Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Using an Online Homework System to Submit
Accounting Homework: Role of Cognitive Need,
Computer Efficacy, and Perception
Jacob C. Peng
To cite this article: Jacob C. Peng (2009) Using an Online Homework System to Submit
Accounting Homework: Role of Cognitive Need, Computer Efficacy, and Perception, Journal of Education for Business, 84:5, 263-268, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.5.263-268
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.5.263-268
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 64
View related articles
ducators in every discipline are constantly searching for effective educational technologies that help stu-dents learn. Accounting educators are no exception. One technology that has evolvedrecentlyistheonlinehomework system. The online homework system allows professors to use Internet tech-nology to implement homework prob-lemsthatstudentsareabletocomplete online.Becausethissystemisautomat-ic, students may receive their graded homework almost instantly and master thematerialsthroughrepetitivepractice. Some advantages of the online home-worksysteminclude“help[ing]students practiceaccountinginaninteractiveand engaging manner, confront[ing] their deficienciesincourseprerequisites,and ensur[ing]theygrasptheskillsandcon-cepts presented in their textbooks—all without increasing professors’ work-load”(ApliaInc.,2007,¶3).
One of the most acclaimed features of the online homework system is its interactivity. For example, a student canclickalinktoreceiveinstantfeed-back from the system. If allowed by theinstructor,studentscanupdatetheir answers and resubmit the homework for a better grade. Furthermore, if the instructoracceptsmultiplesubmissions, students can work on homework prob-lems repeatedly until they are satis-fied with the grade they receive. Each attemptbythestudentcancomefroma
differentsetofnumbersiftheinstructor chooses to apply a built-in algorism to changeproblems.Theonlinehomework systemallowsstudentstomanagetheir homework by exerting as much effort at a time as is convenient for them. One reason that an educational tech-nology such as the online homework systemisdevelopedistohelpstudents learn.However,thehiddenassumption that whichever information technology is implemented in a college classroom contributestostudentlearningreceives little or no challenge from educators. The current research fills this gap by investigating the effects of some indi-vidual differences on student effort in doinghomeworkwhentheonlinehome-worksystemisusedinclass.
Inthepresentstudy,Itriedtodeter-mine whether students’ different cog-nitive needs, their perception of the system’s features, and their computer abilities can explain their effort to do homework by using the online home- worksystem.Studentsfromanaccount-ing principles course volunteered to participateinthepresentstudybycom- pletingasurveyattheendofthesemes-ter. The results suggest that students with low motivation, measured by low needforcognition(NFC),exertedmore effort in doing homework because of the online homework system. For stu-dents with high motivation, measured by a high NFC, it is possible that the
UsinganOnlineHomeworkSystemtoSubmit
AccountingHomework:RoleofCognitive
Need,ComputerEfficacy,andPerception
JACOBC.PENG
UNIVERSITYOFMICHIGAN–FLINT FLINT,MICHIGAN
E
ABSTRACT.Theauthorinvestigatedwhetherstudents’effortinworkingon homeworkproblemswasaffectedbytheir needforcognition,theirperceptionofthe system,andtheircomputerefficacywhen instructorsusedanonlinesystemtocollect accountinghomework.Resultsshowedthat individualintrinsicmotivationandcomput- erefficacyareimportantfactorsindeter-miningeffortandwhetherstudentsperceive thesystemtobeuseful.Thesefindingsare ofinteresttoeducatorsandsystemdesign-ersastheyconsiderimplementingonline homeworksystemsanddeterminewhich typesofstudentsbenefitmostfromtheuse ofthesesystemsinclassrooms.
Keywords:computerefficacy,needfor cognition,onlinehomework,systemfeature
Copyright©2009HeldrefPublications
implementationoftheonlinehomework system in class did not play a crucial role because they already were moti-vatedtoperformwellinclass.However, highlymotivatedlearnerswhoperceive theonlinehomeworksystemasinterac-tive seem to appreciate the system by usingitmoretodotheirhomework.
Theresultsalsorevealthatifstudents believethattheyareabletocompetently use computers, they exert more effort in using the online homework system. Alternatively, if students believe that their ability to use computers is poor, they use the online homework system more only if they perceive the online homeworksystemtobeinteractive.
