grammar and sentence structure and faculty allowed students to revise
their papers. For accounting students in a structured writing development program, writing
improved by 5.5% over a control group without that experience. The authors stated, “. . . it is our
opinion that both feedback and reviewing are required in order for students to improve their
writing skills” (Riordan et al. 2000, p. 53).
Researchers have discovered both the benefits and drawbacks of one-on-one tutoring.
Expert feedback is more accurate than that from novices, and as frequency of visits to LCs
8
increases, student writing efficacy also increases (Cho, Schunn and Wilson 2006; Carino and
Enders 2001). In addition, some students prefer the feedback of experts over peers (Plakhotnik
and Rocco 2012). On the other hand, one-on-one tutoring can be problematic when feedback is
unclear or unrelated to the course material (Camerer, Loewenstein, and Weber 1989; Clare,
Valdes, and Patthey-Chavez 2000; Sommers 1980). Finally, the quality of LC instruction is often
dependent on the training and the motivation of the tutor.
According to Plutsky and Wilson (2001), some students are apprehensive to ask for help.
Few students take advantage of the resources available to them to improve their writing skills. In
the survey they conducted, many professors reported that students rarely ask for help or visit
them during office hours. For example, one accounting faculty member at Author X’s university
offered extra credit to her accounting principles students who had their papers reviewed by the
LC tutors. Only two out of 100 students accepted this offer, supporting the notion that students
do not feel comfortable asking for help.
2.3.2 Peer Review
Peer review provides another technique to improve student writing. Although responses
of novices are from memory, non-integrated, and less accurate than that of experts, peer review
provides additional unique benefits (Cho and MacArthur 2010; Cho et al. 2006). Novice
reviewers do not use professional jargon, thus both writing clarity and writer awareness are
enhanced (Schriver 1990). Peer reviewers also detect and diagnose more problems than experts
and have fewer blind spots (Miyake 1986). In general, using multiple peer reviewers’ feedback
is highly reliable and moderately valid when compared to feedback from experts (Cho et al.
2006).
9
When participating in peer review sessions, student reactions are mixed, ranging from
experiencing anxiety to finding them beneficial (Brammer and Rees 2007). Studies have shown
that peer review works well in correcting grammatical errors (Murau 1993; Villamil and de
Guerrero 1998). Students with lower proficiency levels achieved more gains than those of higher
proficiency levels (Lundstrom and Baker 2009). Lower proficiency students experienced gains in
grammar, organization, and development whereas higher proficiency students benefitted in only
organization and development. Moreover, peer reviewers experienced greater gains while
reviewing others’ papers than when receiving peer review themselves (Lundstrom and Baker
2009).
Successful peer review is dependent on several factors. Students who receive advance
training (i.e. handout, lecture, or demonstration) on peer review are more likely to find it helpful.
If structured properly, peer review can serve as a social-interactive phenomenon where students
learn to write for an audience beyond the teacher (Brammer and Rees 2007). If not structured
properly, peer review often turns into a proofreading exercise rather than a collaborative learning
experience (Paton 2002). Therefore, from a pedagogical viewpoint, peer review guidelines and
scaffolding are important for success (Hansen and Jun 2005).
Peer review is known to improve students’ writing skills in accounting classes. In
managerial and cost accounting classes, students wrote memos, solved case studies, and
participated in peer evaluation (Hirsh and Collins 1988). Although researchers did not gather
empirical evidence, they reported improvement in writing and critical thinking skills. Matherly
and Burney (2009) used peer-review and gave students opportunities to revise their written
assignments. They reported significant improvement in student writing scores. Cho and
MacArthur (2011) compared peer-review and no-treatment control groups to investigate the
10
effect of peer review on writing improvement. They found that students in peer review groups
improved in their writing skills significantly over the control group. In addition, Plakhotnik and
Rocco (2012) found that peer-review worked well for adult students because students received
feedback in a friendly atmosphere. Washburn (2008) also found that peer review helped students
overcome a lack of confidence. She argued that peer review is effective because participants
have the common goals of receiving and giving help to each other. Finally, Bacon, Paul,
Johnson, and Conley (2008) found that repeated use of students’ editing skills also improved
students’ writing skills.
2.4 Improving Specific Areas in Writing
Most studies have been vague in describing the types of writing skills that need to be
developed (Jones 2011). St. Pierre questioned whether or not writing in colleges mirrored
workplace requirements (1996) and advocated a focus on writing concisely with proper
grammar. Christensen and Rees (2002) surveyed 90,000 members of the IMA and AICPA who
ranked the top five writing areas as: (1) correct grammar, (2) clear writing, (3) correct spelling,
(4) effective organization, and (5) business vocabulary. Jones (2011) extended the prior study by
asking employers (n = 56) to rank skills in writing. The top six skills were: (1) effectively
organizing sentences and paragraphs, (2) writing clearly and precisely, (3) spelling correctly, (4)
preparing supportive documents, (5) documenting work, (6) using correct grammar, and (7)
conscientious editing.
International Education Standard 3 describes the importance of interpersonal
communication skills (IFAC 2010). This includes ‘an ability to work with others in a
consultative process …, present, discuss, report, and defend views effectively through a formal,
11
informal, written and spoken communication, and listen and read effectively …’ (IFAC 2010, p.
50). Consistent with prior research, IFAC Standard 3 suggests that writing needs to be wellorganized with correct grammar and spelling.
III. THE INTERVENTION: WRITING CIRCLES
The inspiration for this study is from Gray (2005), author of Publish and Flourish, who
recommends using writing circles (WC) as a type of peer review for faculty to increase writing
quality and research productivity. After learning and being part of writing circles, the authors
wondered if writing circles might also work for students.
Writing circles consist of a group of participants who meet regularly to provide support
and feedback about each other’s writing projects. Most groups involve 3 to 4 people and meet
weekly or twice a month. Each group member brings a writing sample, usually two pages, and
group members provide feedback according to a prescribed methodology. Detailed instructions
for writing circles are included in Appendix 1.
Each writing circle meets for one hour on the selected date. One member is the
timekeeper who makes sure the hour is split evenly among attendees. If there are three members,
each person is allotted 20 minutes. Ten minutes are spent reading the writing, and the other ten
minutes are dedicated to giving feedback.
The methodology is as follows:

Readers evaluate writing by circling the key sentence in each paragraph.
12

After 10 minutes of reading, discussion ensues among the readers about what the key
sentence is and the structure of the paragraph. Sometimes readers disagree on what the
key sentence is, or perhaps, they cannot find a key sentence.

During the discussion, the writer is to remain silent, and listen to the feedback.

After the key sentence discussion, readers then share other writing tips with the writer.
3.1 Testing the Effectiveness of Writing Circles
Both peer review techniques and the use of learning centers have been shown to improve
writing, especially grammar. Because of the financial costs of using experts (Cleaveland and
Larkin 2004), the time constraints of faculty, and the positive literature review regarding peer
review, the authors felt it was important to compare to the traditional approach of sending
students to the LC to using the innovative WCs. This leads to the first hypothesis, stated in a null
form:
Hypothesis 1: The use of WCs will be as effective in improving writing skills as LCs when
comparing focus, style, and grammar as scored using a rubric.
Satisfaction and enjoyment are important components of any learning process. Some
students may be apprehensive about going to LCs and might prefer working with peer reviewers.
Other students may not trust peer reviewers as experts and thus might prefer going to LCs. To
determine student preferences, we measured student satisfaction levels with WCs and LCs. This
leads to our second hypothesis, stated in a null form:
Hypothesis 2: WCs and LCs will be equally satisfying to students as measured by a
satisfaction survey.
