Understanding students’ difficulties in learning the types of partners in partnerships

 Littisha Shaji

Abstract

Action research enables educators to identify, analyze, and resolve specific challenges in teaching and learning. This study investigates the difficulty among students in comprehending the types of partners in partnerships, a crucial concept in commerce education. Conducted during a teaching practice with plus-one students studying business studies, the research identifies causes such as unclear definitions, overlaps in concepts, and lack of relatable examples. The study further evaluates the effectiveness of various remedial measures, emphasizing techniques like simplified definitions, case studies, and tabular comparisons. Recommendations focus on adopting interactive and practical teaching methods to enhance understanding.

Keywords

Action research, commerce education, partnerships, teaching strategies, student engagement, learning difficulties, active partner, sleeping or dormant partner, secret partner, nominal partner, Partner by estoppel, Partner by holding out.

Introduction

Action research is a reflective process aimed at improving educational practices through systematic investigation. Action research is a type of research which is undertaken by teachers, heads, and administrators, in order that they make better decisions and engage in better actions in their day-to-day work. It is the practitioners type of research. Action research, an interactive method of collecting information that's used to explore topics of teaching, curriculum development and student behaviour in the classroom. In the field of education, action research is systemic inquiry conducted by educators with a vested interest in the teaching-learning process or environment for the purpose of gathering information about how their school operates, how they teach, and how their students learn. Action research focuses on solving specific classroom or school problems, improving practice, and helping to make decisions at a local site. 

In the context of teaching commerce, students often face challenges in understanding abstract concepts like partnerships, which are integral to understanding business structures. This study focuses on identifying and addressing the specific difficulties faced by students in learning the types of partners in a partnership firm. Conducted during a teaching practicum at St. Mary’s HSS, Murickassery, the research seeks to enhance both teaching effectiveness and student comprehension.

Body of Content

 Objectives of the study

The objectives of the study are ;

1. To identify the problems faced by students in their learning process 

2. To find solution to specific problems of students 

3. To identify students difficulties in learning business studies 

4. To find out students difficulties in learning the concept of types of partners 

5. To find out underlying reasons for difficulties in learning the concept of types of partners

Problem Identification

During teaching sessions, it became apparent that students found it challenging to understand and differentiate between various types of partners in partnerships. These include active partners, dormant partners, nominal partners, and partners by estoppel. Despite using traditional lecturing methods and providing explanations, the majority of students exhibited limited comprehension. Specific signs of difficulty included poor responses to questions, incomplete classwork, and a general lack of confidence when attempting to explain these concepts themselves.

A checklist distributed to evaluate understanding revealed that 75% of students could not grasp the topic, 10% had partial understanding, and only 5% fully understood. This highlighted a significant gap in teaching effectiveness for this specific concept.

Defining and Delimiting the problem 

The types of partners include active partners, who manage the business; sleeping or dormant partners, who do not participate in daily activities; secret partners, whose association is not disclosed to the public; nominal partners, who allow the use of their name but do not invest or manage the business; partners by estoppel, who are perceived as partners due to their conduct; and partners by holding out, who knowingly allow themselves to be represented as partners.

The study was conducted during teaching practice at St. Mary’s HSS Murickassery, focusing on a sample of 50 Plus One Commerce students in the D1 class over four months. The school was chosen for convenience, and the research aimed to address students’ difficulties with the topic to improve their understanding and engagement. However, the study faced several limitations, including a small sample size, a short duration, restriction to one school and division, lack of differentiation between genders and school types, and a rural setting, excluding urban perspectives. Despite these constraints, the research sought to enhance the academic and practical knowledge of students.

Analysis of the probable causes of the problem 

The difficulty in understanding the "Types of Partners in a Partnership" stems from several factors, including unclear definitions of partner types (active, dormant, nominal, etc.), similarities and overlaps between categories that confuse students, and the abstract nature of partnership concepts like shared risk, profit distribution, and management responsibilities, which are hard to relate to real-life experiences. Many students lack a background in commerce, as the subject is new to them in Plus One, making it challenging to grasp these ideas. Additionally, technical terminology, legal and financial complexities, and limited exposure to real-world partnerships further complicate understanding.

Teaching and learning gaps also contribute, such as insufficient examples or case studies, outdated resources, and ineffective use of visual aids like charts or diagrams. Students often struggle to apply theoretical knowledge to practical scenarios due to inadequate critical thinking opportunities in textbooks and classroom instruction. Language barriers, especially for students transitioning from Malayalam medium, make it harder to comprehend and study the material. Improper study habits, such as rote memorization, passive reading, and inadequate note-taking, hinder deep understanding. A lack of motivation, engagement, and interest, driven by an inability to see the relevance of the material, along with a focus on memorization over critical thinking, also exacerbates the problem.

Causes of the Problem 

Several factors were identified as contributors to the students’ difficulty in learning the types of partners in partnerships. These include:

• Unclear Definitions: Definitions in the textbook were often lengthy and convoluted, leading to confusion.
• Overlapping Characteristics: Similar features among certain partner types, such as dormant and nominal partners, made it challenging for students to differentiate between them.
• Lack of Examples: Abstract definitions were provided without relatable real-world examples, making the content less accessible.
• New Subject Area: Many students were encountering commerce education for the first time, making even basic concepts seem daunting.
• Language Barriers: For students transitioning from regional languages to English, understanding complex terminologies added an extra layer of difficulty.

