Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 19:44
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Online Versus Face-to-Face Accounting Education:
A Comparison of CPA Exam Outcomes Across
Matched Institutions
John Daniel Morgan
To cite this article: John Daniel Morgan (2015) Online Versus Face-to-Face Accounting Education: A Comparison of CPA Exam Outcomes Across Matched Institutions, Journal of Education for Business, 90:8, 420-426, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1087371
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1087371
Published online: 14 Oct 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 33
View related articles
Online Versus Face-to-Face Accounting Education:
A Comparison of CPA Exam Outcomes Across
Matched Institutions
John Daniel Morgan
Winona State University, Winona, Minnesota, USA
Programmatic-level comparisons are made between the certified public accountant (CPA) exam outcomes of two types of accounting programs: online or distance accounting programs and face-to-face or classroom accounting programs. After matching programs from each group on student selectivity at admission, the two types of programs are compared on CPA exam outcomes of graduates. Results show online or distance accounting programs have much lower average CPA pass rates than their matched face-to-face counterparts with equivalent student selection criteria. In addition, average 6-year graduation rates and average propensity to sit for the CPA exam after graduation are much lower in the online or distance accounting programs.
Keywords: accounting, CPA exam, online, outcomes
Over recent decades substantial increases in the availability of online education have taken place (Bryant, Kahle, & Schafer, 2005; Redpath, 2012). Affordable personal com-puters and ubiquitous high-speed internet provide a practi-cal means for delivering online (distance) education to ever larger percentages of the student population. Growth in online education is predicted to accelerate in the future (Ng, 2011; Gagne & Shepherd, 2001).
Benefits of online education include greater access to education from any geographic location, flexibility related to asynchronous lecture delivery, and benefits deriving from working from home. Nontraditional students with sig-nificant other work and family obligations are believed to benefit most from these characteristics (Ng, 2011).
Advantages of online education to an educational insti-tution reside in the potential for expanding student recruit-ment because physical location of students is no longer limiting. Online education also has a potential to reduce delivery costs through reduction of physical plant (i.e., fewer requirements for bricks and mortar), and a potential
reduction to faculty costs especially in the case of massive open online courses, a form of online education growing rapidly in popularity in the United States since 2010 (Hu, 2013).
Growth in online education, not surprisingly, also has its critics. Concerns about quality of online education have been expressed by educators, employers, and consumers alike. A large body of academic literature has concerned itself with the quality of online education and whether out-comes are in fact comparable to more traditional face-to-face education. Many regard the issue as unsettled with available empirical evidence contradictory and inconclu-sive (Arbaugh et al., 2009; Bekele & Menchaca, 2008; Sha-char, 2008).
Two relatively recent literature reviews, and one meta-analysis, conclude evidence about the relative quality of online education is hampered by inherent design limita-tions, appears to be dependent on course content and stu-dent characteristics, and remains contentious (Arbaugh et al., 2009; Bekele & Menchaca, 2008; Shachar, 2008).
Public perceptions that online education is inferior to traditional classroom-based education is widespread (Drago, Peltier, Hay, & Hodgkinson, 2005; Metrejean & Noland, 2011). Redpath (2012) provided data showing online delivery of business education is equated with lower quality in the minds of most business educators.
Correspondence should be addressed to John Daniel Morgan, Winona State University, Department of Accounting, P.O. Box 5838, 323C Somsen Hall, Winona, MN 55987, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available online at www.tandfonline.com/vjeb
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1087371
Other research suggests one important moderating factor to comparative outcomes of online education is the nature of course content and whether it is quantitative or qualita-tive. Online course outcomes have been found to be gener-ally more negative in quantitative courses than in qualitative courses (Anstine & Skidmore, 2005; Arbaugh, 2005; Chen, Jones, & Moreland, 2013; Smith, Heindel, & Torres-Ayala, 2008). Research also shows greater student dissatisfaction with online coursework when course content is quantitative rather than qualitative (Arbaugh, 2005; Smith et al., 2008).
Five studies were identified directly comparing online and face-to-face outcomes within a quantitative undergrad-uate business course. All five studies reported significantly lower examination outcomes in online sections taking the same examinations as face-to-face sections (Brown & Lied-holm, 2002; Chen et al., 2013; Lawrence & Singhania, 2004; Stephenson, McGuirk, Zeh, & Watts-Reaves, 2005; Vamosi, Pierce, & Slotkin, 2004).