13
The expected relationships and hypotheses are based on the following variables:
1. Focus score (VAR 1 and VAR 4) – variable 1 and 4 measure the difference in focus scores
from the pre-test to the post-test (VAR 1) and final essay (VAR 4).
2. Style score (VAR 2 and VAR 5) – variable 2 and 5 measure the difference in style scores from
the pre-test to the post-test (VAR 2) and final essay (VAR 5).
3. Grammar/Mechanics score (VAR 3 and VAR 6) – variable 3 and 6 measure the difference in
grammar scores from the pre-test to the post-test (VAR 3) and final essay (VAR 6).
4. Satisfaction – this variable measures how students rate the intervention on a satisfaction
survey. In addition, open-ended questions were asked to compare WCs to LCs.
IV. METHODOLOGY
The authors evaluated the effectiveness of WCs over two semesters.5 Students were
randomly assigned to one of two conditions for the duration of the term: (1) going to the LC or
(2) participation in a WC. The LC group met a tutor at a campus learning center, the traditional
method used by accounting instructors. The WC students met as a group in the writing circles.
Enrollments included sixteen students in the fall section and eighteen students in the spring
section. Differences in the scores between the pre-test and the post-test and between the pre-test
and the final-project were compared between the WC and the LC groups to examine the effects
of the treatments on student writing scores.
The setting for this study is an AACSB-accredited School of Business at a master’s level
public university in southern USA. The researchers selected the Accounting Information Systems
5
Ethical clearance was obtained for this study. For reasons internal to the university, the clearance was given for
only one calendar year. This meant that data could only be gathered over two semesters since the AIS class is not
taught in the summer.
14
(AIS) class, which is required of all accounting students, for this study. The AIS class was
designated as a ‘writing intensive course’ as part of a ‘Writing across the Curriculum’ initiative
at the university. The same instructor taught both semesters and gave both classes the same
instructions and assignments. The writing project, developed by the instructor, was a studentwritten case study on either a fraudulent situation or about internal controls in a business familiar
to the student.
The case had four parts: (1) an introduction, (2) background/additional information, (3)
the problem statement, and (4) a solution/conclusion (Appendix 2). The instructor encouraged
students to write the case as a puzzle that a reader would want to solve. The introduction
included a description of the problem in a few sentences. The background and additional
information gave the reader details so that the problem could be solved. The problem statement
included a more detailed explanation of what happened, and how the fraud occurred. The
conclusion suggested a solution, but given all of the case information, the reader might come up
with a different solution to the problem.
The students submitted the case in four stages, submitting the introduction first. They
then received feedback from the instructor, and then revised the first section. Next, the students
participated in a ‘coaching’ session by either participating in a WC or going to the LC. After the
first coaching session, the students wrote and submitted the next section of the case to the
instructor. The students again received feedback from the instructor, revised as needed, and
participated in a second ‘coaching’ session in the WC or at the LC. These steps were repeated
for the third and fourth stages of the case preparation.
15
Students met with their WC or attended the LC on dates specified in the class syllabus.
Students in the LC group contacted the Learning Center and set up an appointment for coaching
within the allowed time frame. The instructor organized the WC students into four WC groups
with three students each. The first WC session met in a classroom with the instructor present.
The instructor acted as the timer for the first session. In this first session, the students learned
how to conduct the WCs. The instructor did not participate in the WC sessions after the first
meeting.
The process implemented in the WCs was as follows. Each student brought copies of his
or her fraud case to hand to the other members in the WC. The WC group consisted of the same
students for each of the four meetings during the semester. Student 1 (S1) would hand copies of
his case to Student 2 (S2) and Student 3 (S3). S2 and S3 would then read the hand out and
would underline the main sentence of each paragraph. If S2 and S3 believed that there were two
main topics in a paragraph, then both sentences would be underlined. Five minutes were allowed
for this step. In the next 5 minutes, S2 and S3 would compare and discuss their findings and
would come to a consensus. S1 would simply listen and learn. During the third 5-minute time
period, all three students would discuss S1’s writing, the logic, the grammar, and give
suggestions for improvement. Once these three 5-minute stages were completed, the process
was repeated but with S2’s writing, and then again with S3’s writing. The students were then
given 15 minutes for free discussion of their papers, as needed, or they could finish the meeting
after 45 minutes of focused WC coaching.
Attending the LC appointments and the WC sessions was mandatory. The professor told
students that the purpose for participating in the LC or WC was to help them improve their
writing skills. Case Instructions are presented in Appendix 2.
16
4.1 Data Collection
Background information (gender, major, class rank, work experience, age, overall GPA,
and English GPA) was gathered through the enrollment process to determine homogeneity across
groups. Students wrote two essays that served as a pre-test and post-test. Students took the pretest on the first day of class, and the post-test on the day of the final exam. The allowed time for
the final exam is 2.5 hours. Students normally required about an hour to take the final exam so
the time allowed for the post-test was equivalent to the time allowed for the pre-test. Students
took both the pre-test and the post-test in the classroom. Students wrote the case study in stages
at home as described earlier.
The number of times students participated in the writing interventions was also
confirmed. The instructor scored the final projects at the end of the semester using the same
rubric used for the pre-test and the post-test. Finally, students completed a satisfaction survey
about their perceptions of their writing experience and their participation in the WCs or LC.
4.2 Scoring of Essays and Class Project
A writing assessment rubric was used to score two sets of essays and the final case study
(Appendix 3). The authors scored essays on three categories derived from the literature review:
(a) focus, (b) style, and (c) grammar with scores of 0 to ½ (does not meet expectations), 1 to 1½
(meets expectations) and 2 (exceeds expectations). Focus required that the main point be
identified and supported. Style denoted tone, effectively organizing sentences and paragraphs,
and the appropriate information for the essay. Grammar signified students used proper spelling,
punctuations, tenses, and rhetoric in the essay.
17
Two independent graders blind reviewed the pre-test and post-test essays. Raters did not
know which semester, which group (LC or WC), or whether the essays were the pre-test or posttest essay. The reviewers initially scored eight essays, compared their results, and discussed the
rubric for clarity. They then scored the remaining essays independently. Afterwards, they met
and discussed discrepancies in scoring and came to a consensus score for each essay. The
instructor scored the completed final project on her own, but used the same rubric adopted by the
independent graders.
T-tests were performed to measure if the differences in performance scores were
statistically significant. In order to measure the improvement (or lack thereof) of students’
writing skills, we used six different scores: the score differences between post-test and pre-test
for focus (VAR1), style (VAR2), and grammar (VAR3) and the score differences between finalproject and pre-test for focus (VAR4), style (VAR5), and grammar (VAR6). If students improved
in their writing skills, the score differences would be positive. If students’ writing skills
decreased, the score differences would be negative.
The inter-rater reliability score for the independent raters was satisfactory at 0.633 (p
<0.001), 95% CI (0.516, 0.721). According to various benchmarking tables (Gwet 2010),
agreement of .633 is considered substantial (Koch-Kappa), intermediate to good (Fleiss’ Kappa),
or good (Altman’s Kappa), depending on which rating system is used.
V. RESULTS
5.1 Descriptive Statistics
Thirty-four students participated in this study conducted over two semesters of an
accounting information systems class (writing circles = 16 students; learning center = 18
18
students). Results of demographic comparisons of the writing circles and the learning center
samples are presented in Table 1. Almost half of the respondents were employed and the number
of non-native speakers is the same in both groups (International category under Race). Gender in
both groups was also evenly distributed. The WC students were slightly older with a mean value
of 27 years old and a mean value for the LC students of 25 years old. On average, when
compared with the LC students, the English GPA of WC students was lower (2.97 compared to
3.06), with a higher overall GPA (3.13) than the LC students (2.89). The participation of both
groups, WC and LC, averaged about four times per semester.
