Enhancing the AIS curriculum: Integration of a research-led, problem-based learning task

J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

J. of Acc. Ed. journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaccedu

Teaching and educational notes

Enhancing the AIS curriculum: Integration of a research-led, problem-based learning task Carla L. Wilkin ⇑ Department of Accounting, Monash University, Caulfield East, Victoria, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Available online 20 April 2014 Keywords: Constructivist learning Research-led teaching (RLT) Problem-based learning (PBL) Scaffolding Student-centered AIS curriculum

a b s t r a c t Issues relating to student learning outcomes, retention and engagement, together with pressure to reinvigorate and differentiate higher education programs through integrating research-based material into the curriculum, are repeatedly in the spotlight. This paper reports on successful results from a case study of a student-centered, research-led, problem-based learning task that was incorporated into the curriculum of an Accounting Information Systems subject. Through engaging students with the learning experience, the curriculum changes addressed identified needs for improved communication, reflective appraisal as well as analytical and critical thinking skills in higher education graduates. The paper concludes with details of student perceptions of the task and learning outcomes, a review of academic performance, and reflection on the methodologies employed. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

‘‘Tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn.’’ Paraphrase of a Chinese Proverb by Xunzi (312 to 230BC) [The paraphrase is attributed to Paul Rowell writing in an article ‘‘Heavy Stress On Reading In Boston Schools’’ on 12 June 1967, Boston (MA) Traveler, p. 3, col. 5, where he said ‘‘There is an ancient Chinese proverb that in its wisdom relates...’I hear...and I forget. I see...and I remember. I do...and I understand.’’’]

⇑ Tel.: +61 3 9903 1438; fax: +61 3 9903 2422. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2014.04.001 0748-5751/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

186

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

1. Introduction There is growing pressure to reform and differentiate higher accounting education programs to ensure students acquire skills rather than memorize content; learn strategies to update knowledge and skills in order to remain operative in the profession (Killian, 2013); and acquire the ‘‘core professional competencies (e.g., communication, analytical skill, critical thinking) [which] are important for success’’ (Apostolou, Dorminey, Hassell, & Watson, 2013, 146). Calls from existing research encourage a ‘‘shift away from documenting the importance [of achieving these competencies], which is now generally accepted, toward identifying the best ways to teach or learn’’ them (Apostolou et al., 2013, 146). In line with Brew (2003) this was transitioned to action in the reported study through integration of research-based material into the curriculum experiences of postgraduate students. Through reporting on a research-led task the study demonstrates how a constructivist approach to learning can assist students to engage in constructing their own knowledge about current issues for Accounting Information Systems (AIS). This facilitates transformation of students from passive to active learners. In doing so the task and related research responds to the: (1) considerable body of literature (i.e., Brew & Pesta, 2001; Healey & Jenkins, 2005; Irving, 2011; McGowan, 2012), which emphasizes the merit of research-led teaching (RLT) for invigorating the classroom and ensuring students have the latest knowledge; (2) influential pedagogical discourse that higher education programs should foster students’ personal epistemology to enhance higher order thinking and the ability to make reasoned judgments (Hofer, 2001; Jiang & Roberts, 2011); (3) initiatives suggested by senior academic researchers to improve the relevance of contemporary research (Moisander & Stenfors, 2009), with less theoreticallydriven, more people-focused approaches; (4) merits of engaging wider commentary on research endeavors beyond the typical audience of academic journals (Galliers, 2011); and (5) calls from a variety of authorities (i.e., the International Federation of Accountants IFAC, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants AICPA, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and CPA Australia) to develop professional skills such as communication, reflective, analytical and critical thinking (AICPA, 2013; IAESB, 2009; ICAA & CPA Australia, 2009). As postgraduate students are the very professionals who should be objects and beneficiaries of research, the reported task responds to calls for improved ‘‘practical relevance of contemporary research’’ (Galliers, 2011, 1). A compelling case exists to include an element of research-led discourse in the curriculum. The reported student-centered active classroom assessment task (henceforth referred to as the task) addresses requirements such as AACSB’s mission to promote scholarship, innovation and collaborative learning (AACSB, 2013). Additionally, consistent with prior studies into the valuable outcomes arising from integrating research into the related AIS curriculum, the task developed students’ critical thinking and communication skills, as well as their experience of working in teams (Bierstaker, 2007; Irving, 2011; McGowan, 2012). Yet its implementation also contributes new insights. Firstly, the successful outcomes were generated in a postgraduate subject concerned with enterprise systems. Whilst the subject curriculum was established, deployed and taught in English, it was not the students’ primary language. Secondly, selection of the research article (on topics such as the impact of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems on the role of accountants; and the potential of RFID, business intelligence, mobile computing, and the cloud) formed part of the task itself rather than students selecting from a predefined list of research articles clustered according to the weekly topics. Consequently at every stage of the task students were required to apply their own critical thinking. Thirdly, part of the task required an accountable exercise in written reflection, not only individually on the student’s own syndicate’s presentation of their chosen research article, but also joint reflection on the presentation of a research article by another syndicate. This required critical thinking about the relevance and accuracy of material in a manner that tested students’ capacity to apply knowledge from the curriculum to an unanticipated scenario. The presented task offers a new and replicable exercise in delivering a RLT, problem-based learning (PBL) strategy that stimulates critical thinking about theoretical and practical aspects of the AIS curriculum. This not only extends research in accounting education, where to date there has been little use of this approach (Stanley & Marsden, 2012), but it also develops professionally desirable skills related to student engagement and enhancement of more relativistic cognitive development. Similarly