Thesefindingsmayshedlightonhow instructors can use educational technol-ogy in accounting courses. Specifically, theimplementationofeducationaltech-nologies cannot use a one-size-fits-all approach.The expectation that students learn from using an online homework system may not apply to all students, especially students with different levels ofcognitiveneedandcomputerefficacy. System developers need to focus more oninterfacedesign,inadditiontosystem interactivity, to make the system more accessible and indirectly motivate stu- dentstousethistechnologyintheirlearn-ing.The present article also contributes tothestreamofresearchininformation technology by focusing on user differ-ences (Culnan, 1983; Seyal, Rahman, Noah, & Rahim, 2002) and how users use the system. Consistent with prior findings,individualdifferencesisacru-investigating various factors that contribute to the success of student learning. Among these factors, doing homework is recognized to be one of the most important factors that promote student-learning success by accountingeducators(Peters,Kethley,& Bullington, 2002; Rayburn & Rayburn, 1999).EskewandFaley’s(1988)model explainsstudentexamperformanceina first college-level financial accounting course. Eskew and Faley noted that
amongtheirpredictivevariables,oneof thevariablesthathasthelargestmarginal contribution to the model’s explanatory powerisstudenteffort.Thatis,students whoexertmoreeffortduringthesemester tendtoperformbetterontheexam.The positive correlation between effort and class performance is recognized widely by accounting educators. Educators often assign and collect homework assignments because they believe that doing homework requires significant effort by students and that homework canmotivatestudentstostudy(Rayburn &Rayburn).FarrellyandHudson(1985) showed that students agree with their professorsinthathomeworkcanmotivate them to do well in accounting courses. Studentsliketousemultiplehomework assignmentsasatooltolearnaccounting subjectmatter.Theyalsopreferthattheir professor spend enough time reviewing homeworkproblemsinclass.
Inadditiontomotivatingstudentlearn-ing, homework assignments are used to stimulate students’ problem-solving skills. Because homework problems playamajorroleinthecognitiveskill-setthatstudentslearnfromaccounting courses (Davidson & Baldwin, 2005), it is important that they are willing to embrace the cognitive challenges embedded in homework problems to gain skills that are desired highly by accounting educators and practitioners. As a response to the need for 21st-century accounting professionals, the accountingeducationestablishmentcre-atedtheAccountingEducationChange Commission in the 1990s. Problem-solving skills are emphasized in the commission’s recommendations to improve accounting curricula. In addi-tion, the commission also recognizes thatmotivatedstudentsaremorelikely to embrace cognitive challenges and complexproblem-solvingactivities,and that these are students who are sought after by the accounting profession. In the psychology literature, the willing-ness to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive endeavors is defined as the NFC (Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis, 1996; Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984; Peltier & Schibrowsky, 1994). The NFC is an individual disposition that plays a key role in the evalua-tionofinformation(Tam&Ho,2005).
Researchers have also found that the NFC affects the information-search behavior when making decisions (Ver-planken&Weenig,1993).
In the accounting context, Beattie, Collins, and McInnis (1997) intro-ducedtheconceptofdeeplearninginto accounting-educationliterature.Adeep learningapproachisneededtoachieve aconceptualformoflearning.However, students’learningorientationisatleast partly determined by students’ motiva- tiontolearn.Todesignsuccessfulinter-vention strategies to improve teaching and learning, a more in-depth look at what motivates students in their learn-ingprocessandhowtheybecomemore motivated is necessary. The present article investigates how intrinsic moti-vationactivatesbehaviorssuchasdoing homework (Ford, 2006). This intrin-sic motivation is related to the effort exerted. For example, auditors with a lowNFCarelessmotivatedintrinsical-ly to be mentallowNFCarelessmotivatedintrinsical-ly involved in complex audit decision making. To avoid more unstructured decision making later in theauditengagement,auditorswhoare lessmotivated(lowNFC)collectmore audit evidence in the early stages of audit engagement (Ford & Pasewark, 2007). Through exerting more effort by collecting audit evidence early in the audit process, participants in Ford and Pasewark’s study were comfort-ablewiththeirauditperformance.They justifiedtheirauditperformancebycol-lectingmoreauditevidencesothatthey could avoid more complex audit deci-sionmakinglater.