[Insert Table 1 here]
Panels A and B of Table 2 present the univariate statistics calculated to help detect
differences of background variables between the writing circles (WC) and learning center (LC)
students. Although students were randomly assigned to groups, a t-test was calculated to
determine if the groups were statistically equivalent. For robustness, Wilcoxon signed rank-tests
(z-stats) were also calculated. 6 According to the results of the t-tests (Panel A), WC students are
older (p=.0063), have lower English GPA (p=.0794), and met more frequently than the LC
students (p=.0169). On the other hand, based on the Wilcoxon score rank sum tests, there are no
statistical differences between the WC and the LC students (Panel B).
[Insert Table 2, panels A and B, here]
6
Recent prior studies use both t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank-test to compare two groups. For example, Williams
and Tang (2009) argue that when researchers consider the skewness of the data, Wilcoxon signed rank test
complements the t-test and provides robustness for the significance of test results. Coelho (2015), Brown and Lee
(2011), and Gan, Zhang, Li, and Cohen (2014) use t-test in order to compare two groups and Wilcoxon signed rank
test to provide robustness for the results.
19
5.2 Writing Outcomes
Table 3 presents the mean values and standard deviations for the pre-test, post-test, and
final essay scores for focus, style, and grammar. WCs students did improve in their raw base
scores in grammar and style, but not in focus from the pre-test to the post-test. On the other hand,
LC students declined in their raw scores from the pre-test to the post-test. For the final project,
both groups increased in their final essay scores but the improvement of the WCs students was
markedly steeper. These results are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
[Insert Table 3 here]
[Insert Figure 1 and Figure 2 here]
Table 4 presents the mean improvement (decline) in the writing outcomes for students
participating in the writing circles and for students who visited the learning center, as well as
statistical differences in the means of both groups. Six variables were calculated and evaluated.
VAR1, VAR2, and VAR3 are calculated as the score differences between post- and pre-test in
focus, style, and grammar, respectively. VAR4, VAR5, and VAR6 are calculated as the score
differences between final project and pre-test in focus, style, and grammar, respectively.
As shown in Table 4, VAR3 in the writing circles group is positive and significantly
higher than the learning center group, indicating that WC students significantly improved their
grammar skills compared to the LC students (p=0.0260). No significant differences were
detected for VAR1 and VAR2. The mean values for VAR1, VAR2, and VAR3 for the LC students
are negative, suggesting that learning center students may have deteriorated in focus, style, and
grammar skills.
20
The means for VAR4, VAR5, and VAR6 were all positive for both groups with no
significant difference in VAR4. Significant differences were detected in the means of VAR5 and
VAR6, the WC students had significantly higher improvement than did the LC students in their
style and grammar skills (p=0.0293 and p=0.0880 respectively).
Overall, results from Table 4 indicate that writing circles students significantly improved
or maintained their grammar and style compared to learning center students. Neither writing
circles nor learning center helped students to improve in the area of focus.
Hypothesis 1: The use of WCs will be as effective in improving writing skills as LCs when
comparing focus, style, and grammar as scored using a rubric – is not supported by the data
analysis. The use of WCs is more effective in improving writing skills, particularly style and
grammar, when compared to LCs. Similar to the peer review studies in the literature review,
WCs appear to provide the scaffolding recommended for effective peer review can take place.
[Insert Table 4 here]
5.3 Additional Tests
Regression analysis was also performed to examine the effect of the writing circles and
the learning center on students' writing skills. The following regressions were calculated.
SKILL i,t = α0 +α1GROUP i,t +α2AGE i,t +α3RACE i,t +α4NATIVE i,t +α5GENDERi,t +α6EMP i,t
+ α7EngGPA i,t +α8GPA i,t +α9MEETING i,t +e i,t
where:
SKILL: VAR1 is the difference between post-test and pre-test for focus; VAR2 is the difference
between post-test and pre-test for style; VAR3 is the difference between post-test and pre-test for
21
grammar; VAR4 is the difference between final-project and pre-test for focus; VAR5 is the
difference between final-project and pre-test for style; and VAR6 is the difference between finaltest and pre-test for grammar;
GROUP: a dummy variable, 1 if it is writing circles, 0 if it is learning center; and please refer to
Table 1 for definition of other variables.
In this research model, six dependent variables were tested: VAR1, VAR2, VAR3, VAR4,
VAR5, and VAR6. The key variable in this regression is GROUP which is a dummy variable that
equals 1 for writing circles, and 0 for learning center. The coefficient on GROUP is expected to
be significant and positive in order to be consistent with previous results. Table 5 shows the
regression results.
Results show that the coefficients on GROUP are positive and statistically significant
when the dependent variables are VAR3, VAR5, and VAR6. Results indicate that writing circles
play a significant role in improving students' grammar and style. This is similar to the findings
discussed in the prior section and reported in Table 4. Results thus far indicate that writing
circles may be a positive and significant intervention for improving students' writing skills.
Specifically, peer review groups, such as writing circles, may help participants improve in the
areas of style and grammar.
[Insert Table 5 here]
VI. STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY
At the end of each semester, students answered a satisfaction survey to measure the
students’ perceptions of their experience with the intervention (Appendix 4). The satisfaction
survey used in this study was adopted from Galer-Unti (2002). It consists of ten questions using
22
a Likert-type scale (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree). In addition, the survey asks
open-ended questions.
6.1 Close-end Responses
Survey results are reported in Table 6. According to the t-test results, WC students are
marginally more satisfied with question 4: receiving comments from peers (p=0.1030). Based on
the results from the Wilcoxon score rank sum test, WC students report higher satisfaction than
the LC students for question 3: writing assignment contributed to my learning (p=0.0060),
question 4: comments received on my written work were helpful (p=0.0560), question 5:
additional comments received on my written work were helpful (p=0.0750), and question 9:
course examinations had appropriate writing exercises (p = 0.0780). This finding is consistent
with findings by Cho and MacArthur (2011) where peer reviewers benefit as much as the writers.
Given the analysis of the closed-end responses, Hypothesis 2: WCs and LCs will be equally
satisfying to students as measured by a satisfaction survey – is not supported. Overall, we find
that the use of WCs to improve writing is more satisfying to students than going to the LC.
[Insert Table 6 Panel A and Panel B here]
6.2 Open-end Responses
Across the two semesters of the course (n = 34), students answered an open-ended
question on the survey instrument. The survey asked either ‘If you participated in the writing
circles, do you think you would have preferred to go to the learning center instead? Why?’ or ‘If
you went to the learning center, would you have preferred to participate in a writing circles?
Why?’
23
6.2.1 Writing Circles
All of the comments from the WC participants were positive. First, the students found the
writing circles more enjoyable. One student wrote, ‘Working with a small group and getting
feedback and help with my paper.’ The camaraderie with others was also viewed positively. One
student wrote, ‘[I] felt very comfortable asking my classmates questions.’ Another student wrote,
‘I like having the same two people review my material instead of possibly two people randomly
assigned at the learning center.’
Second, all the WC participants preferred the WC over the LC for academic reasons.
First, peers tend to know the subject matter and gave constructive feedback. One student wrote,
‘The writing circle is better; peers know the subject matter vs. learning center student helpers.’
Another wrote, ‘Participants in the writing circle were honest and gave constructive criticism
which was helpful.’ In addition, WCs offered more thorough feedback. One student wrote, ‘The
LC review[ed] grammatical errors; the WC gave feedback on your paper and how to improve it.’