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

187

it develops skills in investigating relevant issues, collaborative engagement, communication, analytical skills, critical listening and reflective appraisal. Whilst the rationale underpinning the task is readily apparent and addresses an educational gap, there are several impediments. Firstly, there is often a ‘‘considerable disconnect between academics’ research interests and the curriculum they are required to teach’’ (Schapper & Mayson, 2008, 5). Secondly, government and professional accreditation requirements create busy curriculum and accountable outcomes such that educators have minimal space in which to build broader student experiences. The task has been evolved over four years, such that it now accounts for 20% of the total assessment in the subject.1 The contribution brought is the linkage of constructivist learning through RLT with PBL and appropriate scaffolding into a busy curriculum, thereby providing a template for successful empowerment of student-centered learning. Findings provide new insight into how this enhances the students’ learning experience and achieves students’ knowledge of current research that is most relevant to the curriculum. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 constructivist learning, RLT, PBL and scaffolding are introduced. Section 3 details how the task was implemented, while Section 4 reports on the evaluative approach that was used. Section 5 presents and discusses results from evaluation of the task. Finally, Section 6 details the research limitations, opportunities for future research and concludes the paper.

2. Review of the literature and underpinning concepts 2.1. Constructivist learning The distinctive purpose of higher education is to support ‘‘students and . . . wider society’s understanding of the complexities of the worlds in which we live’’ (Jenkins & Healey, 2005, 6). Herein higher order thinking and the ability to make reasoned judgments assist with cognitive development (BaxterMagolda, 2002). In support of this, constructivist learning theories emphasize the importance of engaging students in the process of constructing their own knowledge, rather than it being transmitted (Biggs, 1996; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). Notwithstanding debate about its value (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006), a constructivist-driven approach seeks to create meaning through the student’s learning activities (Biggs, 2012). This was enabled through the task. As students construct knowledge ‘‘through active engagement . . . by seeking new information and connecting it to what is already known’’ (Killian, 2013, 3; Saudagaran, 1996), how students construct knowledge is briefly reviewed before the theoretical underpinnings of the task are discussed. Whilst there is debate about the educational experiences that foster development (Hofer, 2001), there is acceptance of the usefulness of Perry’s (1970) categorization that students will begin with a dualistic perspective of knowledge (characterized by right-and-wrong); then to acknowledgment of more divergent viewpoints (multiplism); thence to relativism wherein they recognize more relative merit in viewpoints and self-consciously make meaning; and finally to commitment within relativism, which relates to ethical choices beyond intellectual engagement (Moore, 2001). Further, several scholars have emphasized the social nature of learning i.e., through shared narratives and ‘‘socio-cultural meanings’’ (Light, Cox, & Calkins, 2009), and through conversations of personal significance to the student (Brown & Adler, 2008). In facilitating this, quality teaching materials should provide opportunity for students to deal with diversity of opinion regarding new knowledge, whilst correspondingly foster student understanding about how knowing occurs i.e., about learning and self (Moore, 2001). Prior research has argued that personal epistemological growth should inform the learning and teaching methodologies adopted in higher education programs and be fostered through exposure to and consequent encouragement of a range of opinions about a topic (which develops cognition from dualism to multiplism); through encouraging confidence in accepting multiple scenarios and viewpoints from 1 The average mark in this assessment task was a mid-Distinction (D), which was consistently better than the average marks in the other assessment tasks, a low Distinction (D) and a low Credit (C) respectively. Note: a Pass ranges from 50 to 59; a Credit from 60 to 69; a Distinction from 70 to 79; and a High Distinction 80 and above.

188

