Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude

Abstract

Financial management skills are a critical and basic requirement for success across a number of professions. Thus, higher education should provide more engaging and inspiring activities to foster students’ financial management skills. This study aims to propose a peer-learning teaching approach in a financial management course to assist students in discussing and learning in small groups as well as in engaging in games and tournaments to achieve their learning goals. The results show that the peer-learning group outperforms the lecture-based group in both final exam scores and semester grades. These findings also reveal that the peer-learning group reports a marginally significant higher score for learning motivation and a more positive attitude toward peer learning than the lecture-based group. Participants’ qualitative feedback highlights that peer learning is the most helpful feature in enhancing students’ overall learning.

Full text

420
I
nt. J. Education Economics and Development, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2020
Copyright © 2020 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Effects of peer learning on learning performance,
motivation, and attitude
Chia-Yu Liu
Department of Educational Psychology and Counselling,
National Taiwan Normal University,
Taipei, Taiwan
Email: leave1756@gmail.com
Hung-Ling Chen*
Department of International Business,
Shih Chien University,
Taipei, Taiwan
Email: chenhub@g2.usc.edu.tw
*Corresponding author
Abstract: Financial management skills are a critical and basic requirement for
success across a number of professions. Thus, higher education should provide
more engaging and inspiring activities to foster students’ financial management
skills. This study aims to propose a peer-learning teaching approach in a
financial management course to assist students in discussing and learning in
small groups as well as in engaging in games and tournaments to achieve their
learning goals. The results show that the peer-learning group outperforms the
lecture-based group in both final exam scores and semester grades. These
findings also reveal that the peer-learning group reports a marginally significant
higher score for learning motivation and a more positive attitude toward peer
learning than the lecture-based group. Participants’ qualitative feedback
highlights that peer learning is the most helpful feature in enhancing students’
overall learning.
Keywords: attitude toward peer learning; financial management skill;
motivation; peer learning; learning performance.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Liu, C-Y. and Chen, H-L.
(2020) ‘Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and
attitude’, Int. J. Education Economics and Development, Vol. 11, No. 4,
pp.420–443.
Biographical notes: Chia-Yu Liu is a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Department
of Educational Psychology and Counselling, National Taiwan Normal
University. Her current themes of research are instructional innovation,
illustrated science text reading, and eye movements. This research was
financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST)
(Grant no: MOST 108-2410-H-003-135-MY3) as well as the ‘Institute for
Research Excellence in Learning Sciences’ of National Taiwan Normal
University (NTNU) from the Featured Areas Research Center Program within
the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of
Education (MOE) in Taiwan.

Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude 421
Hung-Ling Chen is an Associate Professor of the Department of International
Business at the Shih Chien University in Taiwan. This research was financially
supported by the Teaching Practice Research Program of the Ministry of
Education (MOE) (grant no. PBM107151) in Taiwan.
1 Introduction
For learners of the 21st century, knowledge tends to be dynamic and is redefined on a
daily basis. Present-day leaners significantly differ from old-generation ones in their
approach to acquiring information and learning traits. This new generation is also known
as the so-called ‘Generation Y’ or ‘millennials’, who enjoy collaborative learning and
tend to perform tasks using digital technology (Prensky, 2010). Among teaching
strategies, peer learning, with its long history and strong theoretical basis, has had the
most profound outcome. It shifts from teacher-centred learning to learners’ peer learning,
wherein teachers offer only learning material and assistance to promote student learning,
making it the most important learning method in higher education.
Financial management skills are fundamental to various walks of life. According to
Zhang et al.’s (2012) survey of current professionals, financial management is the most
essential skill for achieving success. Financial management courses involve complex
analyses and calculations (e.g., budget planning and firm valuations) but are considered
to be ‘dry’ and ‘boring’ (Mallinson, 2018). This has resulted in poor student performance
with low learning interest in arithmetic. Teachers are generally unable to respond to the
needs of learners with a bimodal distribution of abilities. Moreover, most teachers of
financial management courses adopt a passive teaching approach that primarily employs
a lecture-discussion format. This traditional approach has failed to efficiently engage
students in their meaningful learning of higher education (Lea and Street, 2006).
Therefore, instructors should upgrade their teaching methods and strategies to meet
learners’ needs, which in turn, increase students’ learning outcomes and motivation.
While few studies propose teaching and learning methods for financial management
skills [see Hwang et al. (2015) for game-based learning], ways to facilitate learners’
performances in financial management classes remain far from conclusive.
Numerous studies confirm the positive effects of peer learning on both cognitive and
affective outcomes (Hanson et al., 2016; Liao et al., 2019; Pai et al., 2015; Swanson
et al., 2019; Takahashi and Saito, 2011). By contrast, some empirical research shows that
peer learning can limit learning performances (van Der Meij et al., 2011; Robinson et al.,
2015). Simply put, the findings on the effect of peer learning remain inconclusive and
warrant further clarification.
Thus, this study develops a one-semester financial management course with a
peer-learning approach to examine its effect on university students’ learning outcomes
and motivation levels. The findings reveal that the peer-learning group outperforms the
lecture-based group in terms of both final exam scores and semester grades. In addition,
the peer-learning group reports a marginally higher score for learning motivation and a
more positive attitude. To the effect of qualitative feedback, students in the peer-learning
group confirm that peer learning is the most helpful in enhancing overall learning.
Further, a higher number of students in the peer-learning group report positive feedback