Third, WCs were easier to schedule. One student wrote, ‘[I] liked working with
classmates. Meeting times worked better than the more limited LC schedule.’
6.2.2 Learning Centers
On the other hand, only half of the LC participants preferred using the LC over the WC.
The positive feedback on the LC included convenience, ‘[I] could go to the LC when convenient
for me.’ Contrary to the WC student comment, one LC student viewed having different tutors as
positive, writing, ‘You have a different tutor each time, thus different opinions and suggestions.’
Academically, some students felt that the tutors at the LC ‘were more knowledgeable than my
24
classmates’ and could offer ‘tips to make my writing clearer’ and ‘offer good brainstorming
methods.’
Criticisms of the LC mirror what WC participants found advantageous about WCs. One
LC student felt WC students had an advantage because ‘participating in a WC allows student to
communicate about topics efficiently and at least allows students get some ideas when reading
others’ papers.’ In addition, sometimes LC feedback conflicted with the professor’s feedback,
‘Feedback from the LC clashed with the feedback from the professor. I think WC would be more
useful because students know what is going on and what is expected.’ Again, another student
echoed this complaint, ‘LC tutor did not understand the assignment and could not answer
questions or give examples or explanation.’ Finally, another complained about scheduling, ‘Not
pleased with LC feedback and hours of operation, I would have preferred peer review.’
These comments echo the benefits of peer review given in the literature. First, student
comments about the WCs were overwhelmingly positive suggesting the social constructivist
experience worked. Students received helpful feedback, liked working with each other, and
enjoyed easy scheduling. The feedback for the LC was mixed with students split about the
usefulness of the feedback emphasizing the lack of content knowledge on the part of the LC
tutor. Therefore, combining the analysis in Section 6.1 and 6.2, it appears that students prefer
WCs to LCs.
VII. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCOUNTING EDUCATION
7.1 The Effectiveness of Writing Circles
Prior empirical findings and theories may help explain the positive effect of writing
circles. Prior studies indicate that simply reading peer papers did not have a positive effect on
25
writing (Holliway 2004; Holliway and McCutchen 2004; Traxler and Gernsbacher 1992). WCs,
on the other hand, require students to actively respond to each other’s writing by circling key
sentences, discussion, and providing comments (Cho and MacArthur 2011). Because learning
center students generally receive comments from a tutor, students may become passive learners.
The authors found that WCs help students improve their writing skills when they work
with peers, without instruction or supervision of an instructor (Plakhotnik and Rocco 2012). The
student-instructor relationship is different from the relationship students have with their peers.
More often than not, comments from instructors are perceived by students as ‘incorrect’ or
‘correct.’ As a result, students tend to treat the comments from instructors as evaluations (Rieber
2006). Peers, on the other hand, tend to comment about what they do not understand or ways the
paper does not follow the writing assignment rubric.7 Students can take some consolation from
the fact that the student reviewer's comments may be inaccurate and is, therefore, more willing to
discuss peer comments than teacher comments. These discussions cause both the student being
reviewed and the reviewers to rethink their recommendations, which may lead to improvement in
writing skills (Rieber 2006).
7.2 Perceived Student Satisfaction
Although students responded positively to both the WC and LC, students were more
satisfied with the WC experience. In fact, all the WC students wrote positive remarks about their
experience versus only 50% of the LC students. LC students complained about the quality of
feedback and scheduling issues at the LC.
7
Washburn (2008) argues that students in writing circles improve their writing skills because writing circles provide
a friendlier atmosphere than student-instructor relationship so that participants focus more on learning than being
intimidated or feeling humiliated.
26
7.3 Writing Circles as a Viable Peer Review Method
Given the combination of the quantitative and qualitative feedback from the respondents,
WCs appear to be a viable (and possibly superior) peer review method for improving writing
skills. Because of the prescriptive methodology, WCs provide scaffolding that allows the
development of collaborative relationships among students. This also supports social
constructivism where students learn from other students.
7.4 Limitations
Some of the limitations of this study include that the samples were purposive, not random
samples. To equalize the treatment groups, students were randomly assigned to each group.
Statistical testing did not find differences between the WC and the LC groups which
compensates for the purposive sampling.
Given the small samples, from one university in the South (U.S.A.), the findings might
not be generalizable to the student population nationwide. Nonetheless, WCs appear to be
promising in helping accounting students write better, and the results seem reasonable given
prior studies on peer review. Therefore, the authors hope other educators will consider using this
innovative technique in their classrooms.
Finally, since the faculty member graded the case study instead of the independent
graders, scoring could be biased. The direction and magnitude of the findings, however, are
consistent with the scoring of the two independent graders on the pre-test and post-test essays,
suggesting that the faculty member’s scores are objective.
27
VIII. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The accounting profession expects graduates to demonstrate competency in written
communications (AICPA 2000). For this to occur, accounting instructors might consider adding
interventions to their classes designed to improve students’ writing skills. This paper discussed
two such interventions – use of writing circles (WCs) and use of learning centers (LCs).
The results show that both WCs and LCs contribute to improving accounting students’
writing skills. WCs, however, appear to be more effective in improving style and grammar than
LCs. In addition, students found WCs to be more satisfying. Even though the WC method is
slightly more time consuming for the instructor because of the training time for students (about
45 minutes), the additional effectiveness and the satisfaction experienced by the student can
create a powerful learning environment. Although not tested in this study, the peer interaction
experienced in the WCs might develop other skills such as listening, speaking, and critical
thinking skills.
Given the technical nature of the accounting discipline, WCs can serve as a ‘win-win’
situation for students and accounting programs. WCs help students understand and communicate
challenging accounting concepts as they read each other’s essays while improving writing skills.
In addition, with budget constraints looming, staffing LCs is costly, but WCs are relatively cost
free, not requiring hiring additional personnel.
A replication of this study with larger samples and at different universities would extend
the robustness of this study. Furthermore, there are still unknown benefits from participating in
WCs that can be researched in the future. For example, do WCs develop other communication
skills? As WC students verbalize ideas and concepts, are oral communication and critical
28
thinking skills also developing? Since accounting majors have higher writing anxiety than other
business majors, can WCs reduce writing apprehension? Finally, researchers might consider the
benefits of other novel communication methods such as social media. Can applications such as
Facebook improve accounting students’ writing ability? These proposed studies may add to the
communications literature base centered on best preparing accounting graduates for entry into
the accounting profession.
IX. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Writing circles appear to provide a low cost, effective way to support students in their
writing. At a minimum, WCs provide one more approach to attack the enduring issue of how to
improve accounting students’ writing skills. If used more fully, WCs may improve student
writing across the accounting curriculum.
For change to take place, however, faculty training is needed. Stout, Wygal, and Hoff
(1990) found that faculty members who participated in a year-long training program, enhanced
the writing and oral communication skills of their accounting students. Bacon, Paul, Johnson and
Conley (2008) found that training helped marketing faculty overcome their lack of confidence in
teaching basic writing to students. Although brief, the faculty in this study participated in at least
one writing circle workshop. Thus, for WCs to catch on, more training is needed on a national
and international level. The authors recommend accounting educational associations consider
offering WC workshops to introduce more faculty members to WC techniques.
Plutsky and Wilson (2001) advocated the development of writing standards to guide the
integration of writing in accounting programs. Standards would provide scaffolding for
accounting faculty to refer to allowing them to move forward with added confidence in assigning
29
writing projects. The authors would also like to see accounting education associations champion
the development of accounting writing standards.
Changing students’ opinions about writing may be key to motivating them to write better.