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

which to appraise a response (relativism); and thence to positions and knowledge that enhance personal values and identity (commitment through relativism). Among key teaching methodologies to achieve such outcomes are RLT and/or PBL (Dickie & Jay, 2010; Schapper & Mayson, 2008). These two methodologies and the related role of scaffolding are now briefly discussed in order to frame an understanding of the task. 2.2. RLT Whilst an approach like RLT is significantly endorsed (Jenkins & Healey, 2005; Schapper & Mayson, 2008), how RLT is achieved varies widely, even to the extent that its practice may be considerably less than its espousal. The various names by which RLT is referred include research-led, research-oriented and research-based teaching, each with subtly distinguishing characteristics. The variety of names indicate the range of typologies wherein research and teaching linkages have been expressed as learning about others’ research; learning to do research; learning in research mode; and pedagogic research (Jenkins & Healey, 2005, 21). Many learning and teaching activities with a research focus contain some or all of these typologies. These may be evidenced by teaching practices, such as an academic including aspects of personal research in the curriculum; a community of scholars contributing to on-line forums or as guest lecturers; curriculum development through research about learning and teaching; and encouraging student research projects (Schapper & Mayson, 2008). The reported task fits with Brew and Prosser’s (2003, 3) definition of RLT, which ‘‘in a research-intensive environment is teaching carried out in the atmosphere of imaginative enquiry that arises from leading-edge scholarship; teaching that stimulates reflective learning and critical, creative thinking and at all levels ... As such it needs to be student-focused rather than teacher-focused’’. Several reviews have identified a lack of accounting research aimed at improving students’ research skills (Paisey & Paisey, 2003; Watson, Apostolou, Hassell, & Webber, 2007). Yet integrating research, especially research papers, into the curriculum beneficially engages students in critical thinking. This particularly applies when the learning environment requires them to engage simultaneously with both the research’s principles and controversies (Irving, 2011). As RLT expands intellectual engagement with the curriculum, linking teaching with research has value for higher education programs, especially when it supports students in gaining relative perspectives on wider society’s understanding of the complexities of the world (Jenkins & Healey, 2005). In essence ‘‘[b]oth learning and research are about making meaning . . . the pursuit of intellectually challenging ideas . . . for both learning and research involve thinking and critical reflection’’ (Brew, 2003, 15). Thus, RLT addresses the importance of emphasizing uncertainty through requiring students to construct knowledge rather than rely on the teacher to impart it (Hattie & Marsh, 1996). Through its novel use of RLT, the task contributes to pedagogic research: it required students to learn about others’ research; to make meaning through using their selected research (and knowledge) and applying critical thinking to the curriculum; and to reflect on research materials and upon the related intellectual challenges. 2.3. PBL Another methodology, PBL, also seeks to promote higher levels of cognitive learning through deep learning that extends the students’ cognitive engagement beyond the superficial understanding associated with surface learning. Used with constructivist learning, PBL can engage student-centered learning with minimal teacher guidance (Biggs & Tang, 2011). Moreover it can promote development of self-directed learning skills, as well as the ability to work in a syndicate and to communicate and present information effectively (DIT School of Physics, 2012). Originating in medical education, PBL aims to foster students’ cognitive development and knowledge through requiring their participatory engagement in a collaborative task that demands resolution of a problem and reflection on the experience. As such, following definition of the problem, the goal is achieved through teamwork, collection of resources, and planning and resolving, with reflection upon both the process and the learning (Clarke & Hubball, 2001; Saacti, 2008). By encouraging a range of learning strategies including critical thinking, interpersonal skills, reflective analysis and co-operative learning (Cobb & Bowers, 1999), PBL facilitates theoretical and practical