Intheonlinehomeworksystemcon-text,studentswhoarelessmotivatedto dohomeworkaremorelikelytousethe instantfeedbackfromthesystemsothat they can reduce their cognitive burden whenworkingonhomeworkproblems. Consistent with this argument, indi-viduals with a low NFC would desire easiertasks,possiblybyincreasingtheir
One of the advantages of using an online homework system to administer
and deliver accounting homework is that the system provides interactive, automatically graded assignments that ensure students exert quality effort on a regular basis (Aplia Inc., 2007). The Appendix shows an example of an accountingproblemthatwasusedinthe online homework system. The system presents an accounting problem one stepatatime.Studentsareabletowork ontheproblemfollowingtheguidance provided by the system. At any time, studentscanrequestsystemfeedbackto check their performance and progress. Morehintsorlinkstocontentareasare presented to students so that they can study related content before they redo theproblem.ConsistentwithLindquist andOlsen’s(2007)study,studentswho received feedback on their accounting homework were more often satisfied, and their perception of learning was greater.FarrellyandHudson(1985)also foundthat“providingcopiesofprinted solutionstohomeworkafterhomework isdue”isdesiredhighlybyaccounting students (p. 49). In accordance, Hypothesis 2 predicts that if students perceive that the online homework systemisinteractive,theyincreasetheir effortstodohomework.
H2: Students who perceive the online homework system to be interactive increase their efforts to do home-work by spending more time using theonlinehomeworksystem.
Researchers have demonstrated that the perceived IS features likely affect the system use. In addition, user moti-vationisimportanttopromotethenew technology. Although the technology can help students do homework, stu-dents’ motivation affects how they use the online homework system. Raman, Ryan, and Olfman (2005) found that inadditiontothetechnologyitself,the successful implementation of instruc-tional technology in class to help stu-dents learn may depend on student motivation. As a result, the following hypothesisisproposed:
H3: The perceived system interactivity and students’ NFC (internal motivation) affect the effort of doing homework by using an online homeworksystem.
Understanding the factors that affect anindividual’suseofcomputersortech-nologieshasbeenatopicofISresearch for a long time. From the social psy-chology literature, Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw (1986) proposed the technol-ogy acceptance model on the basis of Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasonedaction.Inessence,theoriginal technologyacceptancemodelpositsthat theintentiontousetechnologyisafunc-tionoftheperceivedeaseofuseandthe perceived usefulness of the technology. ThismodelisusedwidelyinISliterature andhasdemonstratedvalidity.However, manyrecentresearchpapershaverecog-nized that additional explanatory vari-ablesareneededtofullyunderstandhow individuals accept and use technology. One such variable is user’s individual differences.Researchershavefoundthat computerself-efficacy,oranindividual’s confidenceinhisorherabilitytocompe- tentlyusecomputers(Compeau&Hig-gins, 1995), is a significant predictor of computer use. Understanding indi-vidual user differences is important in a computer-assisted education environ-ment such as an online homework sys-tem, so that advanced intervention can be designed to increase system use and facilitate students’ learning. Therefore, thefollowinghypothesisisproposed:
H4 :Studentswithahighdegreeofcom-puter efficacy increase their efforts spent on homework by using the onlinehomeworksystem. expectancy, effort expectancy, as well associalinfluenceandfacilitatingcon-ditions are four significant factors that determine technology acceptance and use. Because online homework sys-temsprovideeasy-to-useinterfacesand instant feedback to students, students should expect the systems to be help-fulinstudyingsubjectmatterwithless effort.Intermsofsocialinfluenceand facilitating conditions that determine the use of technology, the instructor requires students to submit homework
using the system. Therefore, they are definitely under the instructor’s influ-encetousethesystem.Asaresult,these factors should all contribute to the use ofthesystemtopromoteefforttoward doinghomework.
CompeauandHiggins(1995)studied how different computer training meth-ods affect computer task performance. Theyfoundthatifbothindividualsare
H5: The students’ computer effica-cy and their perception of system interactivity together affect their effort to do homework using the onlinehomeworksystem.
ResearchDesignandMethod
Participants were 61 undergradu-ate students who enrolled in financial accounting courses and volunteered to answerashortsurveyattheendofthe semester. Students were familiar with theonlinehomeworksystemafterusing it for a full semester. Thus, they were capable of answering survey questions regardingtheonlinehomeworksystem. In all, 52 students finished the survey without missing information. Students did not receive compensation for their participation; however, they were informedabouttheimportanceoftheir participation in completing the survey (Maheswaran & Chaiken, 1991). The demographics of students completing thesurveyappearinTable1.