Bacon et al. (2008) advised that faculty need to make a coordinated effort to convince students
that writing skills are essential for their success. ‘By selling the skills more consistently, the
writing program could enhance students’ intrinsic motivation to learn these skills instead of
relying on extrinsic rewards (Young 2005).’ Since WCs seem to provide a more satisfying
learning experience for students, the authors recommend teaching students this methodology
early in their college education so they can use it in multiple accounting classes.
30
REFERENCES
Albrecht, W. S., and R. J. Sack. 2000. Accounting education: Charting the course through a
perilous future (Vol. 16). Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
American Accounting Association (AAA). 1986. AAA Committee of the Future Structure,
Content, and Scope of Accounting Education, The Bedford Committee.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2000. AICPA core competency
framework for entry into the accounting profession (the framework). Available at:
http://aicpa.org/edu/func.htm
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 2011. CPA Horizons 2025 Report. Available
at: http://www.aicpa.org/Research/CPAHorizons2025/DownloadableDocuments/cpahorizons-report-web.pdf
American Accounting Association (AAA). 2013. Midwest Region Meeting. Tax Update.
Available at: https://www2.aaahq.org/midwest/meetings/2013/program.cfm
Bacon, D. R., P. Paul, C. Johnson, and T. Conley. 2008. Improving writing through the
marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education 30 (3): 217-225.
Behn, B. K., W. F. Ezzell, L. A. Murphy, J. D. Rayburn, M. T. Stith, and J. R. Strawser. 2012.
The Pathways Commission on Accounting Higher Education: Charting a national strategy
for the next generation of accountants. Issues in Accounting Education 27 (3): 595-600.
Boquet, E. H. 1999. ‘Our Little Secret’: A history of writing centers, pre- to post-open
admissions. College Composition and Communication 50 (3): 463-482.
Brammer, C., and M. Rees. 2007. Peer review from the students’ perspective: invaluable or
invalid? Composition Studies 35 (2): 71- 85.
Brown, L., and Y. Lee. 2011. Changes in option-based compensation around the issuance of
SFAS 123R. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 38 (9-10): 1053-1095.
Bruffee, K. A. 1984. Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. College English 9
(2): 435-452.
Camerer, C., G. Loewenstein, and M. Weber. 1989. The curse of knowledge in economic
settings: an experimental analysis. The Journal of Political Economy 97 (5): 1232-1254.
Carino, P. and D. Enders. 2001. Does frequency of visits to the writing center increases student
satisfaction? A statistical correlation study or story. The Writing Center Journal 22 (1): 83103.
31
Cho, K. and C. MacArthur. 2010. Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and
Instruction 20 (4): 328-338.
Cho, K. and C. MacArthur. 2011. Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology
103 (1): 73-84.
Cho, K., C. D. Schunn, and R. W. Wilson. 2006. Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer
assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives,.Journal of Educational
Psychology 98 (4): 891-901.
Christensen, D. S., and D. Rees. 2002. An analysis of the business communication skills needed
by entry-level accountants. Mountain Plains Journal of Business and Economics 3 (1): 1-13.
Clare, L. C., R. Valdes, and G. G. Patthey-Chavez. 2000. Learning to write in urban elementary
and middle schools: an investigation of teachers’ written feedback on student compositions,
Technical Report No. 526, Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of
California.
Cleaveland, M.C. and E. R. Larkins. 2004. Web-based practice and feedback improve tax
students’ written communication skills. Journal of Accounting Education 22 (3): 211-228.
Coelho, L. 2015. Bad news does not always travel fast: Evidence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy
filings. Accounting and Finance 55 (2): 415-442.
DaCrema, J. J., and D. Stout. 2012. Ten tips for improving business writing, White paper
prepared for ACC6902- Management Accounting Systems, Youngstown State University,
Youngstown, Ohio.
deLespinasse, D. 1985. Writing letters to clients: connecting textbook problems and the real
world. Journal of Accounting Education 3 (1): 197-200.
Elbow, P. 1973. Writing without Teachers. London: Oxford University Press.
Faris, K. A., S. P. Golen, and D. H. Lynch. 1999. Writing apprehension in beginning accounting
majors. Business Communication Quarterly 62 (2): 9-21.
Fischer, K. W., and C. C. Knight. 1992. Learning to read words: Individual differences in
developmental sequences. Journal of Applied Development Psychology 13 (3): 337- 404.
Fischer, K. W., and T. R. Bidell. 2006. Dynamic Development of Action and Thought. In
Handbook of Child Psychology, edited by William Damon, and Richard Lerner. Hoboken,
N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
Galer-Unti, R. A. 2002. Student perceptions of a writing-intensive course in health education.
Health Educator: Journal of Eta Sigma Gamma 34 (2): 35-40.
32
Gan, C., Y. Zhang, Z. Li, and D. Cohen. 2014. The evolution of China's banking system: Bank
loan announcements 1996-2009. Accounting and Finance 54 (1): 165-188.
Gray, T. 2005. Publish and Flourish: Become a Prolific Scholar. New York: Pantheon Books.
Gwet, K. L. 2010. Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability: The Definitive Guide to Measuring the
Extent of Agreement among Raters. Gaithersburg: Advanced Analytics, LLC.
Hansen, J. G. & L. Jun. 2005. Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal 59
(1): 31-38.
Hirsch, M. L. & J. D. Collins. 1988. An integrated approach to communication skills in an
accounting curriculum. Journal of Accounting Education 6 (1): 15-31.
Holliway, D. R. 2004. Through the eyes of my reader: A strategy for improving audience
perspective in children’s descriptive writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education
18 (4): 334-349.
Holliway, D. R., and D. McCutchen. 2004. "Audience Perspective in Young Writers’ Composing
and Revising." In Revision Cognitive and Instructional Processes, edited by L. Allal, L.
Chanquoy, and P. Largy, 87-101. Springer Netherlands.
Hurt, B. 2007. Teaching what matters: a new conception of accounting education. Journal of
Education for Business 82 (5): 295-299.
Ingram, R. W., and C. Frazier. 1980. Developing communications skills for the accounting
profession (No. 5). American Accounting Association. AAA Committee on the Future
Structure, Content, and Scope of Accounting Education.
International Federation of Accountants (IFA). 2010. Handbook of International Education
Pronouncements 2010 Education. Available at: https://www.ifac.org/publicationsresources/handbook-international-education-pronouncements-2010-edition.
Jones, C. G. 2011.Written and computer-mediated accounting communication skills: An
employer perspective Business Communication Quarterly 74 (3): 247-271.
Kellogg, R. T. 2008. Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of
Writing Research 1 (1): 1-26.
Lawson, R.A., E. J. Blocher, P. C. Brewer, G. Cokins, J. E. Sorensen, D. E. Stout, G. L. Sundem,
S. K. Wolcott, and M. J. F. Wouters. 2014. Focusing accounting curricula on students’
long-run careers: Recommendations for an integrated competency-based framework for
accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education 29 (2): 295-317.
Lundstrom, K. and W. Baker. 2009. To give is better than to receive: the benefits of peer review
to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (1): 30-43.
33
Lynn, S. A. and T. E. Vermeer. 2008. A new approach to improving and evaluating student
workplace writing skills. Advances in Accounting Education 9: 115-150.
Marshall, L. L. and A. W. Varnon. 2009. Writing apprehension among accounting seniors. The
Educators’ Journal 19: 45-65.
Matherly, M., and L. Burney. 2009. Using peer-reviewed writing in the accounting curriculum: a
teaching note. Issues in Accounting Education 24 (3): 393-413.
Meixner, W. F., D. Bline, D. R. Lowe, and H. Nouri. 2009. An examination of business student
perceptions: the effect of math and communication skill apprehension on choice of major.
Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research 12: 185-155.
Miyake, N. 1986. Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding. Cognitive
Science 10 (2): 151-177.