Other empirical studies directed at qualitative under-graduate business courses have been less conclusive. The predominant finding has been one of no significant differ-ence in outcomes between online and face-to-face course delivery (Estelami, 2012; Redpath, 2012).
MOTIVATION
The preponderance of prior empirical evidence indicates negative outcomes in quantitative undergraduate business courses, which would include most accounting courses. Online students typically score lower on common examina-tion within this particular context. Whether these course-level differences in outcome on common exams translate after four years of university education into more signifi-cant and long lasting negative outcomes affecting students’ ability to advance in their careers or pass professional exams is not well understood. Do these demonstrated course level differences in testing outcomes compound over four years of undergraduate university education in ways that affect events after graduation? For example, is a student’s ability to pass the uniform certified public accoun-tant (CPA) exam after graduation impacted by online edu-cation, or are course level differences relatively unimportant to long-run success and life after graduation?
One possible negative (and career limiting) outcome of online education would be if online education lowers the likelihood of being able to pass the uniform CPA exam and therefore to become a certified as a public accountant. The CPA designation is well known to be positively associated with higher lifetime earnings and better career potentials for accountants ( National Association of State Boards of Accountancy [NASBA], 2014a). A clearer understanding of the relationship between type of accounting education, online versus face-to-face, and CPA exam outcomes is
therefore a useful relationship to describe for students and educators alike.
This study was motivated by the following question: Do demonstrated course-level differences in common exam scores, translate over the four years of undergraduate accounting education into measurable postgraduation diffi-culties in the ability to pass the uniform CPA exam? The question of impact on CPA success after graduation has never been addressed in academic literature. This study uniquely attempts to understand and describe differences between the two types of accounting education from a broader postgraduation CPA exam perspective rather than from the individual undergraduate business course perspec-tive of earlier research.
Faculty at accounting programs across the nation are currently engaged in ongoing discussions regarding the desirability of converting accounting curriculums into online formats. Educational trends appear to be moving in that direction. A clearer understanding of the relationship between CPA exam outcomes of graduates and online edu-cation is clearly relevant to this discussion.
DATA SELECTION
Schools selected and analyzed in this study began with all U.S. colleges and universities intersecting two published databases, and also meeting several other selection criteria noted below. The first database (and starting place), was the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) 2013 Uniform CPA Examination Candidate Per-formance (NASBA, 2014b), the annual publication of this organization. NASBA data reports, by institution, CPA exam outcomes at all U.S. colleges and universities having graduates completing at least five CPA examination testing events during the calendar year (a testing event is a CPA exam section). Schools whose graduates complete fewer than five CPA exam testing events during calendar are not separately identified in NASBA data and therefore could not be included in this study.
The second database whose intersection with the first resulted in an initial sample was Institute of Education Sci-ences, National Center for Education Statistics (Institute of Education Sciences [IES], 2014), an online database of the U.S. Department of Education. This database provides information on all U.S. colleges and universities, including data about the percentage of students completing course-work online, six-year graduation rates by institution, num-ber of accounting bachelor’s degrees granted by institution, average ACT scores of entering freshmen by institution when collected, and other similar institutional information. The Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics database also provided data necessary to identify and exclude two-year community and technical colleges from the sample.
ONLINE VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE EDUCATION 421
The sample resulting from the intersection of these two databases included 894 U.S. colleges and universities which were grouped into one of three categories, online universities, face-to-face universities, or mixed.
In this study, an online university is any college or uni-versity in the sample of 894 schools offering its entire accounting curriculum online, and also having at least 25% of all students completing 100% of their curriculum online.
In this study, a face-to-face university is any college or university in the sample of 894 schools not offering its entire accounting curriculum online and having fewer than 10% of all graduates in any major completing the entire curriculum online.
Mixed universities are all colleges or universities not meeting the definition of either an online university or a face-to-face university. Typically these universities fell somewhere in between in terms of online coursework offered and completed by students.
Based on the operational definitions, 37 online universi-ties were identified. These 37 online universiuniversi-ties granted a total of 6,111 bachelor’s degrees in accounting in 2013 (IES, 2014), and had graduates completing a total of 1,716 sections of the uniform CPA exam in 2013 (NASBA, 2014a).