HypothesesTestingandResults
Theproposedhypothesesweretested usingregressionanalysis.Inthemodel, totestfactorsaffectingtheeffortexerted on homework, the dependent variable was the self-reported amount of time spentonhomeworkeveryweekbefore the final exam, which serves as a sur-rogateofeffort(Idson&Clark,1991). The independent variables were the NFC,theperceivedsysteminteractivity,
andparticipant’scomputerefficacy.The regression model, descriptive statistics, and variable descriptions are reported inTable2.
H1 tests the effect of the NFC on students’effortindoinghomework.I measuredtheNFCusingCacioppoet al.’s(1984)18-itemsurveyinstrument (scale)andthemeanscoreamong52 studentswas80.1(SD=17.1),which is similar to other studies using this scale (Peltier & Schibrowsky, 1994). The hypothesis predicts that students with low NFC exert more effort by increasingtheiruseofthesystem.The output from the regression analysis in Table 2 indicates that the NFC is
significant(p=.057),withapredicted sign.Assuch,thedatasupporttheidea thatstudentswithalowNFCincrease their effort toward doing homework byusingtheonlinehomeworksystem. Hence,H1issupported.
H2 posits that if students perceive the online homework system to be interactive, they increase their effort toward doing homework by using the system more frequently.The perceived interactivity was measured using the measuresofperceivedinteractivitythat McMillanandHwang(2002)developed. The scale was developed originally in marketing literature to measure the consumer perception of the Internet
advertising’s interactivity. This scale wasadoptedbecauseitoperationalized the perceived interactivity from three different perspectives: communication (feedback), time, and user control. These are similar to the content of the online homework system. However, theregressionanalysisshowedthatthe perceivedinteractivityhasthepredicted sign,butitisnotsignificant(p=.611). ThedatacollectedfailedtosupportH2.
Although the perceived system interactivity was not significant, the interactiontermintheregressionmodel reported in Table 2 shows that system interactivityandtheNFCweresignifi-cant (p = .033). Students with a low NFC used the homework system more frequently if they felt that the system wasinteractive.Itisaninterestingfind-ingthatsuggeststhattheperceptionof theonlinehomeworksystemisparticu-larlyimportanttoexplainstudentswith differentcognitiveneedsandtheireffort exerteddoinghomework.Asaresult,H3 wassupported.
H4 posits that students’ computer efficacy affects the effort needed to do homework.The computer efficacy was measuredusinganinstrumentCompeau and Higgins (1995) developed, which has been used in many empirical stud-ies in the IS literature (Hasan, 2007; Mort&Drennan,2007).Theinstrument used 10 questions to determine confi-dence level in using various software troubleshooting scenarios, and partici-pants responded on a 10-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all confident)to10(totallyconfident).The results of the regression analysis (see Table2)showedthatcomputerefficacy significantly affects how students do theirhomeworkusingtheonlinehome-worksystem(p=.017),withapredicted sign.Hence,H4wassupported.
H5 predicted that the individual’s computer efficacy interacts with the system’s perceived interactivity to predict the effort exerted in doing homework. Again, the regression analysisreportedinTable2showsthat thiseffectissignificant(p=.012).The data suggests that if students who are low in self-assessed computer efficacy perceive the online homework system tobeinteractiveintermsoftimeneeded to complete homework and flexible,
TABLE1.SampleDescriptiveStatistics
Variable n % M SD
Gender
Male 32 61.5
Female 20 38.5
Academicclassification
Freshman 1 1.9
Sophomore 17 32.7
Junior 22 42.3
Senior 11 21.2
GPA 3.27 0.45
Age 21.45 4.26
TABLE2.ResultsofRegressionAnalysis
Variable M SD Estimate SE t(df=5) p
Variable descriptive
statistics
EFFORT 3.95 3.33
NCOG 80.10 17.10
INTER 67.90 18.59
EFFI 73.27 16.94
Regression
analysis
Constant –2.552 9.227 –0.277 .783
NCOG –0.135 0.069 –1.951 .057
INTER 0.069 0.134 0.513 .611
EFFI 0.286 0.115 2.481 .017
NCOG×INTER 0.002 0.001 2.206 .033
EFFI×INTER –0.004 0.002 –2.627 .012
Note.EFFORT=β0+β1NCOG+β2INTER+β3EFFI+β4NCOG×INTER+β5EFFI× INTER+ε .ForEFFORT,thescaleusedwasaself-reportednumberofhoursspentonhome-workperweek;forNCOG,thescaleusedwasJ.T.Cacioppo,R.E.Petty,&C.F.Kao’s(1984) 18-itemscale;forINTER,thescaleusedwasS.J.McMillan&J.Hwang’s(2002)MPIScale; forEFEI,thescaleusedwasD.R.Compeau&C.A.Higgins’s(1995)10-itemscale.EFFORT =students’efforttodohomework;NCOG=needforcognition;INTER=perceptionofsystem interactivity;EFEI=individualcomputerefficacy.
