Accounting Education Research Research Articles

An analysis of accounting education research in accounting education: an international journal – 1992–2001

This paper reviews the research papers contained within the first ten volumes of Accounting Education: an international journal since its launch in 1992, identifying both areas that have been well covered and those that present opportunities for further research. The paper compares coverage with accounting education research published in the USA. It is hoped that the paper will be of interest to researchers who wish to establish the prior literature on their research topics or who are searching for research topics and/or methods that have been hitherto underexplored. The paper also provides some observations about the methods employed and source of papers in order to gain further insight into the state of accounting education research at the start of the 21st century.

Accounting education research: a retrospective over ten years with some pointers to the future

Accounting education research: a retrospective over ten years with some pointers to the future

Identifying meaningful and significant topics for research and publication: a sharing of experiences and insights by ‘influential’ accounting authors

This paper aims to advance understanding of how to generate meaningful or significant topics for accounting research. This topic is important because significance of the research topic is a key determinant of publication success, yet the literature only provides very general guidance on the idea generation process. To permit in-depth exploration, phone interviews were conducted with 20 “influential” accounting researchers, as identified by Brown [Acc. Org. Soc. Oct/Nov (1996) 723] based on annual citation counts to authors' works. Each scholar was first asked to share his/her thoughts on what makes a research topic meaningful/significant. There was considerable consensus that the research should have a significant impact upon the literature and/or address a real world problem. The literature impact can come from filling a significant gap in theory, producing salient, novel/new or unexpected results, advancing understanding of hard-to-solve research issues, or introducing new procedures. The scholars then used specific publications to illustrate the processes that they had used to generate and develop meaningful/significant research topics. Detailed quotes are included to facilitate access to the richness of the scholars' responses. Applications to accounting education research also are discussed.

Accounting education's uncertain environments: descriptions and implications for accounting programmes and accounting education research

All organizations must respond to changes in their external environments so that existing competitive advantages can be maintained and new opportunities that change often brings captured. Accounting education programmes are not exempt from this basic business principle. While much has been written about how accounting education programmes must respond to changes in practice, the overlooked higher education environment is likely having a more direct and significant effect on accounting education. This paper identifies and briefly describes several components of the higher education environment, including students, faculty, and culture. How these components could affect accounting education is also addressed. Suggestions as to how several best business practices, including just-in-time and total quality management, can be used to improve accounting education are provided. The paper concludes by identifying some important research implications of accounting education's changing environments.

Psychometric methods in accounting education: a review, some comments and implications for accounting education researchers

Psychometric instruments are widely used in accounting education research (Herring et al., Issues in Accounting Education, 4(1), 48–57, 1989; Benke and Street, Accounting Education: an international journal, 1(1), 33–45, 1992). Problems with the reliability of scores produced by such instruments have led to difficulties in interpreting the results of applied research (Schriesheim et al., Journal of Management, 19, 385–417, 1993). This paper has three aims. The first is to present a rationale for including information about the measurement properties of research instruments used in published accounting education research. Information regarding the reliability and validity of item scores is useful to readers, journal editors and reviewers - especially when the research topic addresses changes in educational policy and processes. Second, problems encountered with questionnairebased research are presented and current practice in accounting education is reviewed. Third, construct validation is discussed in respect of measurement validity and factor analytic methods. The paper concludes with suggestions for improving contemporary practice in accounting education research.

The Canfield Learning Styles Inventory: An Assessment of Its Usefulness in Accounting Education Research

Recent reviews of accounting education research have called for continued assessment of learning style inventories in accounting contexts (Geiger and Boyle 1992; Rebele et al. 1998). This study presents a critical evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Canfield Learning Styles Inventory (LSI), proposed by Francis et al. (1995) as an instrument for possible use by accounting educators. The study administered two versions (standard and scrambled) to 531 accounting majors from eight universities, applying a test-retest strategy after a 4–5 week interval. The versions were examined for internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, classification stability, and construct validity. We found moderate internal consistency (item analyses scores weaker than those reported by Canfield [1988]) and a substantial amount of learner-type classification instability across the two administrations. In terms of construct validity, two-factor solutions were not consistent with those reported by Canfield (1988). Further, three-factor solutions also were not consistent with Canfield's three learning domains. Therefore, along with limited theoretical support and the lack of empirical justification, we find little support for the use of the Canfield LSI in accounting education research.