A total of 384 face-to-face universities were identified. These 384 universities granted a total of 14,383 bachelor’s degrees in accounting in 2013 (IES, 2014), and had gradu-ates completing a total of 37,580 sections of the uniform CPA exam in 2013 (NASBA, 2014b).
RESEARCH METHODS
Analysis in quasiexperimental designs (i.e., designs lacking random assignment of subjects to groups) need to be partic-ularly cognizant of confounds when interpreting results. In the context of this research an important potential confound is systematic difference between the two groups in student selectivity at admission. Student selectivity is a known correlate to CPA exam pass rates, and thus is a potential
confound to interpreting results. Programs having higher student selectivity are known in general to produce gradu-ates with better scores on the uniform CPA exam (Boone, Legoria, Seifert, & Stammerjohan, 2006; Zook & Bremser, 1982). Systematic differences in student selectivity for online and face-to-face accounting programs are known to exist, and therefore potentially confound interpretation of differences in CPA exam pass rates between the two groups. Figure 1 summarizes this relationship.
A proper design for a study of this type must eliminate or greatly reduce expected confounding effects of differential student selectivity at admission between the two types of accounting program. Selectivity of students admitted into most online accounting programs has been found to be min-imal with approximately half of these programs having completely open admission. Face-to-face accounting pro-grams on the other hand are found in most cases to require certain admission standards be met including standardized test scores at a certain level (e.g., ACT or SAT scores), high school GPAs or class ranks in the top third or half of the class, and completion of a college prep curriculum dur-ing high school. Selectivity of students at face-to-face pro-grams, especially in the case of top tier propro-grams, is much higher than selectivity at most online programs.
The ideal design for resolving differences in selectivity across groups is a fully randomized experimental design. Random selection and assignment of subjects to groups ensures subjects do not systematically differ on any other variables except those being studied. While a randomized experiment is the ideal design, it is neither feasible nor ethi-cal in the present context, which is social research outside the laboratory.
An alternate means to eliminate or reduce expected con-founding differences in subjects in a quasiexperimental design lacking randomization, is the use of statistical tech-niques to remove the effects of unwanted confounds. Anal-ysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and stepwise regression are two widely used statistical methods for removing unwanted confounding variables. However, ANCOVA and/or step-wise regression are only possible if data on the confounding FIGURE 1 Student selectivity: A potential confounding variable.
variable is available and reasonably complete. In the pres-ent case, only 13 of the 37 online accounting programs col-lect or report ACT or SAT scores for admission. As ACT scores are the measure of student selectivity most often used in research of this type, and as that data is unavailable for most of the online subjects, ANCOVA and stepwise regression are not an option in the present case.
A third possible approach, when neither random assign-ment nor statistical correction for expected confounds is feasible, is a matched-subjects design (Rubin, 2006). Matched-subjects designs overcome or greatly reduce the effects of an expected confounding variable when other means are not feasible. Matched-subjects designs match subjects in each group on the confounding variable of con-cern to reduce differences between groups on this variable. A matched-subjects design has been employed for this research study.
As noted earlier, a total of 37 online accounting pro-grams and 384 face-to-face accounting propro-grams were identified. The 37 online programs were found to have the following admissions standards: 16 had completely open admission (no ACT scores or any other admission requirements), 13 did require ACT or SAT scores for admission, and eight employed high school transcripts or in-house testing at admission but did not require ACT or SAT scores.
The 37 online accounting programs were matched with 37 face-to-face programs having highly similar admissions standards in the following manner. The 16 online programs with completely open admission were matched with 16 ran-domly selected face-to-face programs also having completely open admission. The 13 online programs requir-ing ACT or SAT scores for admission were matched with 13 randomly selected face-to-face programs requiring and having the same average ACT or SAT scores of admitted students. For example an online program admitting students with an average ACT score of 20.5 was matched with a ran-domly selected face-to-face program admitting students with an average ACT score of 20.5. The final eight online programs that admitted students using high school tscripts and internal testing were matched with eight ran-domly selected face-to-face programs employing similar admission requirements and admitting a similar percentage of applicants. For example, if an online program of this type admitted 70–80% of all applicants, it was matched with a randomly selected face-to-face program that also admitted 70–80% of all applicants. The matched subject design is intended to greatly reduce differences in selectiv-ity across the two types of accounting programs and thereby eliminate or greatly reduce student selectivity as a potential confound to results.