422
C
-Y. Liu and
H
-L. Chen
and intend to enrol in similar courses. This study contributes a modified peer-learning
method that can improve financial skills and confirms that peer learning can indeed
enhance students’ motivation level and attitudes. The research results complement those
on peer learning in the financial management courses.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature
on peer-learning theory and effects. Section 3 describes the methodology and data.
Section 4 presents the results for learning performance, learning motivation, attitude
toward peer learning, and student feedback. Section 5 offers suggestions for future
research. Section 6 concludes the paper.
2 Literature review
2.1 Peer learning theory
For long, the approach of group-based learning has been applied across numerous
domains. Several researchers have proposed terms such as collaborative learning
(Bruffee, 1999), cooperative learning (Herrmann, 2013), and team-based learning
(Michaelsen et al., 2004) to denote group-based instructional methods that allow peers to
help each other learn. This study uses the term peer learning because it is an umbrella
term that encompasses these methods (O’Donnell, 2006). Peer learning is a two-way
reciprocal learning process that involves exploration, thinking, reasoning, and
problem-solving through an exchange of ideas, and mutually benefits members of small
groups (Boud et al., 2014; Keppell et al., 2006).
Peer learning theory is an active learning approach influenced by various theories
(Sawyer et al., 2017). Cognitive developmental theory suggests that students gradually
master learning concepts when they work collaboratively to complete a task. Cognitive
constructivism proposes that individuals must regulate the discrepancy between their
cognitive structures and the social experience of interacting with peers to generate deeper
and meaningful reasoning (Piaget, 1985). Offering better explanations of a concept to
help others understand an idea is a form of information elaboration that helps learners
retain the acquired knowledge (Dignath and Büttner, 2018; Greeno et al., 1996). In sum,
these theories confirm that students develop deeper understanding, learning motivation,
and engagement by cooperating with peers and demonstrating promoting behaviours
(e.g., helping and sharing).
2.2 Critical principles of peer learning
The strategy of peer learning has been widely adopted across various grades and
disciplines. Studies have emphasised several principles to render peer learning effective.
Bartol and Srivastava (2002) and Gomez-Mejia and Franco-Santos (2015), for
example, indicate that group performance rewards are crucial for group members to
collaboratively achieve their goal, which in turn, improves their intrinsic motivation to
learn. Johnson and Johnson (1989, 1994) propose five widely used principles for peer
learning:
• Positive interdependence: Everyone should contribute toward achieving the group’s
goal and positive interdependence is key.

Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude 423
• Face-to-face positive interaction: Students can explain to others ways to obtain the
answer or solution to a question through an interactive process.
• Individual accountability: The performance of every member impacts the group’s
performance. By increasing individual accountability, the effect of social loafing
(i.e., lower individual effort in a group) and the free-rider problem (i.e., benefitting
without exerting effort) can be reduced and every member is likely to master their
learning content.
• Interpersonal and small group skills: Students must learn not only the subject matter
but also how to work with others efficiently. The stronger the interpersonal
communication skills, the better the impact of peer learning.
• Group processing: Students must reflect on their learning performance and
small-group skills in group learning and be open to feedback to ensure consistent
progress.
The above-mentioned principles can be applied to various forms of peer learning such as
the think-pair-share technique or group discussions. Previous research suggests that
successful groups often comprise 2–6 students who can maximise student interactions
and engagement (Barkley et al., 2014). To this effect, Fiechtner and Davis (2016) find
that the homogenous group failed to achieve their learning goals, whereas a
heterogeneous group, comprising students with various learning experiences, allowed
students to share diverse information, demonstrate their own strengths, and consequently,
achieve their goal together.
This study adopts Bartol and Srivastava (2002), Gomez-Mejia and
Franco-Santos (2015), and Johnson and Johnson’s (1989, 1994) principles to develop
peer-learning-based instructions. Further, drawing on Fiechtner and Davis (2016), it
includes four students with different cognitive styles to form heterogeneous groups.
2.3 Peer learning strategies
The literature presents several peer learning strategies including Jigsaw,
teams-games-tournament, student’s team achievement division, team-assisted instruction,
group investigations, collaborative learning, complex instructions, cooperative learning
structures, and cooperative integrated reading and composition.
Among these, Jigsaw is one of the most widely used in books (e.g., Woolfolk, 2017)
and on websites (e.g., jigsaw.org). Jigsaw was originally developed by Aronson et al.
(1978). Aronson et al. encourage students to interdependenly learn material in a manner
similar to solving a jigsaw puzzle, wherein everyone contributes an important piece.
Jones and Steinbrink (1989) subsequently modify Jigsaw to Jigsaw III by incorporating a
cooperative test review to benefit student learning. The teaching process includes the
following steps. First, the instructor divides students into small groups. Once the learning
material has been divided, each student is assigned one subset. The students who have
been assigned the same subset then form an ‘expert group’ and discuss the material with
one another. Once this step is complete, the students return to their original groups to
discuss the topic with their peers. Next, students collaboratively prepare for a quiz on all
the material. Finally, students receive their quiz scores and group performance reward.

424
C
-Y. Liu and
H
-L. Chen
This strategy emphasises individual responsibility in the original jigsaw groups to boost
every member’s contribution to the group work.
Another commonly used strategy is teams-games-tournament developed by DeVries
and Slavin (1978). The teaching process involves the following steps. First, a teacher
gives a class presentation. Second, students learn in groups to master the learning content
and complete their assignments. Third, the students join the tournament and their
performance is converted into group points. Finally, individual and team scores are
compared and the winner receives a reward. This strategy emphasises assigning students
of equal achievement to compete for team points.
Accordingly, this study develops financial management instructions for university
students by integrating Jigsaw III and the teams-games-tournament approach and then
examines the effect. In particular, low-ability students should learn and comprehend the
material from high-ability ones or the expert group. Further, student engagement should
increase with the teams-games-tournament approach.
2.4 Effects of peer learning on students
Several studies demonstrate the positive effects of peer learning on academic
achievement (Liao et al., 2019; Roseth et al., 2019; Swanson et al., 2019), learning
motivation (Fernandez-Rio et al., 2016; Plass et al., 2013), and classroom engagement
(Hanson et al., 2016).
Roseth et al. (2019) compare a Jigsaw group and control group in an undergraduate
human anatomy laboratory. The results indicate that, compared to the control group,
Jigsaw students perform significantly better in academic achievement and relational
regulation. Further, the authors suggest that increased cooperation and decreased social
comparison are necessary to promote students’ learning. Plass et al. (2013) compare the
effect of playing modes (i.e., individual, competitive, and collaborative) in an educational
mathematics videogame on eight graders’ mathematical learning. Students in the
collaborative mode report higher enjoyment, situational interest, and mastery goal
orientation than the other groups. In addition, the findings reveal that students in the
collaborative mode intend to re-engage in the game or recommend it to others.
On the other hand, some studies show that peer learning offers no learning advantage
(Chen et al., 2015; Robinson et al., 2015; ver der Meij et al., 2011). Chen et al. (2015),
for example, develop a game-based physical learning environment and then compare the
effects of its play modes (i.e., solitary and collaborative) on seventh graders’ conceptual
understanding in and motivation to learn science. The results show no significant
differences between the two groups in terms of academic achievement; however, both
groups report significant improvement between the pre- and post-test. ver der Meij et al.
(2011) examine the impact of playing a commercial game in pairs and individually on
university students’ knowledge and game engagement. An analysis of dialogues among
the pairs reveals that a majority of the dialogues involved superficial game features and
that working in pairs had no positive impact on knowledge test scores and game
engagement.
However, existing meta-analyses on peer learning present contradictory results. Pai
et al. (2015), for example, conduct a meta-analysis of 24 studies and find that, even in the
absence of external structures (e.g., scripts or rewards), students report higher
performance in transfer tasks that are based on peer learning than on individual learning.
On the contrary, Slavin (1990) suggests that approximately 10–40% studies on peer

Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude 425
learning show no statistically significant result. Thus, research on the effect of peer
learning strategies on improving students’ learning remains inconclusive.
2.5 Research questions
This study adopts a peer-learning approach that incorporates Jigsaw III and the
teams-games-tournament technique as well as several critical peer-learning principles
(Bartol and Srivastava, 2002; Gomez-Mejia and Franco-Santos, 2015; Johnson and
Johnson, 1989, 1994) to foster students’ financial management skills. The course aims to
examine the effects of various learning approaches, that is, lectures and peer learning, on
students’ learning outcomes and motivation. First, we examine the impact of the courses
on students’ learning performance and compare students’ final exam scores and semester
grades as robustness tests. Second, we explore the effects of the learning approaches on
students’ affective performance (i.e., learning motivation and attitude toward peer
learning). Finally, we analyse students’ qualitative feedback to determine their opinions
about the financial management course.
3 Methodology and data
3.1 Participants and design
This study facilitates a comparable situation to measure the impact of the peer-learning
approach on students’ learning outcomes and motivation levels in a financial
management course. That is, a teacher is required to teach two classes and should have
sufficient teaching experience to understand the difference between teaching and
peer-learning effects. The courses in this study are taught by a colleague who is an
associate professor in the international business department and has 16 years of teaching
experience in northern Taiwan. She is responsible for addressing student questions
regarding financial management theory and collecting measurement and questionnaire
data.
Financial management is a compulsory subject for sophomore students of the
international business department. The study requires all students to have previously
enrolled in economics, accounting, and statistics classes to ensure a consistent level of
basic business knowledge and that the participants are capable of understanding and
participating in the course. Of the initial 121 students, five students who did not take
relevant business courses were excluded. Thus, 116 students participated in the two
financial management courses of this study. The two classes are randomly assigned to the
peer-learning (n = 56) and lecture-based (n = 60) groups. The students’ ages range from
19 to 20 years. Approximately 71% of the total student population is female. Prior to the
course initiation, students from both groups are subjected to a hidden figures test (Wu,
1974) and on the basis of the results, are assigned to two subgroups: high- and
low-performance groups. Drawing on Barkley et al. (2014), the instructor randomly
assigns four students to the groups to confirm the acceptable number of students in each
group. To form heterogeneous groups as Fiechtner and Davis (2016) suggested, each
group comprises two students from the high-performance group and two from the
low-performance group.

426
C
-Y. Liu and
H
-L. Chen
We find no evidence of differences between the groups on the basis of students’ prior
semester grades, F(1, 98) = –0.77, p = 0.443, and pre-test on learning achievement, F(1,
114) = 0.46, p = 0.644, which supports the efficacy of the random assignment. While
there are significantly more female than male students in this sample, χ2(1, n = 258)
= 19.86, p < 0.001, we identify no significant difference between the number of male and
female students in each condition, χ2(1, n = 116) = 2.14, p = 0.143.
3.2 Course design
For this study, the financial management course aims to develop students’ familiarity
with corporation financial investments and management and to help them apply this
knowledge to personal finance management. The course content is based on a financial
management textbook and is accompanied by eight topics (e.g., time value of money)
with the most recent case studies.
Following the incorporation of Jigsaw III (Jones and Steinbrink, 1989), the
teams-games-tournaments technique (DeVries and Slavin, 1978), and Johnson and
Johnson’s (1989, 1994) five principles, our teaching steps for the peer-learning group are
as follows.
1 After the pre-tests, the instructor assigns the students to small groups, introduces the
peer-learning approach, and divides the learning material; each student is responsible
for one subset.
2 The students must read the learning material, especially that for their own subset.
3 Students assigned to the same subset form an expert group and discuss the material
with the other members. In the expert groups, the ‘face-to-face positive interaction’
and ‘interpersonal and small group skills’ principles are emphasised.
4 Students then return to their original groups to teach the others using principles
similar to those in the former step.
5 The students prepare for a quiz on the material with the other group members and the
‘positive interdependence’ principle is adopted.
6 The students complete their own quiz.
7 They join the tournament as a group to solve certain integrated problems. There are
four problems with four grades of difficulties. Each problem has a time limit of 5, 6,
7, and 8 minutes. Every member is responsible for one problem and the group
members solve the problems in turns. The faster they solve the problems, the higher
is their score.
8 As suggested by the ‘individual accountability’ principle and Bartol and Srivastava
(2002) and Gomez-Mejia and Franco-Santos (2015), group and personal
performance is recognised and rewarded at the end of the competition.
9 The students complete the post-tests and reflect on their learning performance and
small-group skills through a feedback questionnaire, which is in line with the ‘group
processing’ principle. Steps 1–3 are performed in the first two classes of each topic
and steps 4–6 are executed in the last two classes. Steps 7–9 are executed in the last
week of the school term.

Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude 427
In the lecture-based group, on the other hand, the teacher conduct lectures for all the
courses and related cases and the students seldom discuss the topics in groups. The
students are then asked to independently complete their worksheets and quiz and must
attempt a final exam at the end of the course.
3.3 Variables measurement
3.3.1 Learning performances
This study develops a financial management test to evaluate participants’ learning
performance before and after the course. A financial management professor was invited
to adjust this measurement by ensuring the wording and content are appropriate for
university students. The measurement is further adapted to the results of a pilot test
conducted with five university students. The test comprises 16 multiple-choice questions
and the possible scores range between 0 and 16. Following is a sample comprehension
question: “What is the difference between nominal interest rate and effective annual rate?
Please choose the correct answer: (a) inflation rate (b) calculation (c) price level, and (d)
compounding frequency.” Finally, students’ academic achievements (i.e., final exam
scores and semester grades) are estimated, each with a score ranging from 0 to 100.
3.3.2 Learning motivation questionnaire
This study adopts Pintrich et al.’s (1993) motivation scale, motivated strategies for
learning questionnaire, to examine participants’ attitudes before and after the courses. A
financial management professor and several university students were invited to check the
questionnaire wording and content, which is similar to editing measurements for learning
achievement. Each question offers the following responses with scores ranging from 1 to
7: strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, neutral, slightly agree,
moderately agree, and strongly agree. A higher score indicates higher learning motivation
and vice versa. The questionnaire comprises 35 questions and is divided into eight
dimensions: ‘intrinsic goal orientation’, ‘external goal orientation’, ‘work value’,
‘internal locus of control’, ‘external locus of control’, ‘self-efficacy in learning’, ‘success
expectation’, and ‘self-perception’. Cronbach’s
α
for the overall questionnaire is 0.92.
Cronbach’s
α
for external locus of control is only 0.50, while those for the other
dimensions range between 0.73 and 0.91. Despite the relatively low Cronbach’s
α
for
external locus of control, the overall reliability is satisfactory. A sample question of
‘self-efficacy in learning’ is as follows: “I am confident about learning the basic concepts
of this course”.
3.3.3 Questionnaire on attitude toward peer learning
This study conducts Nam and Zellner’s (2011) student attitude assessment to understand
the effect of the courses on the participants’ attitudes towards peer learning before and
after the courses. Participants can choose one of the following responses to each question
with scores ranging between 1 and 5: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and
strongly agree. A higher score indicates a more positive attitude toward peer learning and
vice versa. The questionnaire comprises 15 questions and only one dimension.
Cronbach’s
α
is 0.97, which demonstrates that the questionnaire has good reliability. The