they increase their efforts to complete homework.Inotherwords,theperceived onlinehomeworksystem’sinteractivity can be important in determining effort todohomeworkforthosewhoareless comfortablewithusingcomputers.
ConclusionandDiscussion
Although increasingly more edu-cational technologies are experiment-ed with in traditional college classes, the effect of using these technologies on student behavior receives little or no attention from educators. In gen-eral, educators and system developers assume that students will be better off becauseofthetechnologyimplementa-tion. In the present study, I tested this hiddenassumptionbyinvestigatingthe
Overall, the results highlight the importance of continued research on new technology implementation in the educationalsettingandindividuals’dif-more. However, as the results show, low-NFCstudentsusetheonlinehome-work system more than do high-NFC students. The availability of the online homework system seems to provide a shortcutforstudentswhoarelessmoti-vated to complete required homework. Consistentwithpreviousresearch,how studentsfeelabouttheircomputerabili-ties also has a significant impact on theirefforttodohomework.Itprovides evenstrongerevidencethatindividuals’ differencesmustbeconsideredwhenan onlinehomeworksystemisused.
Understanding how users perceive thesystem’sfeaturesandtheirresponse by actually using the system has been a research topic for a long time. The present study did not find supporting evidencethattheperceivedinteractivity
affectsefforttodohomework.However, itdoessuggestthatprovidingfeedback instantly and interacting with system users should be considered with indi-vidualusercharacteristics(suchasNFC and computer efficacy) to be mean-ingful when effectiveness of an online homeworksystemisconsidered.
From the system implementers’ per- spective,professorsusetheonlinehome-work system to promote learning, with theassumptionthattheonlinehomework systemcanencouragestudentstopractice accountingproblemsmore.However,the results of the present study show that is not necessarily true. Some types of students increase their homework effort seemingly because of the shortcut pro-videdbythesystem,insteadofusingthe system to learn. It would be interesting to further study how low-NFC students learn because of the online homework system,notjusthowtheyuseit.Inother words,afuturestudyshouldincorporate learningoutcomevariablestoinvestigate whether technology used can actually promotelearning.
As results from the present study show, whereas some students may be motivated to do accounting homework withorwithoutthesupportoftheonline homework system, other students need morefeedbackinthisprocess,whichis provided by the system. Thus, instruc-tors should not assume that students would benefit equally from an online homeworksysteminaneducationalset-ting. It is important to consider versa-tility in program design to allow for moresupportateachindividual’slevel. To achieve this goal, the present study provides some factors that should be considered when assessing the effec-tivenessofanonlinehomeworksystem. Forexample,anonlinehomeworksys-temcanhelpstudentswithlowintrinsic motivation and students who are not comfortable with computer technolo-gies, if they perceive the online home-worksystemtobeadvantageoustotheir learning. This mechanism can be used tosupportthedevelopmentofprograms that can be tailored to students with different cognitive styles. As a result, from the system developers’ perspec-tive,anonlinehomeworksystemcannot just consider interactivity as providing instant feedback (as many vendors do)
tosystemusers:Developersshouldalso consider user interface design so that systemusersdonotfeelfrustrated.Sys-tem interface design is an important issuetoaddresstoincreasesystemuser acceptance(Thong,Hong,&Tam,2004) oreventoeasecognitiveburden(Rose, Douglas, & Rose, 2004). For example, an intuitive interface design that aims to reduce user cognitive load can help studentswhoarelesscomfortablewith computers and who are less motivated to work on homework problems. This is especially important when increas-ingly more Web-based instructional approachesarebeingusedandstudents come from more diverse backgrounds (Chen&Macredie,2004).