Statistical analyses have been conducted using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine whether CPA exam pass rates are significantly different between online and a matched set of face-to-face schools.
RESULTS
As a baseline for interpreting the results of this study, sev-eral facts should be remembered. First, average CPA exam pass rates for all accounting programs in the 2013 calendar year was 49.5% (NASBA, 2014a). Second, the 384 face-to-face accounting programs identified as face-to-face-to-face-to-face pro-grams in this study have an average CPA exam pass rate of 50%, marginally higher than the national average of 49.5%, an expected outcome since no online programs with lower pass rates are included in this group. Lastly the 37 face-to-face accounting programs selected for matching with the 37 online accounting programs had an average CPA exam pass rate of 44.9%, reflecting the lower student selection criteria used by those schools.
Using an ANOVA, CPA exam pass rates of the 37 online schools are compared to CPA exam pass rates of 37 face-to-face accounting programs matched on the basis of student selectivity at admission. Table 1 summarizes the results of the one-way ANOVA. The null hypothesis is rejected (p<
.05). CPA exam pass rates are different in the two matched groups.
Table 2 provides descriptive statistics. Average CPA exam pass rate of the 37 online accounting programs (35.4%) is well below that of the 37 matched face-to-face accounting programs (44.9%).
Not surprisingly both groups have CPA exam pass rates below the national average pass of 49.5%. This is expected because both groups are comprised of accounting programs with lower student selectivity at admission than normal for most U.S. colleges and universities.
Table 3 reports average six-year graduation rates for each group based on National Center for Education Statis-tics (IES, 2014). Students at the 37 online schools have sig-nificantly lower average six-year graduation rates than students at the 37 matched face-to-face schools. Six-year graduation rates at the online schools are only 74% of the matched face-to-face schools.
Table 4 reports number of CPA exam sections completed per graduate of each group expressed as a ratio of bachelor’s degrees in accounting granted in 2013 (IES, 2014; NASBA, 2014b). Graduates from online accounting programs attempted to take CPA exam sections at a much lower ratios than graduates of the 37 matched face-to-face schools.
TABLE 1
Analysis of Variance (37 Online Programs With 37 Matched Face-to-Face Accounting Programs)
Dependent variable Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Between groups 1662.034 1 1662.034 5.683 .02*
Within groups 21058.538 72 292.480 Total 22720.571 73
*p.<.05.
ONLINE VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE EDUCATION 423
These data collectively suggest online accounting pro-grams compared to a matched set of 37 face-to-face accounting programs having similar student selectivity, have significantly lower CPA exam pass rates, lower six-year graduation rates, and graduates showing a lower pro-pensity to sit for the CPA exam after graduation. Removing the effects student selectivity at admission reduces the size of these negative outcomes between groups but the differ-ences that remain are still significant in both the statistical and practical sense.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Data describe comparative CPA exam outcomes of online accounting programs to a matched set of face-to-face accounting programs. Results provide persuasive evidence graduates of online accounting programs, on average, have lower scores on the uniform CPA exam than do graduates of the matched set of face-to-face accounting programs. Addi-tionally, online program students have significantly lower six-year average graduation rates than do students at the matched set of face-to-face programs, and online graduates have a much lower propensity to sit for the uniform CPA exam at all. These undesirable outcomes for online educa-tion have implicaeduca-tions for those evaluating the relative costs and benefits of expanding online accounting offerings at their institutions. Even if online programs increase student enrollment to some degree, reduce brick and mortar costs, and potentially reduce faculty costs, online accounting edu-cation also appears to also be associated with the negative outcomes of lower CPA exam pass rates, lower persistence to graduation, lower propensity to sit for the CPA exam after graduation.
