- Email: [email protected]
A tetrahedral model of accounting education: A framework for research
Pergamon
Journal of Accounting Education, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 227-236, 1996 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0748-5751196 $15.00 + 0.00
S0748-5751(96)00012-7
A TETRAHEDRAL MODEL OF ACCOUNTING EDUCATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH Irvin T. Nelson
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Irvin T. Nelson is an Assistant Professor at the School of Accountancy at U t a h State University. He presently serves as chair of the F S A D a t a Base Committee and as a m e m b e r of the Strategic Planning Committee. He has also chaired the FSA Private Enterprise Membership Committee. Professor Nelson's doctoral studies include an outside area in cognitive educational psychology.
The 1990s are witnessing the most rapid and perhaps the most extensive changes in accounting education since its inception near the turn of the 20th century. Three factors have combined to fuel these changes: the 150-hour vote of the AICPA in 1988 and subsequent changes in state licensing requirements nationwide; the White Paper by the largest national CPA firms and the accompanying $4 million to found and fund the AECC in 1989; and the new accreditation requirements adopted by the AACSB in 1991. Driven largely by one or more of these external factors, accounting schools and departments at institutions of all sizes and varieties are currently engaged in various forms of change in their respective curricula. In the midst of these widespread and diverse changes, researchers in accounting education are faced with a vital challenge: to discover which changes are more effective than others, and why; and to determine whether these changes can be efficiently transferred between settings and institutions, and if so, how. The rapid pace and multiple catalysts of change create a unique window of opportunity for research. This essay will discuss opportunities for empirical and theoretical research in accounting education within the framework of a model of learning from the cognitive psychology literature.
A T E T R A H E D R A L MODEL OF LEARNING As researchers consider the educational process, a model may be useful to conceptualize various otherwise unconnected and potentially 227
228
I.T. Nelson
confounding innovations, t Jenkins (1979) and Bransford (1979) conceived a model o f learning which represents the four fundamental factors that affect learning (see Figure 1). Each vertex of the tetrahedron represents a cluster o f variables o f a given type: characteristics of the learners, nature o f the materials, learning activities, and criterial measures. Each edge represents a two-way interaction important to learning. Each plane calls attention to a three-way interaction, and the whole figure represents the four-way interaction of all the variables. As a general framework for conceptualizing the complexities o f the process of learning, the Tetrahedral Model offers significant insights into accounting education. Virtually every issue and innovation in accounting education can be characterized in terms of one or more factors of the tetrahedron. Criterial Measures are the standards by which learning outcomes are measured. In the context o f accounting education, critial measures m a y be thought of as definitions o f what is meant by "quality" or "desired outcomes" in accounting graduates. Characteristics of the Learners are the individual differences in intelligence, personality, motivation, antecedent skills and
Characteristics
of the Learners
Learning Activities
Criterial Measures
Nature of the Materials
Figure 1. Tetrahedral model of learning. IThe educational literature offers several models of learning which may be of benefit to accounting educators. Needles and Anderson (1991) presented a model of accounting education based upon Bloom's (1956) taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives. Smith and Smith (1991) borrowed from Perry's (1970) scheme of intellectual and ethical development during the college years to develop an "entrophic" model of undergraduate accounting education. Others have adapted Kolb's (1984) Experiential Learning Model to accounting settings (Baldwin & Rockers, 1984; Baker, Simon, & Bazeli 1986, 1987). While less specific, Jenkins' (1979) and Bransford's (1979) model of learning offers the advantage of a very broad perspective of the learning process. Rather than a sequential flow chart of the learning cycle or a hierarchy of maturity stages or learning objectives, their model portrays the four underlying factors of/earning.