428
C
-Y. Liu and
H
-L. Chen
following is a sample question: “Collaborating with others helps me come up with more
ideas.”
3.3.4 Course feedback questionnaire
The feedback questionnaire for the two groups includes three open-ended questions. The
items include “Please describe a course feature that was the most helpful to you.” “Please
provide overall feedback or specific recommendations to improve the course.” “Would
you engage in courses with similar learning approaches?” In addition, the survey poses an
open-ended question on the peer-learning group’s attitude toward group collaboration.
3.4 Procedure
The course is conducted for one semester. All students participate in the course for two
hours per week. In the first week, students are given the course instructions. Following
the hidden figures test, the students are subjected to pre-tests including a learning
achievement measurement, learning motivation questionnaire, and questionnaire on
attitude toward peer learning. From the 2nd to the 16th week, the peer-learning group
works with others to develop their financial management skills, while the lecture-based
group mainly learns through the teacher-led didactic method and few group discussions.
In the 17th week, the peer-learning group engages in the teams-games-tournament
approach and completes a final exam, while the lecture-based group attempts a final
exam. Finally, students are given the learning achievement measurement, learning
motivation questionnaire, and questionnaire on attitude toward peer learning as post-tests.
In addition, they provide feedback on the course using a questionnaire.
3.5 Data analysis
This study conducts a series of analyses to answer the first research question on how the
courses impact students’ learning performance. First, we perform an analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) to examine students’ performance in the financial management
tests under different group conditions. Since the homogeneity assumption for the
regression slope is not met (p = 0.029), we adopt two independent sample t-tests to
examine the difference between the two groups in terms of the financial management pre-
and post-tests. Then, a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) is performed to
explore the two groups’ financial management performance in the pre- and post-tests. In
addition, an independent sample t-test is adopted to compare the final exam scores
between the two groups given the violation of the homogeneity assumption (p = 0.024).
As a robustness test, we perform an additional ANCOVA to examine students’ semester
grades under different group conditions. To answer the second research question on the
courses’ impact on students’ affective performance, this study performs two ANCOVAs
to compare learning motivation and attitude toward peer learning between the two
groups. Finally, to address the third research question on students’ feedback after the
course, we analyse the experiment group’s feedback to determine their attitude toward
group collaboration. Several chi-square tests are also performed to compare the groups’
opinions about the courses.

Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude 429
4 Results
4.1 Learning performances
4.1.1 Financial management test
The results of the independent sample t-test shows no significant difference between the
two groups in terms of the financial management pre-test, t(114) = 0.46, p = 0.644. In
addition, the difference between the two groups in terms of the financial management
post-test is insignificant, t(114) = 1.01, p = 0.317 (Table 1). Next, a repeated measures
ANOVA with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction was adopted to examine the financial
management performance of the two groups between the pre- and post-test. The results
suggest that performance in the financial management tests significantly differ between
time points, F(1, 114) = 68.37, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.38, indicating a large effect size.
In other words, over time, performance in the financial management tends to vary for
both groups. In the lecture-based group, participants report significant improvement from
the pre- to post-test (M = 5.88, 8.17, SD = 2.72, 2.55). In the peer-learning group as well,
participants show significant improvement from the pre- to post-test (M = 5.64, 8.64,
SD = 2.87, 2.55).
Table 1 Independent sample t-test results for financial management test and final exam score
by group condition
Measurement Group n Mean SD t
Financial management test Peer-learning 56 8.64 2.54 1.01
Lecture-based 60 8.17 2.55
Final exam score Peer-learning 56 68.16 26.73 2.82 ***
Lecture-based 60 54.04 27.25
Note: ***p < 0.001
4.1.2 Academic achievement
As previously mentioned, we find no significant difference in the financial management
pre-test scores between the two groups, and thus, we conduct an independent t-test to
compare the final exam scores between the two groups. Table 1 indicates that the final
exam score of the peer-learning group is significantly higher than that of the
lecture-based group, t(114) = 2.82, p = 0.006.
Table 2 ANCOVA results for semester grade, learning motivation, and attitude toward peer
learning by group condition
Measurement Group n Adj. M S. err. F value Partial η2
Semester grade Peer-learning 56 85.85 1.86 14.40 0.11
Lecture-based 60 76.04 1.79
Learning motivation Peer-learning 56 4.79 0.09 3.36 0.03
Lecture-based 60 4.55 0.09
Attitude toward peer
learning
Peer-learning 56 4.05 0.09 14.49 0.11
Lecture-based 60 3.57 0.09