Results also have implications for accounting students desiring careers as certified public accountants. If passing
the CPA exam is a goal, online accounting education may not be the best educational choice for achieving that goal.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This study does have limitations that should be noted. Absent random assignment of students to groups, and absent random assignment of teachers to groups, it is not possible with complete confidence to infer reported out-comes are free of confounds. While matching on student selectivity greatly reduces the most obvious confound, a confound documented in prior research as a powerful factor in CPA exam success, other unknown confounds not yet imagined may exist. Students self-select into online and face-to-face educational programs and therefore may poten-tially systematically differ in ways affecting CPA exam outcomes, but not related to form of course delivery. Fac-ulty also self-select into teaching online courses and may also differ systematically from faculty choosing not to par-ticipate in online education. This empirical study has been designed to minimize one obvious and likely confound (systematic differences in student selectivity) but does not fully eliminate the possibility of other confounds. Only through a fully randomized experimental design can all confounds be eliminated with confidence. Unfortunately, in the context of online versus face-to-face accounting educa-tion, fully randomized experiments are not possible and other less satisfactory approaches to eliminating confounds are the best to be hoped for. Open societies rightly provide students the choice of type of education to pursue, and fac-ulty are generally permitted to choose how they wish to provide it. Thus persuasive evidence as opposed to conclu-sive experimental evidence is the best that can be expected in the circumstances. Results of this study (in my opinion), are reasonably persuasive and suggest online accounting TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics (37 Online Programs With 37 Matched Face-to-Face Accounting Programs)
Percentage passing
Dependent variable N M SD SE Lower bound Upper bound Min. Max. Face-to-face programs 37 44.903 19.490 3.204 38.404 51.401 10.0 83.3 Online programs 37 35.424 14.320 2.354 30.650 40.199 12.5 83.3 Total 74 40.164 17.642 2.050 36.076 44.251 10.0 83.3
TABLE 3
Average Graduation Rates: Percentage of Full-Time, First-Time Stu-dents Graduating After 6 Years
Category Graduation rate Face to face (nD37) 44.3% six-year graduation rate
Online (nD37) 33.0% six-year graduation rate
TABLE 4
Average CPA Exam Sections Completed in 2013 Per Accounting Bachelor’s Degree Granted in 2013
Category Ratio
Face to face (nD37) 1.18 sections taken per graduate
Online (nD37) 0.43 sections taken per graduate
education may be associated with some rather important negative outcomes.
This study also should not be generalized to very differ-ent learning contexts. Evidence presdiffer-ented here shows online accounting education is associated with some nega-tive outcomes. It does not automatically follow that all online education in all contexts results in similar negative outcomes. In fact, several published studies show context does matter when comparing outcomes of online and face-to-face learning; courses, fields, and nature of content when comprised of relatively more quantitative material (espe-cially those with complex applications) are associated with larger negative outcomes for online presentation than are courses having relatively more qualitative content (Arbaugh, 2005; Chen et al., 2013). Student characteristics also matter (McLaren, 2004; Xu & Jaggars, 2013).
Another weakness of this study is that nothing in the results reported provide much understanding of whythere appear to be negative outcomes for online accounting educa-tion. Research that develops and elaborates why this relation-ship exists would be useful and informative. Chen et al. (2013) speculated differences in learning outcomes perhaps result from differences in psychological space as described and predicted in transactional distance theory. Watters and Robertson (2009) speculated differential learning outcomes may be moderated by the learning tasks themselves includ-ing the characteristics of course content. Differences in satis-faction and learning outcomes associated with online education appear to be moderated by student learning styles, student personality, motivation, and a variety of demo-graphic factors such as age, gender, and marital status (Beqiri, Chase, & Bishka, 2010; Eom, 2006; Flanagan, 2012; McLaren, 2004). To date academic literature contains mostly speculation with very little empirical evidence in support.
To conclude, this particular study has investigated and described relationships between accounting educational delivery mode, online versus face-to-face, and educational outcomes including CPA exam pass rates, persistence to graduation, propensity to sit for the CPA exam after gradua-tion. The research design has been quasi-experimental. Results provide persuasive though not conclusive evidence that online accounting programs have lower average CPA exam pass rates, lower six-year graduation rates, and gradu-ates with a lower propensity to sit for the CPA exam after graduation than do accounting graduates of face-to-face accounting programs of comparable selectivity.
REFERENCES
Anstine, J., & Skidmore, M. (2005). A small sample study of traditional and online courses with sample selection adjustment.Journal of
Eco-nomic Education, 36,107–127.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). How much does “subject matter” matter? A study of the disciplinary effects in on-line mba courses.Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4,57–73.
Arbaugh, J. B., Godfrey, M. R., Johnson, M., Pollack, B. L., Niendorf, B., & Wresch, W. (2009). Research in online and blended learning in the business disciplines: Key findings and possible future directions.
Inter-net and Higher Education, 12,71–87.
Bekele, T., & Menchaca, M. (2008). Research on internet-supported learn-ing: A review.Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9,373–405. Beqiri, M., Chase, S., & Bishka, A. (2010). Online course delivery.Journal
of Education for Business, 85,95–100.