A Tetrahedral Model
229
knowledge, learning style, etc. brought into the learning situation by the students a priori. Nature of the Materials refers to both the material to be learned and the way in which the material is presented. This factor encompasses curriculum, pedagogy, subjects covered, texts, testing and grading, etc. Learning Activities are the classroom and out-of-class learning behaviors engaged in by students. The remainder of this article will examine opportunities for research within each of the four factors of learning. CRITERIAL MEASURES Criterial Measures are similar to what accounting educators call "outcomes assessments". What are the desired outcomes of accounting education? What are the skills and knowledge needed by entrants into the profession? Conceivably, there are many possible measures of entrant quality; for example, GPA, SAT and GMAT scores, years of education, reputation of the school, percentages of placements, and pass-rates on professional examinations are all potential standards by which quality may be measured. Identifying appropriate criterial measures is critical because they have important implications for the other three factors. Once a particular skill has been identified, students possessing basic levels of that skill can be recruited and students with insufficiently developed capabilties can be denied admittance. Additionally, courses can be designed to refine and develop the skill. Students can be taught behaviors that will enhance the skill. Perhaps the most valid criteria for measuring the quality of accounting graduates would be those factors that predict competence and success in the accounting profession. To date, research in this area is scarce, and is limited to anecdotes and opinion surveys. Longitudinal empirical research is needed to identify and measure the capabilities predictive of success and advancement in the profession (as well as those predictive of failure and turnover). In the meantime, the best surrogate may be the capabilities identified as important by accounting practitioners. Sources of professionals' opinions regarding the competencies that accounting graduates should possess include the then Big 8's White Paper (Perspectives), the AECC's first position statement (AECC, 1990a), Brigham Young University's survey of over 500 accounting professionals (Deppe, Sonderegger, Stice, Clark, & Streuling, 1991); and the recent IMA (1994) study. These attempts by the profession to communicate desired outcomes offer some opportunities for research in criterial measures. For example, what is the nature of the differences in desired outcomes between the official pronoucements of the largest national public accounting firms
230
I.T. Nelson
(Perspectives) versus the IMA (1994)? Was the AECC correct in defining the accounting profession "broadly" and attempting to define desired outcomes applicable to all fields of employment in accounting (AECC, 1990a), or are the desired outcomes necessarily and substantially different between sub-disciplines? Additionally, some groups, such as internal auditors, regional and local CPA firms, and government accountants have not formally published their expectations. Are their criteria different than those of the IMA and the Big 6? Are the capabilities defined by the Big 6 representative of those desired by local and regional firms? Within the Big 6, how large is the alleged discrepancy between the capabilities desired by the recruiters (based on their hiring patterns) and the national partners (as expressed in Perspectives)? Research is also needed to address how desired outcomes can be validly and reliably measured. A standardized measure of desired learning outcomes would be a great contribution to the accounting education literature. In any case, it is critical to recognize that different criterial measures lead to different results, and that various stakeholders may favor different criteria. In any empirical study, criterial measures must be clearly specified by the researcher, because learning outcomes can only be understood and interpreted in the context of the "yardstick" by which they are measured and compared.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEARNERS The learning process is strongly affected by the degree and types of previously developed skills, knowledge, and attitudes brought into the classroom by the students. Many extremely important implications of this factor of learning provide opportunities for research. First, one way of improving learning outcomes is to start with better students. For example, are some of the specified graduate capabilities best developed prior to enrollment in accounting programs? Is attracting students with high pre-enrollment levels of these capabilities an appropriate alternative to completely restructuring accounting programs in an attempt to impart these skills to students who lack them? Should proficiency in certain skills be an entry requirement for acceptance into accounting programs? Related research might explore trends in student quality, stereotypes of accounting versus other professions among high school and college students, student attitudes toward accounting, the effectiveness of student recruitment activities, using the first accounting course as a recruiting tool, the relative effectiveness of various pre-screens for admission to accounting programs, etc. Again, the development of
A Tetrahedral Model
231
standardized measures of student quality would be a contribution of immense importance. Second, what is the proper balance between liberal versus technical education? Many of the skills and knowledge that have been identified as lacking in current graduates are non-technical and reminiscent of a broad, liberal, "citizen-scholar", "renaissance-man" type of education. Such deficiencies may be better rectified through additional liberal arts courses than through revised accounting courses. Given a fixed number of credit hours, (whether 120, 150, or more), deciding what goes into those hours always involves a trade-off between breadth of education and amount of specialized, domain-specific, technical training. How many of the 150 hours should be devoted to accounting and business, versus to the fine arts, humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences? In my observation, a discrepancy exists between what the framers of the 150hour requirement intended (30 more hours of liberal arts to broaden the education) versus what most accounting professors want (30 more hours of accounting courses which further narrow the already-too-specialized education). Research could examine the outcomes of these antithetical approaches. Third, after the proper balance between liberal versus technical education has been determined, what is the best sequencing of the liberal and technical components? For example, the typical FSA model seems to be a 1-year, specialized accounting master's degree tacked onto a traditional, 4-year undergraduate accounting degree. Is this the ideal, or should the entire 5 years be re-examined? Should accounting follow the legal and medical professions in postponing all specialized, profession-specific, technical training until after students have received a broad, liberal education? In other words, should the first accounting course be deferred to the junior year, the senior year, or even the graduate year? Can an "already expanded mind" comprehend and digest debits and credits faster and more deeply than can freshmen and sophomores? If schools of accountancy recruited liberal arts graduates with no business or accounting background and trained them in an intensive, highly technical, 1-year masters program, would they meet the criterial measures better than graduates of the existing paradigm? Several such programs exist presently; empirical research is needed to assess their effectiveness. A fourth research issue related to the third is, what is the best sequencing of material within the accounting program? For example, most accounting programs focus on the memorization of rules and procedures (intermediate, cost, tax, and auditing, etc.) in the junior and senior years, saving conceptual, "capstone" courses (theory, history, advanced, etc.) for the master's year (for those who choose to go on). An alternative approach might be to introduce students to a solid
232
I.T. Nelson
conceptual/theoretical foundation early in the program, followed by technical, rules-specific courses later in the program. 2 Does the education literature provide guidance in this regard? Do any existing programs take a non-traditional approach which could provide empirical evidence?