Asinsimilarstudies,myresearchis not free from limitations. The factors investigated in the present article are by no means exhaustive. Further stud-ieshavetobeundertakenwithalarger sampletoprovidemoreevidence.Some findings have to be interpreted with caution.Thoughderivedfromdatacol- lectedfromstudentsinthesameinstruc-tor’s class, the results of the present studymaynotbeabletobegeneralized to other accounting courses. Further-more, the present article sheds some lightonhowaneducationaltechnology canaffecttheprocessvariablesinstead of outcome variables of student learn-ing.Futurestudiesneedtotakeacloser look at the affect of online homework systems on student learning outcomes, such as exam performance, amount of learning, and student problem-solving abilities(Petersetal.,2002;Rayburn& Rayburn,1999).
NOTE
Jacob C. Pengisan assistant professor of accounting.Hisresearchinterestsfocusonbehav-ioralresearchwheninformationtechnologiesare used to support accounting decision making and technologyimplicationsinbusinesseducation.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jacob C. Peng, 303 E. Kearsley Street,Flint,MI48502,USA.
E-mail:jcpeng@umflint.edu
REFERENCES
ApliaInc.(2007).Apliaannouncesnewhomework solution for accounting students. Retrieved March 10 from, http://www.aplia.com/com-pany/press071207_accounting.jsp
Beattie, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning: A simple or
plisticdichotomy?AccountingEducation,6(1), 1–12.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J.A., & Jarvis,W.B.G.(1996).Dispositionaldifferences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition.
PsychologicalBulletin,119,197–253. Cacioppo,J.T.,Petty,R.E.,&Kao,C.F.(1984).
The efficient assessment of need for cognition.
JournalofPersonalityAssessment,48,306–307. Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. (2004). Cognitive
modeling of student learning in Web-based instructional programs.International Journal ofHuman-ComputerInteraction,17,375–402. Compeau,D.R.&Higgins,C.A.(1995).Com-puterself-efficacy:Developmentofameasure andinitialtest.MISQuarterly,19,189–211. Culnan,M.J.(1983).Chauffeuredversusenduser
accesstocommercialdatabases:Theeffectsof taskandindividualdifferences.MISQuarterly, 7,55–67.
Davidson,R.A.,&Baldwin,B.A.(2005).Cogni-tiveskillsobjectivesinintermediateaccounting textbooks: Evidence from end-of-chapter material.JournalofAccountingEducation,23, 79–95.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1986). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models.ManagementScience,35,982–1003. Eskew, R. K., & Faley, R. H. (1988). Some
determinants of student performance in the first college-level financial accounting course.
AccountingReview,63,137–147.
Farrelly, G. E., & Hudson, E. J. (1985). How to teach introductory accounting: Student views. JournalofAccountingEducation,3(1),47–56. Fishbein, M., &Ajzen, I. (1975).Belief, attitude,
intentionandbehavior:Anintroductiontotheory andresearch.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.
Ford, C. O. (2006).Role of motivation on audit sampling behavior. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation,TexasTechUniversity,Lubbock. Ford, C. O., & Pasewark,W. R. (2007).Role of
cognitiveneedinauditdecisionmaking.Paper presentedattheAmericanAccountingAssocia-tion2007AnnualMeeting,Chicago,Illinois. Hasan, B. (2007). Examining the effects of
computer self-efficacy and system complexity on technology acceptance. Information ResourcesManagementJournal,20(3),76–88. Idson,T.L.,&Clark,J.R.(1991).Studenttime
allocation and scholastic ability.Journal of AppliedBusinessResearch,7(3),83–91. Lindquist, T. M., & Olsen, L. M. (2007). How
muchhelp,istoomuchhelp?Anexperimental investigation of the use of check figures and completed solutions in teaching intermediate accounting.Journal of Accounting Education, 25(3),103–117.
Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Add promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effects of incongruent informationonprocessingandjudgment. Jour-nalofPersonality&SocialPsychology,61(1), 13–25.
McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity.Journal of Advertising,31(3), 29–42.
Mort, G. S., & Drennan, J. (2007). Mobile communications:Astudyoffactorsinfluencing consumeruseofm-services.
JournalofAdver-tisingResearch,47(3),302–312.Peltier,J.W.,&Schibrowsky,J.A.(1994).Need forcognition,advertisementviewingtimeand memory for advertising stimuli.Advances in ConsumerResearch,21,244–250.