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

189

understanding, and creates new knowledge (Kolb, 1976). Whilst to date there have been few reports of its application in accounting education,2 PBL may usefully address the call from accounting authorities (i.e., IAESB, ICAA and CPA Australia) to better equip graduates. In this study PBL was used with RLT as a constructivist perspective for learning to foster appreciation that there are multiple answers to issues and to elicit student appreciation of the relativism of knowledge, including possible commitment within relativism. In doing so there is preference for an educator to be a facilitator rather than an oracle (Kendler & Grove, 2004), guiding and challenging learning through intervening and providing knowledge in a targeted manner (Yew & Schmidt, 2012). Of equal importance is ensuring that students have sufficient prior knowledge and resources to build upon in order to achieve required outcomes (Morrison, 2004). Notably effective application of PBL (or in this study RLT and PBL) to a student-centered learning task may require strategic availability of scaffolding to facilitate/enhance/underpin student learning (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). 2.4. Scaffolding By directing students, scaffolding makes learning more accessible and manageable in terms of their stage of development (cognitive, meta-cognitive and affective) so they learn both how to complete a task and why the task should be completed (Hmelo-Silver, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978). Its application to this task included: educator oversight in ensuring selected articles were relevant; the provision of detailed information on how to read a research article and what to look for in each section; availability of advice as needed; and a requirement that the written reflection on another syndicate’s presentation (which was an ‘‘impromptu’’ exercise) was a syndicate rather than an individual exercise. Hence scaffolding formed an important part of the design. Reflection has been found to be an essential component in achieving success in situations involving the application of learning (Ash & Clayton, 2009; Stevens & Cooper, 2009). Given suggestions that without requiring students to reflect on a new experience, they may ‘‘have the experience but miss the meaning’’ (Killian, 2013, 3) scaffolding, in the form of appropriate prompts about what and how to reflect upon, was provided to meet defined needs (Edelson, 2001). Developed in response to students’ inability to articulate their self-reflection and critical reflection, the prompts were increasingly refined. These facilitated students to voice their views, opinions, emotions and experiences associated with the task (Ash & Clayton, 2009; Killian, 2013), guiding them towards achieving the required learning goals and outcomes. 2.5. Summary Prior research and university mission statements allude to the merit of considering methodologies such as RLT and PBL (with appropriate scaffolding) for enhancing student engagement and fostering quality in accounting education. Given the rapid growth in knowledge and technology, demand is growing for professionals who can adapt to changing circumstance (Savin-Baden, 1998), act in situations of uncertainty and engage with new knowledge in problem-solving scenarios (Griggs, 2005). Research has shown the efficacy of such methodologies, including reports that they foster student engagement and persistence in higher education, and develop beneficially productive cognitive responses provided that the stresses of new challenges (wherein appreciation of new realities is embedded) is balanced with counterbalancing structured support (Bedard, Lison, Dalle, Cote, & Boutin, 2012; Irving, 2011; McGowan, 2012). Yet to date in research that reports on RLT methodologies, students have not been required to select course-relevant materials (Irving, 2011), nor have they been required to critically reflect beyond the work related to their presentation (Bierstaker, 2007; Paisey & Paisey, 2003). Whilst on the one hand the reported assessment task is similar to that of McGowan (2012), as it required students to be quite self-directed and demonstrate critical appreciation, it differs as it demands self-reflection and critical reflection on the work of others. As such, it addresses the need 2 Noted exceptions are the theoretical papers by Johnstone and Biggs (1998) and Milne and McConnell (2001), and empirical papers Brenton (1999), Heagy and Lehmann (2005), and Stanley and Marsden (2012).