NATURE OF THE MATERIALS The Nature of the Materials to be learned encompasses nearly everything related to the accounting program and accounting courses (curriculum, pedagogy, teaching modality, texts and other materials, classroom testing and grading, teacher quality, course structures, subjects covered, etc.). Of the four factors of learning, this is the one which has received by far the most widespread attention in recent years and was heavily emphasized in most of the grants awarded by the AECC. Most of what is commonly characterized as "change" in accounting education falls under Nature of the Materials, including: better sequencing and a holistic organization of course content; use of the case method; technological classroom innovations; new texts and course materials; training of professors; revised testing and grading criteria; teaching the scientific method; use of mentors; writing-to-learn; cooperative learning; use of the Socratic method; etc. The general questions to be asked include: "how should accounting courses be taught?" and "which innovations are more effective than others?" Examples of specific research questions include the following: is the 150hour requirement in itself effective in improving graduate quality, or does it depend on the content of the additional 30 hours? More specifically, which 150-hour programs are most effective in producing desired outcomes, and why? Is a 150-hour baccalaureate as effectual as a master's degree? Under the new accreditation guidelines, what effect does accreditation have on graduate quality? How should scarce class time be spent: does emphasis on technical coverage (memorizing as many rules and techniques of practice as possible), or depth of learning (critically exploring a relatively few issues in great detail) lead to better learning outcomes? What types of formal training have faculty received in alternative pedagogical techniques (in Ph.D. programs, on campus, and in CPE), and how effective has it been? Researchers might also examine the three motivators for change: the 150-hour requirement, the AECC-type motivations, and the AACSB's new accreditation standards. Do these three motivations lead to the same kinds 2Sequencingof materialsalso involvesthe third factorin the TetrahedralModel of Learning, "Nature of the Materials". It is discussedhere becauseof its effectupon the prior knowledge students bring with them into a particular course.
A Tetrahedral Model
233
of changes? What is the nature of the differences? Which leads to best outcomes? Can the three issues be addressed simultaneously, or are they separate? What kinds of strategic planning are accounting schools utilizing to chart their respective paths? How are various faculties addressing length versus breadth versus depth issues? Research into the impediments to change is also needed. For example, two follow-up committees to the Bedford Committee identified factors which they believed inhibit change, including financial cost, faculty time cost, faculty reward structures, research expectations, increasing volume and complexity of the common body of knowledge, textbook dependency, influence of the CPA exam, and accreditation (AAA, 1989, pp. 8-9 and pp. 145-147). Are these inhibitors valid? Have they been ameliorated in schools which have implemented changes, and if so, how? Which factors predict a lack of change more strongly than others? Are there other predictors of slow or no change? For example, do student evaluations discourage innovation and experimentation? Have any changes in faculty reward structures resulted from the AECC's first issues statement (AECC, 1990b)?
LEARNING ACTIVITIES The fourth, and most often overlooked, factor of the Tetrahedral Model of Learning is Leaning Activities; the kinds of behaviors engaged in by the students when presented with information to be learned. Research in cognition has convincingly proven that learning strategies and behaviors have a significant impact on learning outcomes (Bransford, 1979). Unfortunately, some of the most commonly used learning strategies have been shown to be remarkably ineffective (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Because some strategies and behaviors are more effective than others, this is one of the main factors which differentiates "good" learners from "bad" learners. In other words, the argument is that intelligence, motivation, and prior knowledge (all of which are characteristics of the learners) are n o t the only things which differentiate "the best and brightest" from "the ordinary and dull" students. Can study skills, which can be taught to any student, significantly improve accounting student performance? There is an entire literature of research in Learning Activities which has been virtually untapped by accounting academicians. Subjects include "learning to learn", "lifetime learning", study habits, learning strategies, cognitive processes, attention, encoding, metacognition, etc. Experimentation with the teaching of effective learning strategies (methods of organization and elaboration of information, spatial learning strategies, advance organizers and matrix note-taking, etc.) in accounting courses is a promising area for future
234
I.T. Nelson
research which has been largely ignored in accounting education, including in the AECC grants. INTERACTIONS The four factors are not independent. Interactions between the four factors of learning are likely. A change in one factor may affect learning outcomes not only directly, but also indirectly through its effect on other factors. For example, suppose a certain class section has higher-GPA students than another. This characteristic of the learners may cause the class to perform better on examinations than the other section. It may also cause a change in the quality and level of classroom discussions. The higher level of the class may lead the instructor to modify the lecture. Better questions may be asked by the students. The class discussion may be more insightful. In short, the students may have a different classroom experience. A characteristic of the learners thus affects the nature of the material, which in turn has an incremental effect on learning outcomes. The higher level of competition in the class may also cause the students to engage in different learning activities such as greater attention and elaboration. A higher standard of performance becomes the norm for the class, leading to greater effort, which again affects learning outcomes. Research into interactions between factors of learning should follow increased research into each individual factor. It would be rare for any single empirical study to examine all four factors in detail. Nevertheless, it is useful to understand the contribution of each individual study within the larger context of the entire model. Any comprehensive evaluation of the learning process must consider all four factors; otherwise, the analysis will be misspecified and the conclusions will be confounded by omitted variables. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS A Tetrahedral model of learning has been presented as a framework for accounting education. Suggestions for research have been offered for each of the four factors in the model. Clearly, the field of accounting education is ripe with timely, relevant issues providing opportunities for quality research. A long-neglected issue that needs to be raised and discussed candidly is the relative prestige attributed to other fields of accounting research as opposed to that accorded to research in accounting education. One new faculty member was told that his extensive publications in accounting education "won't buy you a trip to the drinking fountain" when it comes to tenure decisions. Virtually all Ph.D. students who express an interest in accounting education are vigorously redirected to other fields of study by
A Tetrahedral Model
235
their advisors. Issues in A c c o u n t i n g Education is not counted the same as other A A A sectional journals in promotion and tenure decisions. Why? W h a t is the justification for this double standard? Perhaps it's time to take an honest look in the mirror. After 25 years of increasingly rigorous econometric research in capital markets and psychological experiments in decision-making, what have accounting researchers learned that is of value to society? In my personal observation, the answer to that question is embarrassing and cannot possibly justify its cost. H o w can such an infinitesimal contribution possibly measure up to that which could have been made had such resources been invested in research into what skills and knowledge make people better accountants and how to impart those skills and knowledge to students? Isn't that the essence of the mission of higher education? I believe it is time for more of the best minds in accounting academia to put aside some of their ivorytower work and begin to place some serious emphasis on researching teaching, curriculum, and course development. The quantity, relevance, and importance of issues begging to be studied are greater in accounting education than perhaps in any other field of academic accounting research. It is not my intent to castigate the efforts of those who have contributed to the accounting education literature, nor to imply that some of them are not a m o n g the best minds in accounting education. On the contrary, I assert that m a n y significant contributions have been made, and that the quality of the research is continually improving. Unfortunately, despite its quality, such research has often gone unrewarded. Perhaps, if we are really serious about change, this is the place to begin. In any event, the future holds promise both for accounting education and for accounting education research.
REFERENCES Accounting Education Change Commission (1990a). Objectives of education for accountants: Position statement number one. Issues in Accounting Education, Fall, 307-312. Accounting Education Change Commission (1990b). AECC urges priority for teaching in higher education: Position statement number one. Issues in Accounting Education, Fall, 320-321. American Accounting Association, Committee on the Future Structure, Content, and Scope of Accounting Education (The Bedford Committee) (1986). Future accounting education: Preparing for the expanding profession. Issues in Accounting Education, Spring, 168-195. American Accounting Association, Committee on the Future Structure, Content, and Scope of Accounting Edueaion (The Bedford Committee) (1989). Reorienting accounting education: Reports on the environment, professoriate, and curriculum of accounting. In Schultz, J. J. Jr (Ed.), American education series I0, Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association. Baker, R. E., Simon, L R., & Bazeli, F. P. (1986). An assessment of the learning style preferences of accounting majors. Issues in Accounting Education, Spring, 1-12. Baker, R. E., Simon, J. R., & Bazeli, F. P. (1987). Selecting instructional design for
236
I.T. Nelson
introductory accounting based on the experiential learning model. Journal of Accounting Education, 5, 207-226. Baldwin, B. A., & Reekers, P. M. J. (1984). Exploring the role of learning style research in accounting education policy. Journal of Accounting Education, 2, 63-76. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay Company, Inc. Bransford, J. D. (1979). Human cognition: Learning, understanding, and remembering. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 671~84. Deppe, L. A., Sonderegger, E. O., Stice, J. D., Clark, D. C., & Streuling, G. F. (1991). Emerging competencies for the practice of accountancy. Journal of Accounting Education, 9, 257-290. Institute of Management Accountants (1994). What corporate America wants in entry-level accountants. Montvale, NJ: IMA. Jenkins, J. J. (1979). Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model of memory experiments. In Cermak, L. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (Eds.), Levels of processing and human memory. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Needles, B. E. Jr, & Anderson, H. R. (1991). A comprehensive model for accounting education. In Sundem, G. L. & Norgaard, C. T. (Eds), Models of accounting education (pp. 49-70). Torrance, CA: AECC. Perry, W. G. Jr (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Perspectives on education: Capabilitiesfor success in the accounting profession (1989). New York: Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Whinney, Peat Marwick Main & Co., Price Waterhouse, and Touche Ross (The Big Eight). Smith, G. S., & Smith, C. W. (1991). A working paper of a model of undergraduate accounting education for life-long learning. In Sundem, G. L. & Norgaard, C. T. (Eds), Models of accounting education (pp. 14-32). Torrance, CA: AECC.