Peters,M.,Kethley,B.,&Bullington,K.(2002). The relationship between homework and performance in an introductory operations management course.Journal of Education for Business,77,340–344.
Raman, M., Ryan, T., & Olfman, L. (2005). Designingknowledgemanagementsystemsfor teaching and learning with Wiki technology.
JournalofInformationSystemsEducation,16,
311–321.
Rayburn,L.G.,&Rayburn,J.M.(1999).Impact ofcourselengthandhomeworkassignmentson studentperformance.JournalofEducationfor Business,74,325–331.
Rose, J. M., Douglas, R. F., & Rose,A. (2004). Affectiveresponsetofinancialdataandmulti- media:Theeffectsofinformationloadandcog-nitiveload.InternationalJournalofAccounting InformationSystems,5(1),5–24.
Seyal,A.H.,Rahman,M.,Noah,A.,&Rahim,M. M.(2002).Determinantsofacademicuseofthe Internet: A structural equation model. Behav-iour&InformationTechnology,21(1),71–86.
Tam,K.Y.,&Ho,S.Y.(2005).Webpersonaliza-tion as a persuasion strategy: An elaboraTam,K.Y.,&Ho,S.Y.(2005).Webpersonaliza-tion likelihoodmodelperspective. InformationSys-temsResearch,16(3),271–291.
Thong,J.,Hong,W.,&Tam,K.Y.(2004).What leads to user acceptance of digital libraries?
Communications of the Association for Com-putingMachinery,47(11),79–83.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003).
User acceptance of informationtechnology:Towardaunifiedview.MISQuarterly,27,425–478.
Verplanken,B.,&Weenig,W.H.(1993).Graphi-cal energy labels and consumers’ decisions about home appliances: A process tracing approach.Journal of Economic Psychology, 14,739–752.
APPENDIX
ExampleInteractiveProblem
Problem:HowamIdoing?
OnJanuary1,2007,Shayissues$700,000of10%,15-yearbondsat973⁄
4%oftheoriginalmarketvalue.Sixyearslater,onJanuary1,2013,
Steadmanretires20%ofthesebondsbybuyingthemontheopenmarketat1041⁄
2%oftheoriginalmarketvalue.Allinterestisaccounted
forandpaidthroughDecember31,2012,thedaybeforethepurchase.Thestraight-linemethodisusedtoamortizeanybonddiscount.
Required:
1.HowmuchdoesthecompanyreceivewhenitissuesthebondsonJanuary1,2007? 2.WhatistheamountofthediscountonthebondsatJanuary1,2007?
3.HowmuchamortizationofthediscountisrecordedonthebondsfortheentireperiodfromJanuary1,2007toDecember31,2012? 4.Whatisthecarrying(book)valueofthebondsasofthecloseofbusinessonDecember31,2012?Whatisthecarryingvalueofthe
20%soon-to-be-retiredbondsonthissamedate?
5.HowmuchdidthecompanypayonJanuary1,2013topurchasethebondsthatitretired? 6.Whatistheamountoftherecordedgainorlossfromretiringthebonds?
7.PreparethejournalentrytorecordthebondretirementatJanuary1,2013.
Note.Thisisacorporatebondissuanceandretirementproblem.Manystudentshaveproblemsconceptualizingbonddiscountandbondcarryingvalue.The sameproblempresentedintheonlinehomeworksystemwouldshoweachofsevenstepstosolvetheproblemoneatatime.Whenstudentsanswereach stepoftheproblem,ifallowedbytheinstructor,alinktothecontentareawouldappearsothatstudentsenhancetheirunderstandingaboutaparticular portionofthesolutionprocess.Anytimethatstudentsclick“HowamIdoing?”thesystemrespondswithfeedbackabouttheircurrentperformance.Stu-dentshavetheoptionofcontinuingwiththeproblemorsavingtheprogressforlater.Notethatsomenumberscanbechangedeachtimethatstudentslog intoworkontheproblem.Forexample,thebond-issuingprice(973⁄
4%inthisexample)canbedifferentsothatthestudentsgetanewproblemtowork
with.Also,ifajournalentryisneeded(e.g.,Requirement7),adrop-downmenuappearssothatstudentsmayselectfromthelist(orrefertothecontent areaforamoredetailedexplanation).