Mohrweis, L. C. 1991. The impact of writing assignments on accounting students’ writing skills.
Journal of Accounting Education 9 (2): 309-325.
Murau, A. M. 1993. Shared writing: students perceptions and attitudes of peer review. Working
papers in Educational Linguistics 9 (2): 71-19.
Paton, F. 2002. Approaches to productive peer review. In Teaching First-Year Composition,
edited by D. Roen, V. Pantoja, L. Yena, S. K. Miller and E. Waggoner, 290-300. Urbana:
NCTE.
Plakhotnik, M. S., and T. S. Rocco. 2012. Implementing writing support circles with adult
learners in a nonformal education setting. Adult Learning 23 (2): 76-81.
Plutsky, S., and B. A. Wilson. 2001. Writing across the curriculum in a college of business and
economics. Business Communication Quarterly 64 (4): 26-41.
Reinstein, A., and M. Houston. 2004. Using the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s
“plain English” guidelines to improve accounting students’ writing skills. Journal of
Accounting Education 22 (1): 53-67.
Rieber, L. 2006. Using peer review to improve student writing in business courses. Journal of
Education for Business 81 (6): 322-326.
Riordan, D. A., M. P. Riordan, and M.C. Sullivan. 2000. Writing across the accounting
curriculum: an experiment. Business Communication Quarterly 63 (3): 49-59.
34
Rose, L. T., P. Rouhani, and K. W. Fischer. 2013. The science of the individual. Mind, Brain,
and Education 7 (3): 152-158.
Rushton, C., P. Ramsey, and R. Rada. 1993. Peer assessment in a collaborative hypermedia
environment: a case study. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 20 (3): 75-80.
Schriver, K. A. 1990. Evaluating text quality: the continuum from text-focused to reader-focused
methods. Technical Report No. 41, Center for the Study of Writing, Berkely, CA.
Sin, S., A. Jones, and P. Petocz. 2007. Evaluating a method of integrating generic skills with
accounting content based on a functional theory of meaning. Accounting and Finance 47
(1): 143-163.
Sommers, N. I. 1980. Revision strategies of student writers and experienced writers. College
Composition and Communication 31 (4): 378-387.
St. Pierre, E. K. 1996. Accounting education and 150-hour programs: a critical perspective.
Journal of Accounting Education 14 (2): 141-148.
Stout, D. E., D. Wygal, and K. Hoff. 1990. Writing across the disciplines: Applications to the
accounting classroom. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication 73 (4): 1016.
Stout, D. E. 2014. A business communication module for an MBA Managerial Accounting
course: a teaching note. Accounting Education 23 (2): 155-173.
Stout, D.E., J. E. Sorenson, and C. Kelleher. 2015. Write Right: Improving written
communication skills – Part One. Management Accounting Quarterly, 16 (4): 1-11.
Traxler, M. J., and M. A. Gernsbacher. 1992. Improving written communication through
minimal feedback. Language and Cognitive Processes 7 (1): 1-22.
Villamil, O. S., and C. M. de Guerrero. 1998. Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2
writing. Applied Linguistics 19 (4): 491-514.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1986. Thought and language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Washburn, A. 2008. Writing circle feedback: Creating a vibrant community of scholars. Journal
of Faculty Development 22 (1): 32-39.
Williams, J., and A. Tang. 2009. Private placement of convertible securities: stock returns,
operating performance and abnormal accruals. Accounting and Finance 49 (4): 873-899.
35
Wygal, D. E., and D. E. Stout. 1989. Incorporating writing techniques in the accounting
classroom: experience in financial, managerial and cost courses. Journal of Accounting
Education, 7 (2): 245-252.
Young, M. 2005. The motivational effects of the classroom environment in facilitating selfregulated learning. Journal of Marketing Education 27: 25-40.
Zirbel, E. L. 2005. Learning, concept formation, and conceptual change. Tuft University.
Available at: http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~zirbel/ScienceEd/Learning-and-ConceptFormation.pdf
36
APPENDIX 1
Instructions for Writing Circles (Adopted from Tara Gray, 2010)
Before or as you arrive:







Write your thesis on the top of your paper.
Make four copies of a three page rough draft.
Find your key sentence for every paragraph.
Be on time.
Pass your writing log around to your teammates and look at theirs. Discuss.
If you forgot your writing log, create one on the spot.
Deal your rough drafts face down so the first writer to arrive has his or her paper read
first.
Before you start:
 Divide time evenly between writers (as in 3:00-3:15, 3:15-3:30, etc.).
 Appoint a timekeeper to help the group stick to your schedule.
 Review ground rules for readers and writers.
Ground Rules:
Readers: Do not pass judgment on what you read. Tell the writer which sentence is the key
sentence and why you think so or why you are unclear between two sentences. Remember that
the main purpose of writing groups is to motivate the writer to want to write more. Asking, ‘Do
you mean X or Y here?’ is more motivating to a writer when saying, ‘This is unclear’ because
the writer doesn't intuitively know what is unclear or how to make it clear.
Writers: during the time that your paper is discussed, focus your attention on listening, asking
questions, taking notes, and moderating. Moderating should be empowering and should help
reduce the ‘sting’ of having your work criticized. Instructions for how to moderate are below, but
the most important thing is this: avoid talking too much and explaining what you were trying to
say. Instead, just look at the words on the paper and try to see your words through the reader's
eyes.
Time Allocation:
First 5 minutes: Read and search for keys


Readers: Identify a key sentence for each paragraph. If time allows, re-read only the key
sentences (an after-the-fact outline) as you consider organization and purpose.
Writers: Pretend you are just another reader and do the exact same things the other
readers are doing.
37
Second 5 minutes (or more): Discuss keys



The writer asks, ‘In paragraph #1, which sentence is the key (#1, #2, #3, etc. . .)?’
If readers disagree, discussion ensues.
If readers agree: The writer skips ahead to the next question, ‘What else in this
paragraph?’
 Repeat for each paragraph.
Third five minutes (or less): Discuss other topics

The writer asks, ‘What works in this paper?’ ‘What aspects should I keep as I make
changes?
38
APPENDIX 2
Accounting Information Systems Case Instructions
This course is a writing intensive course. You will write a case study to successfully complete
the course. A case study is a puzzle, a ‘who-done-it?’ that has to be solved by your reader, so the
first thing to remember is that your case study should have a problem for the readers to solve.
You should provide enough information so that the reader can understand what the problem is
and, after thinking about it and analyzing the information, the reader can then come up with a
possible solution. A good case study keeps the reader interested in the situation.
A good case study is more than just a description. A description includes all information needed
and guides the reader to only one possible conclusion. You want to write a case study where the
reader will be faced with a dilemma. Writing an interesting case study will be similar to writing a
detective story.
The final case will consist of 4 parts: (1) Introduction, (2) Background/additional information,
(3) Problem statement/flowchart, and (4) Solution/conclusion that includes a discussion of at
least three internal controls. The introduction will include a description of the problem or case
question that you want the reader to solve. This will be done in a few sentences or paragraphs.
In a detective story the crime happens right at the beginning. The background and additional
information will give the reader details so that the problem can be solved. The problem
statement and/or flowchart will give the reader a more detailed explanation of what happened
and will try to guide the reader towards possible solutions. Using a flowchart has a high visual
impact but you still need to explain the steps flowcharted. Be sure that your case includes a
reference to the flowchart and any other tables or figures you might include in your paper. The
four sections in the case will have to be organized so that each type of information is in its own
section and understandable to the reader. But still keep in mind that you need good, concise,
succinct, transitions between the sections.