Journal of Accounting Education, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 227-236, 1996 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0748-5751196 $15.00 + 0.00
S0748-5751(96)00012-7
A TETRAHEDRAL MODEL OF ACCOUNTING EDUCATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH Irvin T. Nelson
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Irvin T. Nelson is an Assistant Professor at the School of Accountancy at U t a h State University. He presently serves as chair of the F S A D a t a Base Committee and as a m e m b e r of the Strategic Planning Committee. He has also chaired the FSA Private Enterprise Membership Committee. Professor Nelson's doctoral studies include an outside area in cognitive educational psychology.
The 1990s are witnessing the most rapid and perhaps the most extensive changes in accounting education since its inception near the turn of the 20th century. Three factors have combined to fuel these changes: the 150-hour vote of the AICPA in 1988 and subsequent changes in state licensing requirements nationwide; the White Paper by the largest national CPA firms and the accompanying $4 million to found and fund the AECC in 1989; and the new accreditation requirements adopted by the AACSB in 1991. Driven largely by one or more of these external factors, accounting schools and departments at institutions of all sizes and varieties are currently engaged in various forms of change in their respective curricula. In the midst of these widespread and diverse changes, researchers in accounting education are faced with a vital challenge: to discover which changes are more effective than others, and why; and to determine whether these changes can be efficiently transferred between settings and institutions, and if so, how. The rapid pace and multiple catalysts of change create a unique window of opportunity for research. This essay will discuss opportunities for empirical and theoretical research in accounting education within the framework of a model of learning from the cognitive psychology literature.
A T E T R A H E D R A L MODEL OF LEARNING As researchers consider the educational process, a model may be useful to conceptualize various otherwise unconnected and potentially 227
228
I.T. Nelson
confounding innovations, t Jenkins (1979) and Bransford (1979) conceived a model o f learning which represents the four fundamental factors that affect learning (see Figure 1). Each vertex of the tetrahedron represents a cluster o f variables o f a given type: characteristics of the learners, nature o f the materials, learning activities, and criterial measures. Each edge represents a two-way interaction important to learning. Each plane calls attention to a three-way interaction, and the whole figure represents the four-way interaction of all the variables. As a general framework for conceptualizing the complexities o f the process of learning, the Tetrahedral Model offers significant insights into accounting education. Virtually every issue and innovation in accounting education can be characterized in terms of one or more factors of the tetrahedron. Criterial Measures are the standards by which learning outcomes are measured. In the context o f accounting education, critial measures m a y be thought of as definitions o f what is meant by "quality" or "desired outcomes" in accounting graduates. Characteristics of the Learners are the individual differences in intelligence, personality, motivation, antecedent skills and
Characteristics
of the Learners
Learning Activities
Criterial Measures
Nature of the Materials
Figure 1. Tetrahedral model of learning. IThe educational literature offers several models of learning which may be of benefit to accounting educators. Needles and Anderson (1991) presented a model of accounting education based upon Bloom's (1956) taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives. Smith and Smith (1991) borrowed from Perry's (1970) scheme of intellectual and ethical development during the college years to develop an "entrophic" model of undergraduate accounting education. Others have adapted Kolb's (1984) Experiential Learning Model to accounting settings (Baldwin & Rockers, 1984; Baker, Simon, & Bazeli 1986, 1987). While less specific, Jenkins' (1979) and Bransford's (1979) model of learning offers the advantage of a very broad perspective of the learning process. Rather than a sequential flow chart of the learning cycle or a hierarchy of maturity stages or learning objectives, their model portrays the four underlying factors of/earning.
