The Value of Monopoly in Improving Undergraduate Students' Understanding of the Accounting Cycle

Abstract

Students' performance on an introductory accounting test is examined using a variety of instructor-led review approaches. Playing Monopoly as a way to study for an exam contrasts with students who study in more traditional ways. There is also a third group of things to look out for (no formal review). In order to conduct an experiment, we looked at the test scores of students who took an accounting exam. These three groups: those who played Monopoly (the most typical exam review), the others (who didn't participate at all) were divided into three categories. Our findings show that students who review for tests significantly outperform their non-reviewing peers in terms of exam performance. However, this consequence might be attributed to those pupils in the Monopoly condition, who are responsible for their actions. There was no statistically significant difference in performance between traditional review students and those in the control group. Students who played Monopoly as a review game did not fare any better than those who worked on a more traditional review, as we discovered as well. In this study, teachers learn about the effectiveness of utilising Monopoly to review the accounting cycle, which increases to the corpus of knowledge. Students who play Monopoly are more likely to succeed in school, according to a new study.