190

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

for stimulation of critical thinking about the accounting curriculum and of professionally desirable skills related to researching relevant issues, collaborative engagement, communication, analytical skill, critical listening and reflective appraisal. 3. Implementation of the RLT, PBL task with scaffolding 3.1. Learning context and student characteristics The reported RLT, PBL task was embedded in a compulsory master’s level subject (given the pseudonym AIS5000) in an advanced accounting program at a large multi-national university. Subject enrollment was modest, with 44 students being enrolled when the task was evaluated. 41 students completed the questionnaire, although two questionnaires were later removed as sections were found to be incomplete, leaving an effective response rate of 88.6%. Holistically the cohort was diverse, with only one student predominantly speaking English at home. 48.7% had completed their undergraduate degree outside Australia. Regarding gender, 71.8% were female and 28.2% male, with most being freshly minted undergraduates who did not possess any formal work experience. Collectively these factors meant that cultural skills such as critical evaluation of oneself, which was an integral component of the task, were more challenging. AIS5000 is a six credit-point subject offered twice per year. It aims to introduce students to the business aspects of integrated enterprise systems. Given the capacity of AIS systems to integrate information across multiple enterprise functions and business units, support key enterprise processes, and provide an enterprise-wide view of business performance, their growth has been exponential. Besides offering students practical experience with a well-known integrated enterprise system, AIS5000 covers systems and technology background, business processes, controls and process reengineering, integration of core financial and logistics processes, enterprise-wide reporting, techniques for assessing enterprise productivity, as well as current issues that impact enterprise systems. Although rephrased to assist with anonymity, AIS5000’s learning goals were to foster students’ ability to: 1. appraise the characteristics and global contributions of enterprise systems; 2. evaluate how business processes embedded in integrated systems support business decision making; 3. critically analyze the motivation for and benefits obtained from adoption of enterprise systems; 4. demonstrate practical skills in use of an enterprise system; and 5. apply critical thinking, problem-solving and presentation skills to assessment tasks and thereby demonstrate acquisition of comprehensive understanding of the topics covered by AIS5000. Curriculum was delivered via a 2hour weekly lecture related to theoretical understanding and a 2hour tutorial that comprised a mix of hands-on use of an enterprise system, tutorial exercises to enhance student appreciation of theory and practice, and assessment of the RLT, PBL task. Holistically, assessment in AIS5000 comprises: an examination (60%); compilation of a research-oriented business report (10%); a practical exercise involving use of an enterprise system (10%); and the focus RLT, PBL task (20%). This task played a key role in ensuring students had the support and challenge required to achieve (in particular) learning goals 1, 3 and 5 in the focus subject. 3.2. Design of the task Active learning is more demanding on the part of both students and educators (Killian & Brandon, 2009). Whilst most students had prior experience with group (syndicate) oral presentations (82.1%), they held the view that preparing and delivering an oral presentation made them think more carefully about the topic than they would have in a written assessment (median 5, standard deviation (SD) 1.33). Further, students’ general comments indicated that many have not previously been required to critically reflect on either their performance in such a task or on others’ performance. Moreover their