A note on the psychometric properties of the Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)

The objective of this study is to examine some psychometric properties of Honey and Mumford's (1992 The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey) Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) and therefore its potential utility for accounting education research. Prior research in other cognate disciplines (managers; US business undergraduates) suggests that the LSQ may be preferable to Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (LSI) and Revised LSI. However, little measurement information exists regarding the application of the LSQ in higher education. The present study uses samples of undergraduate accounting students (N = 127) at a UK university. Evidence of only modest internal consistency reliability is reported. The construct validity of the scores produced by the instrument is not supported by the results of the present study. Limitations and implications for the use of the LSQ by accounting education researchers are discussed.

Accounting education literature review (1997–1999)

By reviewing a subset ot the accounting education literature published during the period 1997–1999, this paper updates literature reviews by Rebele, Apostolou, Buckless, Hassell, Paquette, and Stout [Rebele, J.E., Apostolou, B.A., Buckless, F.A., Hassell, J.M., Paquette, L.R., & Stout, D.E. (1998a). Accounting education literature review (1991–1997), part I: curriculum and instructional approaches. Journal of Accounting Education, 16(1), 1–51.] [Rebele, J.E., Apostolou, B.A., Buckless, F.A., Hassell, J.M., Paquette, L.R., & Stout, D.E. (1998b). Accounting education literature review (1991–1997), part II: students, educational technology, assessment, and faculty issues. Journal of Accounting Education, 16(2), 179–245.]; Rebele, Stout, and Hassell [Rebele, J.E., Stout, D.E., & Hassell, J.M. (1991). A review of empirical research in accounting education: 1985–1991. Journal of Accounting Education, 9(2), 167–231.]; and Rebele and Tiller [Rebele, J.E., & Tiller, M.G. (1986). Empirical research in accounting education: a review and evaluation. In A. C. Bishop, E. K. St. Pierre & R. L. Benke (Eds.), Research in accounting education (pp. 1–54). Harrisonburg, VA: Center for Research in Accounting Education, James Madison University]. We review published articles related to the topics of assessment, curriculum and instructional approaches, educational technology, faculty issues, and students from the following five journals: Journal of Accounting Education, Issues in Accounting Education, Accounting Education, The Accounting Educators’ Journal, and Advances in Accounting Education. A large number of accounting educators have contributed to the literature between 1997 and 1999, with over 390 different authors cited in the body of the text (30 authors published two articles, 11 published three, and one author published four articles). More than 120 individuals are cited as authors of cases and instructional resources (seven authors published two cases and one published three). Recommendations for research are offered at the end of each major section. An appendix identifies instructional cases and educational resources published during the 1997–1999 period by journal and topic.

The Use of Technology in the Delivery of Instruction: Implications for Accounting Educators and Education Researchers

The twofold purpose of this paper is to offer recommendations to accounting educators regarding educational technology (ET) delivery modes, and to stimulate accounting education research efforts in the area of ET. Drawing from behavioral and cognitive theory, as well as educational research on the impact of technology on learning, this paper reports and discusses the current state of research in ET. Next, ET research and accounting technology research are reviewed and classified into five types: (1) evaluation research, (2) media-comparison studies, (3) intra-medium studies, (4) aptitude-treatment interaction studies, and (5) alternative research designs. We provide practical guidelines to accounting educators and theory-based suggestions to accounting education researchers with regard to ET and its potential impact on student learning. Finally, we offer some directions for future accounting ET research.

Perspectives on implementing a framework for evaluating effective teaching

The recently published report of the Committee on Promoting and Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness (AAA, Teaching & Curriculum Section) recommends a comprehensive framework for evaluating effective teaching (Calderon, T., Gabbin, A., & Green, B. (1997). Framework for encouraging effective teaching . Harrisonburg, VA: Center for Research in Accounting Education, James Madison University). As part of the framework, the Committee advocates a portfolio approach to fully assess the various dimensions of effective teaching. This paper describes the experience of three accounting departments in their initial application of selected PETE Committee recommendations. Each case describes the department's motivation, how chosen recommendations are applied, information resources required, and the problems and concerns encountered. An evaluation of the lessons learned during the first year in each of these cases is also provided. The material presented in this paper should be of interest to accounting programs that wish to focus attention on the dimensions of effective teaching in assessing faculty teaching performance.