A Tetrahedral Model
229
knowledge, learning style, etc. brought into the learning situation by the students a priori. Nature of the Materials refers to both the material to be learned and the way in which the material is presented. This factor encompasses curriculum, pedagogy, subjects covered, texts, testing and grading, etc. Learning Activities are the classroom and out-of-class learning behaviors engaged in by students. The remainder of this article will examine opportunities for research within each of the four factors of learning. CRITERIAL MEASURES Criterial Measures are similar to what accounting educators call "outcomes assessments". What are the desired outcomes of accounting education? What are the skills and knowledge needed by entrants into the profession? Conceivably, there are many possible measures of entrant quality; for example, GPA, SAT and GMAT scores, years of education, reputation of the school, percentages of placements, and pass-rates on professional examinations are all potential standards by which quality may be measured. Identifying appropriate criterial measures is critical because they have important implications for the other three factors. Once a particular skill has been identified, students possessing basic levels of that skill can be recruited and students with insufficiently developed capabilties can be denied admittance. Additionally, courses can be designed to refine and develop the skill. Students can be taught behaviors that will enhance the skill. Perhaps the most valid criteria for measuring the quality of accounting graduates would be those factors that predict competence and success in the accounting profession. To date, research in this area is scarce, and is limited to anecdotes and opinion surveys. Longitudinal empirical research is needed to identify and measure the capabilities predictive of success and advancement in the profession (as well as those predictive of failure and turnover). In the meantime, the best surrogate may be the capabilities identified as important by accounting practitioners. Sources of professionals' opinions regarding the competencies that accounting graduates should possess include the then Big 8's White Paper (Perspectives), the AECC's first position statement (AECC, 1990a), Brigham Young University's survey of over 500 accounting professionals (Deppe, Sonderegger, Stice, Clark, & Streuling, 1991); and the recent IMA (1994) study. These attempts by the profession to communicate desired outcomes offer some opportunities for research in criterial measures. For example, what is the nature of the differences in desired outcomes between the official pronoucements of the largest national public accounting firms
230
I.T. Nelson
(Perspectives) versus the IMA (1994)? Was the AECC correct in defining the accounting profession "broadly" and attempting to define desired outcomes applicable to all fields of employment in accounting (AECC, 1990a), or are the desired outcomes necessarily and substantially different between sub-disciplines? Additionally, some groups, such as internal auditors, regional and local CPA firms, and government accountants have not formally published their expectations. Are their criteria different than those of the IMA and the Big 6? Are the capabilities defined by the Big 6 representative of those desired by local and regional firms? Within the Big 6, how large is the alleged discrepancy between the capabilities desired by the recruiters (based on their hiring patterns) and the national partners (as expressed in Perspectives)? Research is also needed to address how desired outcomes can be validly and reliably measured. A standardized measure of desired learning outcomes would be a great contribution to the accounting education literature. In any case, it is critical to recognize that different criterial measures lead to different results, and that various stakeholders may favor different criteria. In any empirical study, criterial measures must be clearly specified by the researcher, because learning outcomes can only be understood and interpreted in the context of the "yardstick" by which they are measured and compared.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEARNERS The learning process is strongly affected by the degree and types of previously developed skills, knowledge, and attitudes brought into the classroom by the students. Many extremely important implications of this factor of learning provide opportunities for research. First, one way of improving learning outcomes is to start with better students. For example, are some of the specified graduate capabilities best developed prior to enrollment in accounting programs? Is attracting students with high pre-enrollment levels of these capabilities an appropriate alternative to completely restructuring accounting programs in an attempt to impart these skills to students who lack them? Should proficiency in certain skills be an entry requirement for acceptance into accounting programs? Related research might explore trends in student quality, stereotypes of accounting versus other professions among high school and college students, student attitudes toward accounting, the effectiveness of student recruitment activities, using the first accounting course as a recruiting tool, the relative effectiveness of various pre-screens for admission to accounting programs, etc. Again, the development of
A Tetrahedral Model
231
standardized measures of student quality would be a contribution of immense importance. Second, what is the proper balance between liberal versus technical education? Many of the skills and knowledge that have been identified as lacking in current graduates are non-technical and reminiscent of a broad, liberal, "citizen-scholar", "renaissance-man" type of education. Such deficiencies may be better rectified through additional liberal arts courses than through revised accounting courses. Given a fixed number of credit hours, (whether 120, 150, or more), deciding what goes into those hours always involves a trade-off between breadth of education and amount of specialized, domain-specific, technical training. How many of the 150 hours should be devoted to accounting and business, versus to the fine arts, humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences? In my observation, a discrepancy exists between what the framers of the 150hour requirement intended (30 more hours of liberal arts to broaden the education) versus what most accounting professors want (30 more hours of accounting courses which further narrow the already-too-specialized education). Research could examine the outcomes of these antithetical approaches. Third, after the proper balance between liberal versus technical education has been determined, what is the best sequencing of the liberal and technical components? For example, the typical FSA model seems to be a 1-year, specialized accounting master's degree tacked onto a traditional, 4-year undergraduate accounting degree. Is this the ideal, or should the entire 5 years be re-examined? Should accounting follow the legal and medical professions in postponing all specialized, profession-specific, technical training until after students have received a broad, liberal education? In other words, should the first accounting course be deferred to the junior year, the senior year, or even the graduate year? Can an "already expanded mind" comprehend and digest debits and credits faster and more deeply than can freshmen and sophomores? If schools of accountancy recruited liberal arts graduates with no business or accounting background and trained them in an intensive, highly technical, 1-year masters program, would they meet the criterial measures better than graduates of the existing paradigm? Several such programs exist presently; empirical research is needed to assess their effectiveness. A fourth research issue related to the third is, what is the best sequencing of material within the accounting program? For example, most accounting programs focus on the memorization of rules and procedures (intermediate, cost, tax, and auditing, etc.) in the junior and senior years, saving conceptual, "capstone" courses (theory, history, advanced, etc.) for the master's year (for those who choose to go on). An alternative approach might be to introduce students to a solid
232
I.T. Nelson
conceptual/theoretical foundation early in the program, followed by technical, rules-specific courses later in the program. 2 Does the education literature provide guidance in this regard? Do any existing programs take a non-traditional approach which could provide empirical evidence?