Your case will need a conclusion. Your conclusion and suggested solution should leave the
reader with some more questions. You might want to end your case with a question that
encourages the reader to action. If you have written a good case, the reader will have enough
information to understand the situation and arrive at his or her own conclusion. The solution
should include and discuss at least three of the physical internal controls you should have learned
this semester, and the internal controls you discuss should relate to your case.
SUGGESTIONS
1. Draw the reader with a unique title.
2. The introduction should identify the problem that is being explored in the case study.
3. Explore the problem, including cause, effect and theory (if applicable). Give as much
background as possible.
4. Discuss the possible solutions.
5. Use facts and numbers where possible.
6. Format your paper in an easy to read format like using bold for heading, double spacing,
and left alignment.
7. Remember to review your grammar.
39
EXPECTATIONS FOR REVIEW AND COACHING SESSIONS
You will be coached at the Learning Center (LC) or within a peer Writing-Circle (WC) as
suggested by your instructor. Those attending the LC need to set up an appointment for
coaching within the time specified in the syllabus. The WC students can organize in groups of
three students each. I will help you set a WC but will not participate in the discussions. I will
work with the WC students to schedule meeting times and to reserve a classroom. Students will
be graded based on their timely participation which will be documented. I will check attendance
of students in the WC groups. The LC will send me an attendance report for the students
coached.
The purpose of your participation in these coaching sessions is to improve your writing skills. It
is hoped that the coaching you will receive will help you stay on track to complete your case
timely. It is also hoped that through this coaching you will learn and practice writing, and that
you will get a feeling of success, that the process will motivate you and keep you engaged.
IMPORTANT: I hope that the coaching you will receive will encourage discussion among the
participants. The discussion should be focused on the process of learning to write. You should
receive and give comments in a spirit of cooperation and to learn and improve your writing. To
this end, please follow these steps before you meet with your writing coach or your WC group:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Write the section due, submit it and receive feedback from your professor
Based on my feedback, edit the section(s) you are working on
Be sure to do spell checking
Reach the highest level of quality you are capable of on your own
Go to the LC or meet with your WC group
Incorporate the feedback received in the coaching session into your case paper
Repeat number 1. above
40
APPENDIX 3
Writing Rubric for AIS Writing Assignments
Element
Focus
Style
Grammar/
Mechanics
Does not meet
expectations
Meets expectations
Exceeds expectations
(0 or ½)
(1 or 1½)
(2)
The subject and the main idea
are unclear; There is no
discernible main point.
Partially or not developed.
The main idea is clear or
clearly implied and the topic
is partially limited. The key
general number or types of
key points or subtopics are
mentioned.
The subject is identified. The
main idea is clearly stated or
implied. The topic is
effectively limited. The key
points that are developed are
specifically named.
Sentence relationships must be
inferred; word choice is often
confusing; tone is inappropriate
or distracting.
Sentences in paragraphs are
subordinate to topics; word
choice is almost accurate;
tone is sometimes appropriate.
Sentences related to each other
and to the paragraph topic and
are subordinate to the topic.
Word and phrase choice is
consistent and accurate. Tone is
consistent and appropriate.
The essay is difficult to read.
Many patterns of errors in
grammar; frequently includes
comma splices, run-ons, and/or
fragments; numerous
misspellings. Displays
excessive monotony in
sentence and/or rhetorical
modes.
Mostly grammatically correct
sentences, and has some
comma splices, run-ons,
and/or fragments; some
misspellings. Demonstrates
syntactic and verbal
sophistication through an
effective variety of sentence
and/or rhetorical modes.
Grammatically correct
sentences with an absence of
comma splices, run-ons,
fragments; Writing is absent of
usage and grammatical errors
and maintains accurate
spelling. Demonstrates
syntactic and verbal
sophistication through an
effective variety of sentence
and/or rhetorical modes.
TOTAL
POINTS
41
SCORE
APPENDIX 4
Accounting Information Systems Satisfaction Questionnaire
This semester you were required to write a fraud case in the AIS class. Your instructor gave you
feedback on your fraud case. Additionally, you were randomly assigned to participate in a Writing
Circle (WC) or to go to the Learning Center (LC).
Your honest answers are important. The answers will be coded, summarized, averaged and analyzed
statistically. I will personally code the answers to maintain anonymity.
Please check one: I participated in a Writing Circle (WC) ____ or I attended the Learning Center (LC) ____
In addition to my professor’s feedback and my participation in the WC or the LC, I received help to
write my fraud case from ___________________________________.
The additional help I received was __________________________________.
If you participated in the WC, do you think you would have preferred to go to the Learning Center
instead? _______ Why?
If you were helped by the Learning Center, would you have preferred to participate in the WC? ___
Why?
Please share your opinion of the following statements by circling your choice (anchors: Strongly
Disagree, Disagree, Uncertain, Agree, Strongly Agree).
1.
This course helped improve my writing skills.
2.
This course helped improve my critical thinking skills.
3.
The writing assignment contributed to my learning course content.
4.
The comments I received from my professor (LC) or peers (WC) on my written work were
helpful.
5.
The additional comments I received (WC or LC) on my written work were helpful.
6.
I understood what was expected of me on writing assignments.
7.
Opportunities to revise my work were helpful
8.
The amount of writing in this course was reasonable.
9.
The course examinations had appropriate writing exercises.
10.
I feel more confident about my writing abilities than I did when I entered this course.
Expected semester and year of graduation: _______
Major: _______
Age: _____
Are you currently employed? __. If not currently employed, have you worked before? ___
42
Table 1: Demographics
Gender
Female
Male
Total
Race
White
Black
International
Total
GPA Mean
Overall GPA
English GPA
Employment
Age Mean
Number of Visits
Learning Center Group
(N=18)
N
%
10
56
8
44
18
100
N
10
4
4
18
%
56
22
22
100
Writing Circle Group
(N=16)
N
%
9
56
7
44
16
100
N
9
3
4
16
%
56
19
25
100
2.89
3.06
3.13
2.97
43.8%
44.4%
25
27
3.85
3.81
43
Table 2: Background Variables Differences in Writing Circles and Learning Center
Panel A: T-test for Demographic Differences
Mean Value
Variable
Writing Circles
Learning Center
(WC)
(LC)
Age
27.25
24.83
Race
1.69
1.67
Native
0.75
0.78
Gender
0.44
0.44
Emp
0.73
0.71
EngGPA
2.97
3.06
GPA
3.13
2.89
Meeting
3.81
3.67
Differences
(WC-LC)
2.42
0.02
-0.03
-0.00
0.02
-0.09
0.24
0.14
f-value
4.13 ***
1.08
1.09
1.00
1.05
2.44 *
1.70
3.58 **
p-value
0.0063 ***
0.8711
0.8531
0.9852
0.9314
0.0794 *
0.2943
0.0169 **
***,**,* indicate the significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Age: age of respondent; Race: race of respondents; Native: 1 if a respondent is a native English speaker, 0 otherwise; Gender: gender of
respondents; Emp: 1 if a respondent is employed, 0 otherwise; EngGPA: a respondent's English GPA score; GPA: a respondent's GPA;
and Meeting: meeting frequency of age of respondents.
Panel B: Wilcoxon Score Rank Sum Test for Demographic Differences
Median Value
Differences
Variable
Writing Circles
Learning Center
(WC-LC)
(WC)
(LC)
Age
24.50
23.00
1.50
Race
1.00
1.00
0.00
Native
1.00
1.00
0.00
Gender
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emp
1.00
1.00
0.00
EngGPA
2.90
3.20
-0.30
GPA
3.06
2.80
0.26
Meeting
4.00
4.00
0.00
z-value
0.1219
0.0385
-0.1878
-0.0401
0.1696
-0.4844
1.0874
0.9131
p-value
0.9030
0.9690
0.8510
0.9680
0.8650
0.6280
0.2770
0.3610
Age: age of respondent; Race: race of respondents; Native: 1 if a respondent is a native English speaker, 0 otherwise; Gender: gender of
respondents; Emp: 1 if a respondent is employed, 0 otherwise; EngGPA: a respondent's English GPA score; GPA: a respondent's GPA;
and Meeting: meeting frequency of age of respondents.