Gender differences in information processing: An empirical test of the hypothesis‐confirming strategy in an audit context

Accounting education research reports that female students outperform male students. We posit that different information processing styles may have accounted for this difference. We postulate that because male students tend to process information selectively, they would rate confirming information as more important than female students would. Female students would rate disconfirming information as more important. We also postulate that male students are hypothesis‐confirming whereas the female students are not. Consequently, female students being comprehensive processors, would rate the task as more difficult compared to male students. To test these propositions, 36 male and 33 female students performed an evaluation task that contained equal numbers of confirming and disconfirming cues. The students were required to rate the importance of these cues to their hypothesis. The results support our propositions except that female and male students do not rate confirming information significantly differently from each other.

Accounting education literature review (1991–1997), part I: Curriculum and instructional approaches

This paper updates the work of Rebele, Stout, and Hassell (A review of empirical research in accounting education: 1985–1991. Journal of Accounting Education, I, 167–231, 1991) and Rebele and Tiller (Empirical research in accounting education: A review and evaluation. In A. C. Bishop, E. K. St. Pierre and R. L. Benke (Eds), Research in Accounting Education, 1–54. Harrisonburg, VA: Center for Research in Accounting Education, James Madison University, 1996) by reviewing a subset of the accounting education literature published during the period 1991–1997. Specifically, we review articles (both empirical and nonempirical) related to the accounting curriculum and instructional approaches in accounting that were published in the following journals: Journal of Accounting Education, Issues in Accounting Education, The Accounting Educators' Journal, and Accounting Education: A Journal of Theory, Practice and Research. A second paper, Part II, will review articles published in these same journals during the period 1991–1997 on the topics of assessment, use of technology, students, faculty concerns, cases, and instructional resources.

Accounting Education Research Methods and Methodology (26–27 March 1996)

Accounting Education Research Methods and Methodology (26–27 March 1996)

Accounting students' learning conceptions, approaches to learning, and the influence of the learning–teaching context on approaches to learning

Previous accounting education studies have not investigated the reasons why accounting students lack the qualities desired by accounting educators and employers. Moreover, prior research has not adequately capitalized on the rich resources of the higher education literature. Therefore, as an initial attempt to remedy this deficiency, this paper reports the results of two studies grounded in well established higher education concepts. The paper commences with a discussion of relevant higher education concepts followed by a phenomenographic examination of second–year accounting students' conceptions of learning. The paper then reports the findings of a survey of second–year accounting students' approaches to learning and the influence of the learning–teaching context on their learning approaches. The research findings suggest that accounting students' learning conceptions and approaches to learning may explain why they do not possess adequate analytical and critical conceptual skills. The results also indicate that students' perceptions of the learning context influence their learning approaches. Two major implications arise from the studies reported in this paper. Firstly, consideration must be given to the impact of proposed curriculum changes on students' learning behaviour prior to implementing such changes. Secondly, for accounting education research to progress effectively, researchers must draw upon the established richness of the higher education literature.

Accounting education research

Accounting education research

Controlling extraneous variables in experimental research: a research note

Many of the pressing questions currently facing accounting education researchers are best addressed through experimental research. For example, experiments are useful in testing the effect of innovative educational practices on student learning. The purpose of this paper is to briefly review the literature addressing sources of invalidity which may cloud the results of experiments and describe several procedures which are helpful in controlling for these sources of invalidity. Examples are provided, from published accounting education research studies, which illustrate how researchers have attempted to address several of these threats to validity. Experiments must be carefully planned and designed, so the experiment on completion fulfills the objectives of the researcher. Although experiments are more difficult to conduct in the educational environment than in a scientist's laboratory, many procedures are available to assist accounting education researchers in designing tightly controlled experiments.

Assessing the practical significance of empirical results in accounting education research: The use of effect size information

Abstract This paper presents a rationale for including effect size information in published accounting education research. Such information addresses the issue of the practical significance of empirical results—information that would be useful to readers, journal editors, and reviewers, especially when changes in educational processes are being considered. Several measures of effect size are discussed for basic research designs. We argue for the general practice of reporting effect size information in accounting education research as a complement to reports of statistical significance levels.