191

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

experience with self-directed learning was limited. These factors meant it was critical to carefully define and articulate task expectations and requirements, as well as provide appropriate scaffolding. Thus, task design took account of several factors, namely the need to: (1) engage students in a manner that required them to apply knowledge rather than rote learn responses; (2) be of sufficient depth and interest to command and test critical engagement; (3) minimize flow-on impacts from risk taking and persisting with wrong tangents; and (4) develop students’ communication, critical, analytical and reflective skills, as well as engagement with current research in the field. Holistically the desire was for the task to be student-centered. Although working collegially in syndicates can be fraught as it is difficult to ensure everyone contributes and learns from the experience, the task involved some group (syndicate) work. Specifically syndicates of two required students to work together to achieve desired learning outcomes rather than being capable of having pieces ‘hived’ off and worked on independently. Finally, reflective self-assessment and the assessment of others’ materials is an important Table 1 Components of the RLT, PBL taska in AIS5000.b Components

Requirement(s)

Marks

 Students self-form syndicates of two  Select relevant research articles (journal articles/ conference papers) related to some aspect/issue in AIS5000 and rank order  Advise an academic of the chosen article and gain approval for it. This quality control step ensures that the article is relevant and accessible, meaning students can achieve their potential  In 15 min, the syndicate is required to jointly present material that summarizes and critiques the contents of the article in a manner that addresses the criteria for assessment (i.e., the extent to which discussion of the research content is related to and enhances curriculum knowledge acquired during lectures and tutorials)

3% Coverage 3% Demonstrated relevance to AIS5000’s curriculum 1.5% Audience engagement

B: Academic assessment of individual performance during the presentation (ANA, CT & COM)

 Assessment criteria include the need to convey an understanding of the main business issues that would concern management and the viewpoint taken in the article

3%

C: Individual reflection (COM, CT & RA) (RSD c3)

 Each student is required to write reflectively about his/her own syndicate’s presentation and submit this reflection within 2 days of completion of the presentation

4%

D: Joint reflection on another syndicate’s presentation (ANA, CT, RA & COM) (RSD c4)

 Each syndicate is allocated another presentation upon which to write a joint reflective piece that must be submitted within 2 days of that presentation

4%

Total mark as a% of AIS5000’s final mark

 Syndicate mark (13%) + Individual mark (7%)

20%

c

A: Students select (ANA & CT) and present a research article in a syndicate of two and answer questions (COM) (RSD a3, elements of b4, c3, elements of d4, e3/4, f3/4)d

a

1.5% Cohesiveness of delivery

See Appendix A. Adopted from Wilkin (2013). c The task was designed, in part, to address calls for improved communication (COM), reflective appraisal (RA) as well as analytical (ANA) and critical thinking skills (CT) in higher education graduates. Such goals are evident in most aspects of this RLT, PBL task. However, where it has been marked up in Table 1 is where application and demonstration of these skills is most required. d RSD refers to the Research Skills Development Framework (University of Adelaide, 2009). See the text below for details. In the RSD framework categorizations a-f relate to tasks and 1–5 to the degree of students’ independence as they perform the task requirements. For example: a refers to the level at which the student begins and clarifies the initial steps (3 = it being quite structured). For b4, in collecting material and raising issues, the methodology is chosen from provided alternatives. Regarding c3 & 4 – the evaluation occurs against provided criteria (3) or self-directed (4). d relates to organization (at 3 as this was structured). e addresses the extent to which materials have been synthesized to construct emerging knowledge (3) and to fill knowledge gaps identified by others (4). Similarly f relates to communication with task complexity reflected as being to a different context (3) including demonstrated command and innovative understanding (4). b