Boone, J., Legoria, J., Seifert, D., & Stammerjohan, W. (2006). The associ-ations among program attributes, 150 h status and CPA exam pass rates.
Journal of Accounting Education, 24,202–215.
Brown, B. W., & Liedholm, C. E. (2002). Can web courses replace the classroom in principles of microeconomics? American Economic
Review Papers and Proceedings, 92,444–448.
Bryant, S. M., Kahle, J. B., & Schafer, B. A. (2005). Distance education: A review of the contemporary literature.Issues in Accounting Education, 20,255–272.
Chen, C., Jones, K., & Moreland, K. (2013). Online accounting education versus in-class delivery: Does course level matter?Issues in Accounting
Education, 28,1–16.
Drago, W., Peltier, J. W., Hay, A., & Hodgkinson, M. (2005). Dispelling the myths of online education: Learning via the information
superhigh-way.Management Research News, 28(7), 1–17.
Eom, S. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning out-comes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4,
215–235.
Estelami, H. (2012). An exploratory study of the drivers of student satisfac-tion and learning experiences in hybrid-online and purely online market-ing courses.Marketing Education Review, 22,143–155.
Flanagan, J. (2012). Online versus face-to-face instruction: Analysis of gender and course format in undergraduate business statistics courses.
Academy of Business Research Journal, 2,89–98.
Gagne, M., & Shepherd, M. (2001). Distance learning in education.T.H.E.
Journal, 28(9), 58–60.
Hu, H. (2013). MOOC migration: Massive open online courses are chang-ing the way we think about higher education.Diverse: Issues in Higher
Education, 30(4), 10–11.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2014). College navigator [data file]. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/COLLEGENAVIGATOR/?sD
all&lD5&icD1
Lawrence, J., & Singhania, R. (2004). A study of teaching and testing strat-egies for a required statistics course for undergraduate business students.
Journal of Education for Business, 79, 333–338.
McLaren, C. (2004). A comparison of student persistence and performance in online and classroom business statistics experiences.Decision
Scien-ces Journal of Innovative Education, 2,1–10.
Metrejean, E., & Noland, T. (2011). An analysis of CPA firm recruiters’ perceptions of online masters of accounting degrees.Journal of
Educa-tion for Business, 86,25–30.
National Association of State Boards of Accountancy. (2014a).2013
uni-form CPA examination, candidate peruni-formance. Nashville, TN: Author.
National Association of State Boards of Accountancy. (2014b).Five
popu-lar reasons for earning a CPA license. Retrieved from http://nasba.org/
licensure/gettingacpalicense/whygetlicensed/five-popular-reasons-for-earning-a-cpa-license
Ng, C. (2011). Emerging trends in online accounting education at colleges.
Pennsylvania CPA Journal, 82,1–3.
Redpath, L. (2012). Confronting the bias against on-line learning in man-agement education.Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11,125–140.
Rubin, D. (2006). Matched sampling for causal inference. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Shachar, M. (2008). Meta-analysis: The preferred method of choice for the assessment of distance learning quality factors.International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1–15.
ONLINE VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE EDUCATION 425
Smith, G., Heindel, A., & Torres-Ayala, A. (2008). Disciplinary differen-ces in e-learning instructional design: The case of mathematics.Journal
of Distance Education, 22(3), 63–87.
Stephenson, K., McGuirk, A., Zeh, T., & Watts-Reaves, D. (2005). Com-parisons of the educational value of distance delivered versus traditional classroom instruction in introductory agricultural economics.Review of
Agricultural Economics, 27,605–620.
Vamosi, A., Pierce, B., & Slotkin, M. (2004). Distance learning in an accounting principles course—Student satisfaction and perceptions of efficacy.Journal of Education for Business, 79,360–366.
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. (2013). The impact of online learning on students’ course outcomes: Evidence from a large community and technical college system. Economics of Education Review, 37,
46–57.
Watters, M. P., & Robertson, P. J. (2009). Online delivery of accounting courses: Student perceptions.Academy of Educational Leadership Jour-nal, 13(3), 54–60.
Zook, D., & Bremser, W. (1982). A correlation between the characteristics of candidates and performance on the uniform CPA examination.Delta
Pi Epsilon Journal, 24,45–52.