AUDITOR SWITCHING: THE PRICING OF AUDIT SERVICES

Journal of Business Finance & AccountingVolume 22, Issue 3 p. 323-344 AUDITOR SWITCHING: THE PRICING OF AUDIT SERVICES S. Butterworth, S. Butterworth The authors are from the University of Melbourne, Australia. They gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Australian Securities Commission, Western Australian Division, the financial support of the Coopers and Lybrand Accounting Education Research Fund and the helpful comments of Jere Francis (University of Iowa), Bill Kinney (University of Texas), Don Stokes (University of Southern Queensland), Stephen Taylor (University of Sydney), Philip Brown and Gary Monroe (University of W.A.) and Christine Jubb (The University of Melbourne) and participants at workshops at Monash University (Clayton), City University (London), the University of Texas (Austin), the University of Western Australia and the Annual Conference of the Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand. Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.Search for more papers by this authorK.A. Houghton, Corresponding Author K.A. Houghton The authors are from the University of Melbourne, Australia. They gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Australian Securities Commission, Western Australian Division, the financial support of the Coopers and Lybrand Accounting Education Research Fund and the helpful comments of Jere Francis (University of Iowa), Bill Kinney (University of Texas), Don Stokes (University of Southern Queensland), Stephen Taylor (University of Sydney), Philip Brown and Gary Monroe (University of W.A.) and Christine Jubb (The University of Melbourne) and participants at workshops at Monash University (Clayton), City University (London), the University of Texas (Austin), the University of Western Australia and the Annual Conference of the Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand. Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.Address for correspondence: K.A. Houghton, Fitzgerald Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Commerce, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia.Search for more papers by this author S. Butterworth, S. Butterworth The authors are from the University of Melbourne, Australia. They gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Australian Securities Commission, Western Australian Division, the financial support of the Coopers and Lybrand Accounting Education Research Fund and the helpful comments of Jere Francis (University of Iowa), Bill Kinney (University of Texas), Don Stokes (University of Southern Queensland), Stephen Taylor (University of Sydney), Philip Brown and Gary Monroe (University of W.A.) and Christine Jubb (The University of Melbourne) and participants at workshops at Monash University (Clayton), City University (London), the University of Texas (Austin), the University of Western Australia and the Annual Conference of the Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand. Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.Search for more papers by this authorK.A. Houghton, Corresponding Author K.A. Houghton The authors are from the University of Melbourne, Australia. They gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Australian Securities Commission, Western Australian Division, the financial support of the Coopers and Lybrand Accounting Education Research Fund and the helpful comments of Jere Francis (University of Iowa), Bill Kinney (University of Texas), Don Stokes (University of Southern Queensland), Stephen Taylor (University of Sydney), Philip Brown and Gary Monroe (University of W.A.) and Christine Jubb (The University of Melbourne) and participants at workshops at Monash University (Clayton), City University (London), the University of Texas (Austin), the University of Western Australia and the Annual Conference of the Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand. Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.Address for correspondence: K.A. Houghton, Fitzgerald Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Commerce, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia.Search for more papers by this author First published: April 1995 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5957.1995.tb00877.xCitations: 52AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume22, Issue3April 1995Pages 323-344 RelatedInformation

Expanding the Horizons of Research on Accounting Education*

The papers in this special issue reflect a concern about accounting education in Canada, and, indeed, in much of the Anglo-American accounting community. Yet although they begin to address issues such as the relevance of university programs, the quality and characteristics of students and aculty, and the institutional and educational context within which accounting programs are produced and delivered, I' believe there are other, equally promising, ways to frame the debate in accounting education. My purpose is to point out the limits to the design of the education project of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, to highlight the narrowness of the constraints that the papers worked within, and to indicate the type of research on accounting education that is excluded in this project. Although I offer some criticisms of the papers in this special issue, my purpose is to draw attention to some of their common, unexamined assumptions and to indicate some of the important issues ignored in the project design. I seek to encourage greater attention to the purposes of accounting education and to the forces that have resulted in the current system. This commentary also goes beyond the project of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, because the design of that project overlaps quite significantly with a relatively influential framework for accounting education research (Williams, Tiller, Herring, and Scheiner 1988) that was developed for the American Accounting Association (AAA).

A reassessment of the role of the Learning Style Inventory (LSI-1985) in accounting education research

This paper reexamines the cautionary theme advanced recently in Stout and Ruble (1991a; 1991b) regarding the use of the LSI-1985 in accounting education research. We focus on evidence relevant to the construct validity of the LSI-1985 and identify a number of psychometric problems with the instrument. The evidence regarding the measurement properties of the LSI-1985 (in both its standard and scrambled versions) argues for suspension of its use in accounting education research. In short, the LSI-1985 does not provide meaningful measures of the learning style constructs posited by the Experiential Learning Model (ELM).