44
Table 3: Comparison of Scores on Pretest, Posttest, and Final Project
Writing Circles (WC)
Pretest
Variable
Focus
Style
Grammar
Posttest
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1.13 0.42
1.06 0.35
0.97 0.42
1.00 0.52
0.78 0.45
0.94 0.51
Learning Center (LC)
Final Project
Pretest
Mean S.D.
1.38 0.43
1.31 0.31
1.47 0.43
Mean S.D.
1.19 0.52
1.19 0.52
1.00 0.34
S.D. stands for standard deviation.
45
Posttest
Mean
0.94
0.89
0.72
S.D.
0.48
0.47
0.39
Final
Project
Mean S.D.
1.31 0.42
1.19 0.35
1.28 0.26
Table 4: Students' Writing Skill Improvement in Writing Circles and Learning Center
T-test for Students' Writing Skills
Mean Value
Variable
Writing Circles
Learning Center
(WC)
(LC)
VAR1
-0.06
-0.25
VAR2
0.03
-0.31
VAR3
0.16
-0.28
VAR4
0.25
0.11
VAR5
0.34
0.00
VAR6
0.69
0.28
Differences
(WC-LC)
0.19
0.34
0.44
0.14
0.34
0.41
f-value
1.10
1.06
3.15 **
1.33
3.18 **
2.38 *
p-value
0.8410
0.9213
0.0260 **
0.5860
0.0293 **
0.0880 *
VAR1: the score differences between post-test and pre-test (focus); VAR2: the score differences between post-test and pre-test (style);
VAR3: the score differences between post-test and pre-test (grammar); VAR4: the score differences between final-project and pre-test
(focus); VAR5: the score differences between final-project and pre-test (style); VAR6: the score differences between final project and pretest (grammar);
***,**,* indicate the significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
46
Table 5: Effect of Writing Circles on Students' Writing Skills
Students' Writing Skills
Students’
Writing Skills
Variable
GROUP
AGE
RACE
NATIVE
GENDER
EMP
EngGPA
GPA
MEETING
i,t= α0 +α1GROUP i,t +α2AGE
+α9MEETING i,t + e i,t
VAR1
Coefficient
0.206
-0.006
0.048
-0.121
0.227
-0.163
-0.049
0.055
0.027
VAR2
pCoefficient
value
0.457
0.441
0.811
-0.016
0.890
0.024
0.857
-0.232
0.457
0.149
0.595
0.134
0.864
0.214
0.848
-0.099
0.899
0.102
i,t
+α3RACE
i,t
+α4NATIVE
VAR3
pCoefficient
value
0.140
0.452 ***
0.532
-0.020
0.949
0.067
0.744
-0.222
0.643
-0.139
0.681
0.137
0.480
-0.057
0.744
0.346 **
0.653
-0.284 **
i,t
+α5GENDER
VAR4
pCoefficient
value
0.009
0.205
0.166
0.000
0.741
-0.153
0.569
-0.547
0.434
0.040
0.443
-0.385
0.731
0.185
0.047
0.136
0.030
-0.066
i,t
+α6EMP
VAR5
pCoefficient
value
0.437
0.482 **
0.998
-0.001
0.644
-0.373
0.393
-1.015 **
0.890
0.205
0.195
-0.268
0.496
0.176
0.618
-0.135
0.744
0.001
i,t
+ α7EngGPAi,t +α8GPA
VAR6
pCoefficient
value
0.017
0.461 ***
0.956
-0.006
0.127
-0.075
0.035
-0.373
0.329
0.021
0.209
-0.162
0.369
0.050
0.493
0.011
0.996
0.021
pvalue
0.012
0.704
0.727
0.373
0.912
0.400
0.775
0.953
0.875
# of
34
34
34
34
34
34
Observations
R2
0.1344
0.1892
0.5283
0.2574
0.4916
0.3797
***, ** and * indicate the significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Where: VAR1: the score differences between post-test and pre-test (focus); VAR2: the score differences between post-test and pre-test (style); VAR3: the score differences
between post-test and pre-test (grammar); VAR4: the score differences between final-project and pre-test (focus); VAR5: the score differences between final-project and pre-test
(style); VAR6: the score differences between final project and pre-test (grammar); AGE: age of respondents; EngGPA: a respondent's English GPA score; GPA: a respondent's
GPA; and MEETING: meeting frequency of age of respondents.
47
i,t
Table 6: Students' Satisfaction in Writing Circles and Learning Center
Panel A: T-test for Students' Satisfaction
Mean Value
Variable
Writing Circles
Learning Center
(WC)
(LC)
Question1
4.19
4.00
Question2
4.44
4.33
Question3
4.37
3.83
Question4
4.75
4.33
Question5
4.31
3.83
Question6
4.33
4.06
Question7
4.69
4.39
Question8
4.13
4.11
Question9
4.25
3.94
Question10
4.19
3.94
Overall
43.38
40.56
Differences
(WC-LC)
0.19
0.11
0.54
0.42
0.48
0.27
0.30
0.02
0.31
0.25
f-value
1.45
1.68
1.06
2.35 *
1.25
1.22
2.12
1.13
1.92
1.89
p-value
0.476
0.302
0.919
0.103 *
0.675
0.713
0.149
0.802
0.196
0.226
* indicates the significance at the 10% levels, respectively.
Panel B: Wilcoxon Score Rank Sum Test for Students' Satisfaction
Median Value
Differences
Variable
Writing Circles
Learning Center
(WC-LC)
(WC)
(LC)
Question1
4.00
4.00
0.00
Question2
4.50
4.00
0.50
Question3
4.00
4.00
0.00
Question4
5.00
4.00
1.00
Question5
4.00
4.00
0.00
Question6
4.00
4.00
0.00
Question7
5.00
4.50
0.50
Question8
4.00
4.00
0.00
Question9
4.00
4.00
0.00
Question10
4.00
4.00
0.00
*** and * indicate the significance at the 1% and 10% levels, respectively.
48
z-value
1.1755
0.7141
2.7602 ***
1.9086 *
1.7831 *
1.4602
1.2724
0.1179
1.7642 *
1.0337
p-value
0.2400
0.4750
0.0060 ***
0.0560 *
0.0750 *
0.1440
0.2030
0.9060
0.0780 *
0.3010
FI GUR E 1 : PR ETES T TO POS TTES T
S COR ES COM PAR I S ON
Focus
Style
Grammar
M EAN VLAUES
1.30
1.10
0.90
0.70
0.50
Pretest WC
Posttest WC
Pretest LC
Posttest LC
Focus
1.13
1.06
1.19
0.94
Style
0.97
1.00
1.19
0.89
Grammar
0.78
0.94
1.00
0.72
49
FI GUR E 2 : PR ETES T TO FI N AL PR OJ ECT
S COR ES COM PAR I S ON
Focus
Style
Grammar
M EAN VLAUES
1.50
1.30
1.10
0.90
0.70
0.50
Pretest WC
Final
Project WC
Pretest LC
Final
Project LC
Focus
1.13
1.38
1.19
1.31
Style
0.97
1.31
1.19
1.19
Grammar
0.78
1.47
1.00
1.28
50