430
C
-Y. Liu and
H
-L. Chen
Students’ semester grades are used to conduct a robustness test. An ANCOVA is
performed since the homogeneity of the regression coefficients is met (p = 0.074). As
shown in Table 2, the final exam score for the peer-learning group is significantly higher
than that of the lecture-based group, F(1, 112) = 14.40, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.11,
indicating a medium-to-large effect size (Cohen, 1969). Thus, the robustness test verifies
the positive effect of the peer-learning approach on learning performance.
4.2 Learning motivation
We conduct an ANCOVA since the homogeneity of the regression coefficients is met
(p = 0.220). The results in Table 2 indicate that the peer-learning group’s learning
motivation score in the post-test is marginally and significantly higher than that of the
lecture-based group, F(1, 112) = 3.36, p = 0.069, partial η2 = 0.03, indicating a
small-to-medium effect size (Cohen, 1969).
4.3 Attitude toward peer learning
An ANCOVA is performed since homogeneity in the regression coefficients is achieved
(p = 0.051). The results in Table 2 indicate that the peer-learning group’s score is
significantly higher than that of the lecture-based group, F(1, 112) = 14.49, p < 0.001,
partial η2 = 0.11, indicating a medium-to-large effect size (Cohen, 1969).
4.4 Students’ feedback
We administer a feedback questionnaire, which includes four open-ended questions,
following course completion to analyse students’ attitude toward the course. ‘L’ refers
the lecture-based group and ‘P’ to the peer-learning group. The numbers following each
letter is the participants’ identification code.
Table 3 presents the rate of students who mention group collaboration, indicating the
peer-learning group’s attitude toward the concept. Almost half the participants in the
peer-learning group confirm this approach facilitates discussions with other classmates
and thus, could improve learner engagement. Some of the responses are as follows: “I can
discuss the answers with my group members when I am uncertain. Besides, it is easier to
solve problems by discussing it with others rather than figuring it out by myself” (P22)
and “I can learn with the others and engage in some efficient learning strategies” (P09).
While 14.3% participants suggest that learning in groups is beneficial, 8.9% state that the
absence of a group member and low motivation negatively affect their learning
performance. To this effect, a participant mentions, “I like this learning approach, but if
the group members are often absent or late for class, it is unfair to the other members”
(P06). This highlights the need to carefully structure and guide collaboration within
groups.
Next, we conduct several chi-square tests on the homogeneity of proportions for the
remaining three open-ended questions. Table 4 presents the descriptive data for the
participants’ responses to the questions. We find no significant difference in the most
helpful feature between the two groups, χ2 = 5.84, p = 0.211. Nevertheless, it is
noteworthy that the rate of students in the peer-learning group who suggest learning
within groups is the most helpful feature is 26.80%, which is twice that of students with a
similar view in the lecture-based group. For example, a participant states, “Collaborating

Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude 431
with others is the most helpful feature for me. Although I did not get a very good grade, I
learned more in this course than in the others” (P04) and “I could find the answer sooner
when I discussed it with the others” (P34). This suggests that collaborating and learning
with peers is helpful for learners.
Table 3 Attitude toward group collaboration in peer-learning group
Participants’ report Percentage (%)
I can discuss and be familiar with others. 46.4
It can increase the classroom engagement. 19.6
As a whole, this approach is beneficial. 14.3
Absence of a group member and low motivation need to be solved. 8.9
I can learn how to collaborate with others. 3.6
I felt a bit of pressure in this class. 3.6
I think it is time-wasting. 1.8
No comment. 1.8
Table 4 Results for two groups’ responses to three open-ended questions
Participants’ report
Peer-learning
group Lecture-based
group
n % n %
The most helpful feature of the course
The course content. 30 53.30 32 53.60
The peer-learning approach. 15 26.80 8 13.30
The teaching method. 8 14.30 14 23.30
The learning resources. 3 5.40 4 6.70
Nothing. 0 0.00 2 3.30
The feedback and recommendations
Feedback
Teacher provided clear instructions. 23 41.10 16 26.70
The course content was fascinating. 5 8.90 4 6.70
Good in every aspect. 17 30.40 4 6.70
Recommendation
The way of peer-learning should be improved. 8 14.30 7 11.70
The instruction/practice should be increased. 1 1.80 6 10.00
The teaching pace should be slower. 0 0.00 3 5.00
The facility/roll call should be improved. 0 0.00 4 6.70
No comments. 2 3.60 16 26.70
Attend courses with similar learning approach
Yes. 49 87.50 40 66.70
No. 5 8.90 12 20.00
I am not sure. 2 3.60 8 11.70

432
C
-Y. Liu and
H
-L. Chen
We examine the overall feedback or recommendations for the course and find a
significant difference between the two groups, χ2 = 30.84, p < 0.001. The post hoc
pair-wise comparisons reveal that 30.40% of the peer-learning group believes the course
is ‘good in every aspect’, which is a significantly higher rate compared with that for the
lecture-based group (6.70%). For instance, a participant reports, “This learning approach
makes everyone attentive and helps them focus in class. I really love this way of learning!
It is very interesting” (P18). About 6.70% of the lecture-based group suggests that
improving the facility and roll call, which is a significantly higher rate than that for the
peer-learning group (0.00%). For instance, a participant mentions, “The roll call time
should be more flexible” (L51). In addition, the proportion of ‘no comments’ is
significantly higher for the lecture-based group (26.70%) than the peer-learning group
(3.60%).
As for whether the participants would attend courses with a similar learning
approach, we find a marginally significant difference between the two groups, χ2 = 7.44,
p = 0.059. The post hoc comparisons reveal that the rate of participants in the
peer-learning group (87.50%) willing to attend courses with a similar learning approach
is marginally significant higher than that of participants in the lecture-based group
(66.70%).
5 Discussion
This study finds that the peer-learning group does not differ from the lecture-based group
in terms of the financial management post-test, thus addressing the first research
question. Nevertheless, both groups report significant improvement from the pre-test to
the post-test. As for the second research question, the post-test score in terms of learning
motivation is marginally significant higher for the peer-learning group than the
lecture-based group. Further, the peer-learning group reports significantly higher scores
in the post-test for attitude toward peer learning than the lecture-based group. In response
to the third research question, the peer-learning group states that the learning approach
helps them discuss and familiarise themselves with the other classmates as well as
increases their engagement in the course. Further, the rate of participants in the
peer-learning group who state that the course is ‘good in every aspect’ is significantly
higher than the lecture-based group. We also find that the willingness to attend similar
courses is marginally significant higher in the peer-learning group than in the
lecture-based group.
While there is no significant difference between the two groups in financial
management skills, both groups demonstrate improvements. This can be attributed to the
practice effect originating from the use of similar content and question types in the
financial management pre- and post-tests. However, the final exam and semester
assessments evaluate the holistic learning performance of participants, allowing us to
demonstrate the effect of the peer-learning approach. The findings are in line with those
of previous research (Liao et al., 2019; Roseth et al., 2019; Swanson et al., 2019). In
addition, the peer-learning approach allows low-ability learners to learn and understand
financial management material with help from high-ability learners, thus improving
students’ learning performance and reducing individual differences within the classroom.
As for the impact of peer learning approaches on students’ affective performance, the
results show that the peer learning approach benefits students’ learning motivation and

Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude 433
attitude toward peer learning. The peer-learning group demonstrates significantly higher
learning motivation and attitude toward peer learning compared with the lecture-based
group. This result is similar to those of Fernandez-Rio et al. (2016) and Plass et al.
(2013). Simply put, the peer-learning approach can increase positive cooperation between
peers and thus, the students are more willing to learn financial management material and
collaborate with their peers.
To the effect of qualitative feedback, a higher number of students in the peer-learning
group provide positive feedback and intend to join similar courses, whereas more
students in the lecture-based group propose suggestions for improvement or no comment.
Aligned with Plass et al.’s (2013) finding, our results demonstrate that peer learning
evokes greater feelings of enjoyment and a positive attitude by enriching students’
learning experiences, and thus, strengthen their intention to attend similar courses. In
addition, some students suggest improvements to the collaborative mode, particularly
increasing group members’ willingness to commit to learning goals. In this study, the
critical peer-learning principles of ‘individual accountability’ and ‘group processing’
(Johnson and Johnson, 1989, 1994) are applied until the tournament technique and final
feedback questionnaire are administered. Thus, students are unaware that individual
contributions impact group performances. In addition, students receive positive feedback
for their contribution to the group and are given the opportunity to reflect on the
feedback. In general, a group-based collaboration should be carefully planned and must
provide students with adequate time to familiarise themselves with the collaborative
mode. Doing so gives learners easier access to the benefits of peer learning.
6 Conclusions and future research
This study proposes an innovative and practical design for an 18-week financial
management course by integrating Jigsaw III (Jones and Steinbrink, 1989) and the
teams-games-tournament technique (DeVries and Slavin, 1978) and adopting critical
peer-learning principles (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002; Gomez-Mejia and Franco-Santos,
2015; Johnson and Johnson, 1989, 1994). The pre- and post-test as well as the random
assignment of small groups in both the peer-learning and lecture-based groups help us
confirm that the differences between the two groups can be attributed to intervention. For
example, financial statement analyses and calculations can become interesting tasks
through collaboration and discussions with peers, allowing learners with various abilities
to progressively master the learning material.
This study inspires future research in the following three directions. First, this study
applies the peer-learning approach to financial management. Future research could
consider other business courses (e.g., market microstructure and portfolio management)
to examine the generalisability of our findings. Second, we adopt measurements and
questionnaires to examine participants’ cognitive and affective performances. Additional
process data (e.g., biometrics, eye tracking, or dialogues) should be collected and
analysed to understand learners’ behaviours under the peer-learning mode. Finally,
previous studies indicate that learners’ characteristics influence the effect of peer learning
(Chen et al., 2015; Prinsen et al., 2007). For example, mismatched personalities can cause
group conflicts and reduce learning performance. Researchers should, thus, account for

434
C
-Y. Liu and
H
-L. Chen
learners’ characteristics and explore the effect of group composition on participants’
learning outcomes.
References
Aronson, E., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., Blaney, N. and Snapp, M. (1978) The Jigsaw Classroom, Sage
Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Barkley, E.F., Cross, K.P. and Major, C.H. (2014) Collaborative Learning Techniques: A
Handbook for College Faculty, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002) ‘Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational
reward systems’, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.64–76.
Boud, D., Cohen, R. and Sampson, J. (2014) Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from
and with Each Other, Kogan Page Limited, UK.
Bruffee, K.A. (1999) Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the
Authority of Knowledge, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore MD.
Chen, C.H., Wang, K.C. and Lin, Y.H. (2015) ‘The comparison of solitary and collaborative modes
of game-based learning on students’ science learning and motivation’, Educational
Technology and Society, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.237–248.
Cohen, J. (1969) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, Academic Press, New
York.
DeVries, D.L. and Slavin, R.E. (1978) ‘Teams-games-tournaments (TGT): review of ten classroom
experiment’, Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.28–38.
Dignath, C. and Büttner, G. (2018) ‘Teachers’ direct and indirect promotion of self-regulated
learning in primary and secondary school mathematics classes-insights from video-based
classroom observations and teacher interviews’, Metacognition Learning, Vol. 13, No. 1,
pp.127–157.
Fernandez-Rio, J., Sanz, N., Fernandez-Cando, J. and Santos, L. (2016) ‘Impact of a sustained
cooperative learning intervention on student motivation’, Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.89–105.
Fiechtner, S.B. and Davis, E.A. (2016) ‘Republication of ‘why some groups fail: a survey of
students’ experiences with learning groups’, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 40,
No. 1, pp.12–29.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R. and Franco-Santos, M. (2015) ‘Creating a culture of collaboration, innovation,
and performance through team-based incentives’, in Berger, L.A. and Berger, D. (Eds.): The
Compensation Handbook, pp.199–210, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M. and Resnick, L.B. (1996) ‘Cognition and learning’, in Berliner, D. and
Calfee, R. (Eds.): Handbook of Educational Psychology, pp.15–46, Macmil, New York.
Hanson, J.M., Trolian, T.L., Paulsen, M.B. and Pascarella, E.T. (2016) ‘Evaluating the influence of
peer learning on psychological well-being’, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 21, No. 2,
pp.191–206.
Herrmann, K.J. (2013) ‘The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: results from an
intervention’, Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.175–187.
Hwang, G.J., Chiu, L.Y. and Chen, C.H. (2015) ‘A contextual game-based learning approach to
improving students’ inquiry-based learning performance in social studies courses’, Computers
and Education, Vol. 81, No. 1, pp.13–25.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1989) ‘Toward a cooperative effort: a response to Slavin’,
Educational Leadership, Vol. 46, No. 7, pp.80–81.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1994) Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive
and Individualistic Learning, 4th ed., Interaction Book Company, Edina MN.

Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude 435
Jones, R.M. and Steinbrink, J.E. (1989) ‘Using cooperative groups in science teaching’, School
Science and Mathematics, Vol. 89, No. 7, pp.541–551.
Keppell, A, Au, E., Ma, A. and Chan, C. (2006) ‘Peer learning and learning‐oriented assessment in
technology‐enhanced environments’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 31,
No. 4, pp.453–464.
Lea, M.R. and Street, B.V. (2006) ‘The ‘academic literacies’ model: theory and applications’,
Theory into Practice, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp.368–377.
Liao, C.W., Chen, C.H. and Shih, S.J. (2019) ‘The interactivity of video and collaboration for
learning achievement, intrinsic motivation, cognitive load, and behavior patterns in a digital
game-based learning environment’, Computers and Education, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp.43–55.
Mallinson, D.J. (2018) ‘Teaching public administration in the age of austerity using simulations’,
Teaching Public Administration, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.110–125.
Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A.B. and Fink, L.D. (2004) Team-Based Learning: A Transformative
Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, Stylus, Sterling, VA.
Nam, C.W. and Zellner, R.D. (2011) ‘The relative effects of positive interdependence and group
processing on student achievement and attitude in online cooperative learning’, Computers
and Education, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp.689–699.
O’Donnell, A.M. (2006) ‘The role of peers and group learning’, in Alexander, P.A. and
Winnie, P.H. (Eds.): Handbook of Educational Psychology, pp.781–802, Erlbaum, Mahwah,
NJ.
Pai, H.H., Sears, D.A. and Maeda, Y. (2015) ‘Effects of small-group learning on transfer: a
meta-analysis’, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.79–102.
Piaget, J. (1985) The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., García, T. and McKeachie, W.J. (1993) ‘Reliability and predictive
validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ)’, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp.801–813.
Plass, J.L., O’Keefe, P.A., Homer, B.D., Case, J., Hayward, E.O., Stein, M. and Perlin, K. (2013)
‘The impact of individual, competitive, and collaborative mathematics game play on learning,
performance, and motivation’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 4,
pp.1050–1066.
Prensky, M. (2010) Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning, Sage, London.
Prinsen, F., Volman, M.L.L. and Terwel, J. (2007) ‘The influence of learner characteristics on
degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment’, British Journal of Educational
Technology, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp.1037–1055.
Robinson, L., Harris, A. and Burton, R. (2015) ‘Saving face: managing rapport in a problem based
learning group’, Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.11–24.
Roseth, C.J., Lee, Y.K. and Saltarelli, W.A. (2019) ‘Reconsidering jigsaw social psychology:
longitudinal effects on social interdependence, sociocognitive conflict regulation, motivation,
and achievement’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 111, No. 1, pp.149–169.
Sawyer, J.E., Obeid, R., Bublitz, D. et al. (2017) ‘Which forms of active learning are most
effective: cooperative learning, writing-to-learn, multimedia instruction, or some
combination?’, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 4,
pp.257–271.
Slavin, R.E. (1990) ‘Cooperative learning models: embedding cooperative learning in the
curriculum and the school’, in Sharen, S. (Eds.): Cooperating Learning Theory and Research,
pp.260–280, Praeger, NY.
Swanson, E., McCulley, L.V., Osman, D.J. et al. (2019) ‘The effect of team-based learning on
content knowledge: a meta-analysis’, Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 20, No. 1,
pp.39–50.

436
C
-Y. Liu and
H
-L. Chen
Takahashi, S. and Saito, E. (2011) ‘Changing pedagogical styles: a case study of the trading game
in a Japanese university’, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.401–412.
van Der Meij, H., Alberts, E. and Leemkuil, H. (2011) ‘Learning from games: does collaboration
help?’, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp.655–664.
Woolfolk, A. (2017) Educational Psychology, 13th ed., Pearson, Boston, MA.
Wu, J.J. (1974) Embedded-Figures Test, in Chinese, Yuan-Liou Publishing Co., Ltd., Taipei.
Zhang, Y., Lee, R. and Yang, K. (2012) ‘Knowledge and skills for policy making: stories from
local public managers in Florida’, Journal of Public Affairs Education, Vol. 18, No. 1,
pp.183–208.
Appendix A
Learning performance questionnaire
Learning performance test on financial management course
Dear students,
The main purpose of this questionnaire is to understand how well your ability in learning.
It will take you about 15 minutes to do this survey. The result of the survey will be
analysed at the end of the semester. Please feel free because this survey will not be
concluded in the score at the end of the semester. Thanks for your cooperation.
B
asic information
N
ame:
Student ID:
Date:
1 Business organisations can usually be divided into
a Sole proprietorship, partnerships, and corporation
b Limited liability company and limited partnership
c Limited liability company, limited partnership, and limited company
d Limited liability company, limited partnership, limited company, and unlimited
company
2 What is the main purpose of financial accounting?
a To strengthen company internal control and prevent fraud.
b To provide information on taxable income approved by tax authorities.
c To provide reference information for investors and creditors to make decisions.
d To provide company management financial information for decision making.
3 What is the basic assumption that enterprises should distinguish between long-term
and short-term liabilities?
a Timeliness
b Going concern assumption
c Verifiability
d Materiality

Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude 437
4 Which of the following statements is correct?
a The cash flows statement informs a company’s cash changes at a certain point in
time.
b The income statement represents a company’s operating performance at a certain
point in time, including how much revenue it produces and how much expense it
incurs.
c Stakeholders include investors, creditors, managers, employees, suppliers,
customers, governments, accountants, etc. The relationship between these
individuals and the enterprise is two-way.
d Companies are not allowed to flexibly apply generally accepted accounting
principles without affecting the usefulness of the reported information.
5 How long is the period to distinguish between current and non-current liabilities?
a One year
b Two years
c Three years
d Five years
6 What is the account form of the balance sheet based on?
a Assets – liabilities = equity
b Assets = liabilities – equity
c Assets = liabilities + equity
d Assets – liabilities = equity
7 What does the equipment of the computer processing centre belong to?
a Property, plant and equipment
b Intangible assets
c Investment property
d
N
atural resources
8 Which factor of the financial statements is not likely to be affected when the asset is
increased by $1,000?
a Increase in debt by $1,000
b Reduce in debt by $1,000
c Reduction in assets by $1,000
d Increase in equity by $1,000
9 What is the discount called when the buyer pays within the discount period?
a Trade discount
b Cash discount
c Quantity discount
d Transaction discount
10 What is the effect of the loss of the enterprise inevitably cause?
a Decrease in assets

438
C
-Y. Liu and
H
-L. Chen
b Decrease in debt
c Decrease in equity
d Equity unchanged
11 Earnings per share are used to measure the profitability of an enterprise and the
investment value of shareholders. What is the calculation formula?
a (Net income – preference dividends) / average equity
b Average equity / (net income – preference dividends)
c Retained earnings / weighted average number of ordinary shares outstanding
during the period
d (Net income – preference dividends) / weighted average number of ordinary
shares outstanding during the period
12 Assume that the trading price of China Iron & Steel’s common stock is NT$47 per
share. How much is needed to purchase one stock (excluding transaction fees and
taxes)?
a 470
b 4,700
c 47,000
d 470,000
13 What is the difference between nominal interest rate and real interest rate?
a Inflation
b Calculation
c Price level
d Compound interest
14 Mary will get NT$1,000 in 3 years, and John will get NT$ 1,000 in 5 years. If the
discount rate is 5%, which of the following statements is true?
a Mary received the present value of NT$1,000 in 3 years later = John received the
present value of NT$1,000 in 5 years later
b Mary received the present value of NT$1,000 in 3 years later > John received the
present value of NT$1,000 in 5 years later
c Mary received the present value of NT$1,000 in 3 years later < John received the
present value of NT$1,000 in 5 years later
d After 5 years, the value of their money is the same
15 What the following statement about depreciation expenses is true?
a Taxes can usually be reduced
b Related to the decline in asset value
c
N
o tax shield effec
t
d It’s kind of a cash outlay
16 What is the correct order of the investment plan decision-making process?
I Re-evaluation and implementation of best practices
II Generate investment plan

Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude 439
III Select investment plans based on decision criteria
IV Evaluate the cash flow of the investment plan
a II  IV  III  I
b II  III  IV  I
c II  III  I  IV
d III  IV  I  II
Appendix B
Learning motivation questionnaire
Learning motivation scale on financial management course
Dear students,
The main purpose of this questionnaire is to understand how well your motivation is in
peer learning. It will take you about 10 minutes to do this survey. The result of the survey
will be analysed at the end of the semester. Please feel free to do it because it is only for
research. Thanks for your cooperation.
B
asic information
N
ame:
Student ID:
Date:
Please follow the question number to fill and check which side you agree with in the
blank. The following questions are related to your motivation for learning financial
management. This is not a test, so there is no right or wrong answer. Please use the scale
1–7 and fill in your situation. If you think one of the questions is very suitable for your
situation, please choose 7; it is not suitable for your situation, please choose 1. If the
questions are more or less related to your situation, please choose a number that can be
represented from 2 to 6. Please remember the big number is more related to you while the
small number is the opposite.
Questionnaire
Very different
from my situation
In line with
my situation
1 7
1 In this course, I prefer the content that challenges me,
so that I can learn new things.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 If I use the correct way to study, I can learn the
content of this course.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 When taking the exam, I will think that I was worse
than other classmates.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 If I cannot understand the content of this course, that
is because the course is too difficult.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 I think that I can apply the learning content from this
course in other classes.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

440
C
-Y. Liu and
H
-L. Chen
6 In this course, I believe I will get excellent grades. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 I’m sure I can understand the most difficult part of the
reading material in this course.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 The most satisfying thing is to get good grades in this
course.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 During the exam, I will think of other topics that I do
not understand at the same time when I answer
questions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 If I do not understand the content of this course, it is
my own fault.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11 It is important for me to learn the content of this
course.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12 The most important thing right now is to improve my
overall semester grade, so the most important thing
for me is to get a good grade on this course.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13 I am confident that I can learn the basic ideas taught
in this course.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14 If I could, I want my grades are better than most of
my classmates.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15 If I understand the content of this course, the main
reason is the teacher.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16 During the exam, I will consider the consequences of
a bad score.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17 I am confident that I can understand the most
complicated content taught in this course.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18 In this course, I prefer the content that will arouse my
curiosity, even though it is difficult to learn.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19 I am very interested in the content of this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20 If I study hard, I will understand this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21 During the exam, I feel uncomfortable and terrible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22 I am confident that my assignments and exams will
perform well in this course.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23 I expected to perform well in this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24 In this course, the most satisfying thing is to
thoroughly understand the content of the course.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25 I think studying the content of this course is useful to
me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26 In this course, if I have the opportunity to choose
homework, I will choose the material that I can learn
even though it does not guarantee to get good grades.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27 If I do not understand the content of this course, the
reason is I do not study hard enough.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28 I like the content of this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
29 It is important for me to understand the content of this
course.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30 If I do not understand the content of this course, the
reason is the teacher’s teaching.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
31 During the exam, I feel that my heart is beating fast. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude 441
32 I’m sure I can master the skills taught in this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
33 If I understand the content well in this course, the
reason is this course is easy to learn.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34 I want to do well in class because it is important to
show my ability to my family, friends or others.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
35 Considering the difficulty of this course, the teacher
and my personal skills, I think I will perform well.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Appendix C
Cooperative learning attitude questionnaire
Cooperative learning attitude scale on financial management course
Dear students,
The main purpose of this questionnaire is to understand how well your cooperative
learning attitude is in peer learning. It will take you about 10 minutes to do this survey.
The result of the survey will be analysed at the end of the semester. Please feel free to do
it because it is only for research. Thanks for your cooperation.
B
asic information
N
ame:
Student ID:
Date:
Please follow the question number to fill and check which side you agree with in the
blank. The following questions are related to your motivation for learning financial
management. This is not a test, so there is no right or wrong answer. Please use the scale
1–7 and fill in your situation. If you think one of the questions is very suitable for your
situation, please choose 7; it is not suitable for your situation, please choose 1. If the
questions are more or less related to your situation, please choose a number that can be
represented from 2 to 6. Please remember the big number is more related to you while the
small number is the opposite.
Questionnaire
Very different
from my situation
In line with
my situation
1 7
1 I prefer cooperative learning activities much more
than the competition and personal learning.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 Cooperating with other classmates in the class can
help me strengthen my interaction with other
classmates or teachers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 Collaborating with other students in the course will
improve my learning effectiveness with the group
members.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 I like to work with group members to solve problems
in group assignments.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

442
C
-Y. Liu and
H
-L. Chen
5 In cooperative learning, interacting with group
members can increase my motivation for learning
(enthusiasm).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 Before the collaborative learning activity started, I
had already participated in and understood the
activity.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 I like to help other people (group members or
classmates) in cooperative learning.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 Cooperative learning can increase my social skills
(e.g., using language to communicate with others).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 When I consider myself a member of a group and
should do some contributions, I will be actively
involved.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 I was able to interact with other students more
positively and often because I had a complementary
and interconnected role in my group.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11 If each team member can give feedback on my group
performance, it will be very helpful for my study in
the future.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12 In future, I would like to be satisfied if all group
members including me get the same grade through the
cooperative learning activity.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13 Working with others can spark more ideas for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14 I think the interactive environment created by
cooperative learning activities is very helpful for my
learning.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Appendix D
Open-end feedback questionnaire
Open-end feedback questionnaire on financial management course
Dear students,
The main purpose of this questionnaire is to understand your feedback in peer learning.
The result of the survey will be analysed at the end of the semester. Please feel free to do
it because it is only for research. Thanks for your cooperation.
I Basic information
N
ame:
Student ID:
Date:
Who is your team member if you are assigned into groups in the course?
II Course feedback questions

Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude 443
1 Please describe the most helpful features of this course.
2 What are your experiences and feelings regarding the group activities in the
classroom?
3 Overall, what is your feedback or suggestions for this course?
4 Would you like to take other courses that adopt a similar learning way in the future?