NATURE OF THE MATERIALS The Nature of the Materials to be learned encompasses nearly everything related to the accounting program and accounting courses (curriculum, pedagogy, teaching modality, texts and other materials, classroom testing and grading, teacher quality, course structures, subjects covered, etc.). Of the four factors of learning, this is the one which has received by far the most widespread attention in recent years and was heavily emphasized in most of the grants awarded by the AECC. Most of what is commonly characterized as "change" in accounting education falls under Nature of the Materials, including: better sequencing and a holistic organization of course content; use of the case method; technological classroom innovations; new texts and course materials; training of professors; revised testing and grading criteria; teaching the scientific method; use of mentors; writing-to-learn; cooperative learning; use of the Socratic method; etc. The general questions to be asked include: "how should accounting courses be taught?" and "which innovations are more effective than others?" Examples of specific research questions include the following: is the 150hour requirement in itself effective in improving graduate quality, or does it depend on the content of the additional 30 hours? More specifically, which 150-hour programs are most effective in producing desired outcomes, and why? Is a 150-hour baccalaureate as effectual as a master's degree? Under the new accreditation guidelines, what effect does accreditation have on graduate quality? How should scarce class time be spent: does emphasis on technical coverage (memorizing as many rules and techniques of practice as possible), or depth of learning (critically exploring a relatively few issues in great detail) lead to better learning outcomes? What types of formal training have faculty received in alternative pedagogical techniques (in Ph.D. programs, on campus, and in CPE), and how effective has it been? Researchers might also examine the three motivators for change: the 150-hour requirement, the AECC-type motivations, and the AACSB's new accreditation standards. Do these three motivations lead to the same kinds 2Sequencingof materialsalso involvesthe third factorin the TetrahedralModel of Learning, "Nature of the Materials". It is discussedhere becauseof its effectupon the prior knowledge students bring with them into a particular course.
A Tetrahedral Model
233
of changes? What is the nature of the differences? Which leads to best outcomes? Can the three issues be addressed simultaneously, or are they separate? What kinds of strategic planning are accounting schools utilizing to chart their respective paths? How are various faculties addressing length versus breadth versus depth issues? Research into the impediments to change is also needed. For example, two follow-up committees to the Bedford Committee identified factors which they believed inhibit change, including financial cost, faculty time cost, faculty reward structures, research expectations, increasing volume and complexity of the common body of knowledge, textbook dependency, influence of the CPA exam, and accreditation (AAA, 1989, pp. 8-9 and pp. 145-147). Are these inhibitors valid? Have they been ameliorated in schools which have implemented changes, and if so, how? Which factors predict a lack of change more strongly than others? Are there other predictors of slow or no change? For example, do student evaluations discourage innovation and experimentation? Have any changes in faculty reward structures resulted from the AECC's first issues statement (AECC, 1990b)?
LEARNING ACTIVITIES The fourth, and most often overlooked, factor of the Tetrahedral Model of Learning is Leaning Activities; the kinds of behaviors engaged in by the students when presented with information to be learned. Research in cognition has convincingly proven that learning strategies and behaviors have a significant impact on learning outcomes (Bransford, 1979). Unfortunately, some of the most commonly used learning strategies have been shown to be remarkably ineffective (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Because some strategies and behaviors are more effective than others, this is one of the main factors which differentiates "good" learners from "bad" learners. In other words, the argument is that intelligence, motivation, and prior knowledge (all of which are characteristics of the learners) are n o t the only things which differentiate "the best and brightest" from "the ordinary and dull" students. Can study skills, which can be taught to any student, significantly improve accounting student performance? There is an entire literature of research in Learning Activities which has been virtually untapped by accounting academicians. Subjects include "learning to learn", "lifetime learning", study habits, learning strategies, cognitive processes, attention, encoding, metacognition, etc. Experimentation with the teaching of effective learning strategies (methods of organization and elaboration of information, spatial learning strategies, advance organizers and matrix note-taking, etc.) in accounting courses is a promising area for future
234
I.T. Nelson
research which has been largely ignored in accounting education, including in the AECC grants. INTERACTIONS The four factors are not independent. Interactions between the four factors of learning are likely. A change in one factor may affect learning outcomes not only directly, but also indirectly through its effect on other factors. For example, suppose a certain class section has higher-GPA students than another. This characteristic of the learners may cause the class to perform better on examinations than the other section. It may also cause a change in the quality and level of classroom discussions. The higher level of the class may lead the instructor to modify the lecture. Better questions may be asked by the students. The class discussion may be more insightful. In short, the students may have a different classroom experience. A characteristic of the learners thus affects the nature of the material, which in turn has an incremental effect on learning outcomes. The higher level of competition in the class may also cause the students to engage in different learning activities such as greater attention and elaboration. A higher standard of performance becomes the norm for the class, leading to greater effort, which again affects learning outcomes. Research into interactions between factors of learning should follow increased research into each individual factor. It would be rare for any single empirical study to examine all four factors in detail. Nevertheless, it is useful to understand the contribution of each individual study within the larger context of the entire model. Any comprehensive evaluation of the learning process must consider all four factors; otherwise, the analysis will be misspecified and the conclusions will be confounded by omitted variables. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS A Tetrahedral model of learning has been presented as a framework for accounting education. Suggestions for research have been offered for each of the four factors in the model. Clearly, the field of accounting education is ripe with timely, relevant issues providing opportunities for quality research. A long-neglected issue that needs to be raised and discussed candidly is the relative prestige attributed to other fields of accounting research as opposed to that accorded to research in accounting education. One new faculty member was told that his extensive publications in accounting education "won't buy you a trip to the drinking fountain" when it comes to tenure decisions. Virtually all Ph.D. students who express an interest in accounting education are vigorously redirected to other fields of study by
A Tetrahedral Model
235
their advisors. Issues in A c c o u n t i n g Education is not counted the same as other A A A sectional journals in promotion and tenure decisions. Why? W h a t is the justification for this double standard? Perhaps it's time to take an honest look in the mirror. After 25 years of increasingly rigorous econometric research in capital markets and psychological experiments in decision-making, what have accounting researchers learned that is of value to society? In my personal observation, the answer to that question is embarrassing and cannot possibly justify its cost. H o w can such an infinitesimal contribution possibly measure up to that which could have been made had such resources been invested in research into what skills and knowledge make people better accountants and how to impart those skills and knowledge to students? Isn't that the essence of the mission of higher education? I believe it is time for more of the best minds in accounting academia to put aside some of their ivorytower work and begin to place some serious emphasis on researching teaching, curriculum, and course development. The quantity, relevance, and importance of issues begging to be studied are greater in accounting education than perhaps in any other field of academic accounting research. It is not my intent to castigate the efforts of those who have contributed to the accounting education literature, nor to imply that some of them are not a m o n g the best minds in accounting education. On the contrary, I assert that m a n y significant contributions have been made, and that the quality of the research is continually improving. Unfortunately, despite its quality, such research has often gone unrewarded. Perhaps, if we are really serious about change, this is the place to begin. In any event, the future holds promise both for accounting education and for accounting education research.
REFERENCES Accounting Education Change Commission (1990a). Objectives of education for accountants: Position statement number one. Issues in Accounting Education, Fall, 307-312. Accounting Education Change Commission (1990b). AECC urges priority for teaching in higher education: Position statement number one. Issues in Accounting Education, Fall, 320-321. American Accounting Association, Committee on the Future Structure, Content, and Scope of Accounting Education (The Bedford Committee) (1986). Future accounting education: Preparing for the expanding profession. Issues in Accounting Education, Spring, 168-195. American Accounting Association, Committee on the Future Structure, Content, and Scope of Accounting Edueaion (The Bedford Committee) (1989). Reorienting accounting education: Reports on the environment, professoriate, and curriculum of accounting. In Schultz, J. J. Jr (Ed.), American education series I0, Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association. Baker, R. E., Simon, L R., & Bazeli, F. P. (1986). An assessment of the learning style preferences of accounting majors. Issues in Accounting Education, Spring, 1-12. Baker, R. E., Simon, J. R., & Bazeli, F. P. (1987). Selecting instructional design for
236
I.T. Nelson
introductory accounting based on the experiential learning model. Journal of Accounting Education, 5, 207-226. Baldwin, B. A., & Reekers, P. M. J. (1984). Exploring the role of learning style research in accounting education policy. Journal of Accounting Education, 2, 63-76. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay Company, Inc. Bransford, J. D. (1979). Human cognition: Learning, understanding, and remembering. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 671~84. Deppe, L. A., Sonderegger, E. O., Stice, J. D., Clark, D. C., & Streuling, G. F. (1991). Emerging competencies for the practice of accountancy. Journal of Accounting Education, 9, 257-290. Institute of Management Accountants (1994). What corporate America wants in entry-level accountants. Montvale, NJ: IMA. Jenkins, J. J. (1979). Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model of memory experiments. In Cermak, L. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (Eds.), Levels of processing and human memory. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Needles, B. E. Jr, & Anderson, H. R. (1991). A comprehensive model for accounting education. In Sundem, G. L. & Norgaard, C. T. (Eds), Models of accounting education (pp. 49-70). Torrance, CA: AECC. Perry, W. G. Jr (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Perspectives on education: Capabilitiesfor success in the accounting profession (1989). New York: Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Whinney, Peat Marwick Main & Co., Price Waterhouse, and Touche Ross (The Big Eight). Smith, G. S., & Smith, C. W. (1991). A working paper of a model of undergraduate accounting education for life-long learning. In Sundem, G. L. & Norgaard, C. T. (Eds), Models of accounting education (pp. 14-32). Torrance, CA: AECC.