192

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

Table 2 Evidence of RLT, PBL and scaffolding in AIS5000’s task.a Component

Evidence of RLT and/or PBL

A: Article selection, syndicate presentation and answering of questions (ANA, CT & COM)b







Review and selection of a relevant article. This increases the students’ awareness of research related to AIS5000 (PBL and RLT) Relating the chosen article to material contained in AIS5000 and through the presentation demonstrating understanding and application of the concepts to the discussion (PBL) Answering audience questions, which requires the syndicate to think about the research issues contained in their article (RLT)

Scaffolding  Working in syndicates of two encouraged sharing and developing of ideas, whilst avoiding the problems of uneven output commonly found in larger syndicates  Approval of the chosen article by an academic ensured that a wrong choice could be discussed and sorted without penalty

 The requirement to register and deliver a copy of the chosen article to the academic a minimum of 10 days before the presentation date necessitated contact and encouraged questions  Submission of a copy of the presentation prior to delivery ensured preparation  Where a syndicate’s presentation was awarded a fail, it was required to be presented again to a second assessor within 48 hour (see below for an explanation)



Preparing to answer questions on the presentation through anticipating how the audience will see problems/have problems in seeing connections between the presentation and AIS5000 and/or aspects they find interesting (PBL)

B: Academic assessment of individual performance during the presentation (ANA, CT & COM)



Evaluation of the relevance and accuracy of each student’s engagement with Component A

 Provision of detailed feedback on content and delivery (i.e., strengths, weaknesses and aspects for improvement) within 7 days supported student learning regarding future presentations and knowledge about AIS5000

C: Individual reflection (COM, CT & RA)



The written reflection requires students to reflect on their capacity to engage with research as it relates to AIS5000 (PBL and RLT)

 Provision of a template provided guidance regarding identification of the student’s individual contribution to his/her syndicate’s presentation; and judgment of the relevance of the material to AIS5000, the depth of understanding and how well this was conveyed

D: Joint reflection on another syndicate’s presentation (ANA, CT, RA & COM)



Appreciation of the stated relevance of another syndicate’s presentation of a different research article to AIS5000’s curriculum (RLT) Understanding of how well the AIS5000 curriculum has been applied to discussion of the article (PBL)

 Provision of a template provided guidance on the points that should be considered. Suggestions included: outlining and assessing the key messages; aspects of the presentation that appeared most valuable; aspects where improvement was needed; where the presentation enhanced understanding of AIS5000; and how/why another approach/ viewpoint may have delivered better audience understanding  Positioning this as a joint exercise supported students as they critically listened and reflected upon the relevance of another syndicate’s presentation related to AIS5000’s curriculum





Components A to D

Evaluation of the coherence of the presentation and their answers to audience questions (RLT and PBL)

 Provision of explicit criteria and guidance assisted students to complete each stage of the task

a

Adopted from Wilkin (2013). As with Table 1, the mark ups in Table 2 highlight where students were most required to demonstrate improved communication (COM), reflective appraisal (RA) as well as analytical (ANA) and critical thinking skills (CT). b

element of cognitive development and work-place performance management. The reported task sought to develop students’ skills in these areas. Topics selected by the students included: the impact of ERP systems on the role of accountants; impact of ERP system effectiveness on business processes;

