Quasi-experimental analysis highlights varying outcomes in financial accounting lessons using AR among genders.
This study investigated whether male and female students benefit equally from the use of Augmented Reality Strategy (ARS) in learning partnership and goodwill accounts in Financial Accounting. Guided by one core research question and its corresponding null hypothesis, the study adopted a quasi-experimental mixed-methods design, employing a 2×2 factorial matrix involving instructional method and gender. Two Senior Secondary Schools II students from Lagos State were selected using purposeful sampling, with data collected through pre-test and post-test administration of the Partnership and Goodwill Account Achievement Test (PGAAT) and a qualitative interview guide. Quantitative analysis using ANCOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in achievement scores between male and female students taught using ARS, with gender accounting for approximately 11.7% of the variance (Partial Eta Squared = .117), indicating a moderate effect size. The null hypothesis was rejected, showing that female students performed slightly better than male students after exposure to AR-based instruction. Qualitative insights further supported these findings, revealing that both genders found AR engaging and helpful, although some differences in confidence levels and engagement patterns were noted. The results suggest that while ARS enhances learning outcomes for all students, subtle gender-related differences exist in how students interact with and benefit from the technology. This underscores the importance of implementing gender-sensitive support mechanisms to ensure equitable access and participation in AR-integrated classrooms. The study concludes that ARS is an effective and inclusive instructional strategy, but educators must remain attentive to gender dynamics to fully realize its potential in promoting equitable and meaningful learning experiences in Nigerian secondary school accounting education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alabi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: