Do Students Perform Differently Under A Dual-Pass Assessment Policy? The Case of FAR110 and FAR160

Recent assessment reforms in higher education have increasingly emphasised the need to strengthen academic standards, consistency and accountability in the evaluation of student performance. One such reform is the implementation of dual-pass assessment policies, which require students to achieve a minimum passing standard in both ongoing assessment and final examinations. Despite their growing adoption, empirical evidence on how such policies influence student performance, particularly in accounting education, remains limited. This study aims to examine whether student performance differs following the introduction of a dual-pass assessment policy in core accounting courses. The study focuses on two introductory accounting courses, FAR110 and FAR160, at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Sabah Branch, where the policy was implemented in the March–August 2025 semester. A quantitative quasi-experimental before–after design was employed. Student performance data were obtained from institutional academic records and included ongoing assessment marks, final examination scores, overall course results and pass–fail outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise performance before and after the policy implementation, while inferential analyses, including independent samples t-tests and chi-square tests, were conducted to determine the statistical significance of observed differences. The findings indicate that student performance improved following the implementation of the dual-pass policy. Students assessed after the policy recorded higher mean scores and a substantially higher course pass rate. A statistically significant association was also found between assessment policy status and pass outcomes. Analysis of failure patterns further showed an increase in students passing both assessment components and a reduction in failures involving both components. Overall, the findings suggest that the dual-pass assessment policy may promote more balanced engagement with continuous and summative assessment, supporting improved attainment of minimum competence in accounting courses.

dual-pass assessment policy, assessment reform, student performance, accounting education, higher education

1. Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Dawson, P., & Boud, D. (2020). Conceptualising evaluative judgement for sustainable assessment in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 1000–1013. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Boud, D., Bennett, S., Hall, M., Molloy, E., & Joughin, G. (2017). Supporting assessment reform in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1111–1128. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. De Lange, P., Jackling, B., & Gut, A. M. (2006). Accounting graduates’ perceptions of skills emphasis: An Australian study. Accounting Education, 15(4), 365–386. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Gibbs, G. (2010). Using assessment to support student learning. Leeds Metropolitan University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Nicol, D. (2021). The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 756–778. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2022). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Yorke, M. (2009). Grading student achievement in higher education: Signals and shortcomings. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Role of Value and Growth Stocks in Portfolio Returns: Insights From the Nigerian Stock Market
• The Impact of Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) and Profitability on Firm Value Moderated by Firm Size
• Assessment of the Impact of Environmental Operating Costs on Return on Assets: Evidence from Listed Breweries in Nigeria
• Mobile Money and Digital Financial Services Ecosystem in Adamawa State
• A Quantitative Approach of Professional Skepticism and Fraud Detection among Malaysian Internal Auditors