Action Hypothesis 

The primary hypothesis was that the difficulty in understanding partnership types stemmed from unclear and overlapping definitions, and a lack of relatable teaching methods. It was anticipated that employing simplified language, visual aids, and practical examples would significantly improve student comprehension. This hypothesis formed the basis for designing and implementing action programs.

Action Programs 

To address the identified challenges, a series of targeted action programs were implemented. Each program focused on tackling specific causes of the problem:

1. Simplified Definitions: Definitions were rewritten in simpler terms and explained step-by-step to enhance clarity.
2. Use of Visual Aids: Diagrams, flowcharts, and tabular comparisons were introduced to visually represent differences and similarities among partner types.I
3. Integration of Real-life Examples: Scenarios were crafted to connect partnership concepts to everyday business situations, making them more relatable.S
4. Storytelling Techniques: Stories were used to illustrate abstract concepts such as partner by estoppel and partner by holding out.
5. Interactive Group Activities: Students engaged in group discussions and peer-teaching exercises to reinforce learning collaboratively.
6. Case Studies: Real-world partnership cases were analyzed in the classroom to demonstrate the application of theoretical concepts.
7. Supplemental Resources: Digital notes and videos were shared with students to allow for self-paced learning outside the classroom.

Analysis and interpretation 

To address students' difficulties in understanding the concept of "Types of Partners in a Partnership," I implemented 15 remedial measures and analyzed their effectiveness. On 18/07/2024, I introduced simple definitions using clear language, which proved highly effective as students could understand the concepts more easily. On 19/07/2024, I used visual aids like tables to compare partner roles, responsibilities, capital contribution, and liabilities, which significantly improved comprehension. On 22/07/2024, I employed the case study method with real-life examples, resulting in 60% of students differentiating between partner types. Group discussions held on 23/07/2024 further enhanced understanding, as students actively participated and shared insights.

On 24/07/2024, I used storytelling to explain partners by estoppel and holding out, reducing confusion and improving clarity. A video and PowerPoint presentation on 25/07/2024 were less effective due to inadequate conceptual clarity. A class test on 26/07/2024 revealed lingering confusion about certain partner types. On 29/07/2024, tabular comparisons were employed again, proving to be the most effective strategy, as it systematically organized information, helping students better differentiate between partner types. On 02/08/2024, a second case study approach clarified concepts further, enhancing comprehension and retention.

Role-playing exercises on 05/08/2024 engaged students but caused some confusion due to overlapping roles. Digital resources distributed on 06/08/2024 and an extra class on 07/08/2024 provided additional clarity through interactive discussions. Peer tutoring on 08/08/2024 and group discussions on 09/08/2024 facilitated collaborative learning and critical analysis. Finally, a quiz session on 12/08/2024 helped evaluate and reinforce knowledge.

Overall, simple definitions, real-life examples, storytelling, table organization, and case studies were the most effective methods, while audiovisual presentations, role-playing, and class tests were less effective. These strategies highlighted the importance of using practical, interactive, and structured teaching methods to enhance understanding.

Evaluation and Findings

The effectiveness of the action programs was assessed through regular evaluations, including formative assessments, quizzes, and observational analysis. Programs such as simplified definitions, visual aids, and storytelling showed remarkable success, with most students achieving a deeper understanding of the topic. Group discussions and case studies also contributed significantly, fostering collaborative learning and critical thinking.

However, some methods, such as PowerPoint presentations and role-playing activities, were less effective, primarily due to their inability to fully address the core issues. This evaluation helped identify the best practices and areas for improvement, ensuring that future teaching strategies could be tailored more effectively.

Conclusion

Action research is a problem-solving approach that enables educators to identify, analyze, and address specific educational challenges, fostering innovation and excellence in teaching and learning. Action research in education is a collaborative and iterative process that empowers teachers to investigate, reflect, and improve their practices, leading to enhanced student learning and academic Achievement. Action research underscores the importance of adapting teaching methods to address student difficulties effectively.Action research is focused on solving specific classroom or school problems, improving practice, and helping to make decisions at local sites. The purpose of action research is to provide teacher-researchers with a method for solving problems in schools so that they may improve both student learning and teacher effectiveness. This study demonstrated that practical and interactive strategies significantly improve understanding of abstract concepts. Future efforts should focus on integrating storytelling, real-life examples, and clear visual representations into commerce education.

References

Clark, J. S. (2020). What is Action Research for Classroom Teachers? Retrieved from https://kstatelibraries.pressbooks.pub/gradactionresearch/chapter/chapt1/

George, T. (2023). Scribbr: Action Research. Retrieved from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/action-research/

Madsen, K. L. (2022). Action Research: Practice Transformation through Processes of Participatory Sense-Making in Educational Action Research. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09650792.2023.2207030

Mertler, C. A. (2021). Action Research as Teacher Inquiry. Retrieved from departmentofeducation: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1314304.pdf