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

193

the contribution of accountants to ERP implementation; the case for ERP systems; and the potential of RFID, business intelligence, mobile computing, and the cloud. As aforementioned, the task evolved over four years, with the current format of the tasks’ components shown in Table 1. As detailed above, the task required students to use the knowledge and understanding developed in lectures and tutorials and apply/relate this to a new context (a research article whose relevance must be assessed and justified). The interplay of the three methodologies, RLT, PBL and scaffolding, in the task are summarized in Table 2. In addition, the task has been referenced (see Table 1) to the Research Skills Development (RSD) framework (University of Adelaide., 2009), that was premised upon research by Willson and O’Regan (2007) into enhancing linkages between teaching and research (Brew, 2006). With support from the Australian Teaching and Learning Council, the RSD framework has been adopted by a number of Australian, Canadian and United States universities as an independent taxonomy to capture the level of student research skills being addressed by an exercise. The ultimate level (5) relates to open, self-directed research. Given the task references at Level 3 (in relation to the scaffolding) and the penultimate Level 4 (related to the PBL and RLT components), there is confidence in the value of the task. Two issues were significant: (1) duplication in the choice of article; and (2) the requirement to remark a failure in Component A as University regulations required assessment tasks worth >10% to be remarked. These were addressed as follows: (1) Possible duplication (Paisey & Paisey, 2003) was averted as syndicates were required to register their article a minimum of 10 days in advance of their presentation, with the list of registered papers regularly updated on AIS5000’s learning management site. This practice also prevented recycling of materials from past years. Further, syndicates registering first had the widest options, providing an incentive to start early. (2) Written feedback on each presentation was provided to the syndicate within seven days of their presentation, with the final mark made available at the conclusion of the last presentation for the semester. In the event of a failure in the oral component (Component A) of the task, a syndicate was immediately notified of a need to re-present (within a period of 24 hour) to a second examiner who independently evaluated the work, and consulted with the first examiner. 4. Evaluative approach By adopting a descriptive case study approach (Stake, 2005; Tobin, 2010; Yin, 2003a, 2003b), the experiences, thoughts and/or observations related to the task were scrutinized. Results are reported in Section 5. Appraisal was informed by use of both a voluntary questionnaire (see Appendix B), which was administered by a third party at the completion of all presentations, and comparative data related to student performance in the task and other assessment tasks in AIS5000. Consistent with Ballantyne, Bothwick, and Packer (2000) who argue that student evaluations are more valid than other forms of teaching evaluations, the voluntary questionnaire sought to obtain data regarding the nature of the student cohort and their perceptions of this task, its usefulness and importance as compared to other assessment tasks for AIS5000. Akin to prior studies examining perceptions, use of a seven point Likert-type scale (1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree) enabled acquisition of variability in responses to questions specifically related to AIS5000 and the skills being developed (Heagy & Lehmann, 2005). Further it meant the ceiling effects could be minimized (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988). Findings from the questionnaire’s seven sections (background information; article selection; syndicate presentation; personal reflection; joint reflection; feedback; and four global questions) are summarized in Section 5. 5. Results from evaluation of the task This section details student feedback, which contributes evidence that the design of the task achieved its goals. Comparison is then made with analysis of AIS5000’s four assessment tasks. Additionally the contribution of RLT, PBL and scaffolding to the task’s outcomes is outlined.

194

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

5.1. Results from a survey of student perceptions of the task Student responses to the questionnaire are documented in Table 3. The questionnaire and discussion of results are patterned to correspond with the task deliverables outlined in Table 2. 5.1.1. Component A: Article selection, syndicate presentation and answering of questions Whilst consistently affirmative, responses regarding article selection (see Table 3) were lower than for other components of the task. This was supported by answers to a global question wherein 28.2% indicated that this was the most difficult component of the task, followed by delivery (25.6%). Pleasingly, students indicated that they had searched for research articles in the past (Avg. 4.56) and found it both interesting to see what was available (Avg. 4.67, SD 1.40) and an enjoyable task (Avg. 4.74, SD 1.50). It also made them think more about the lectures and tutorials in AIS5000 (Avg. 5.08, SD 1.29).

Table 3 Sample of findings from the questionnaire.a

a

Component A

Article selection: selected statements

Avg.

SD

Discussed in Section 5.1.1

 We chose our article because it was easy to understand  We chose our article because it was easy to see how the material in it related to the material contained in AIS5000  We chose our article because it was interesting  I found that the task of finding an article for our presentation made me think more about the lectures and tutorials in AIS5000  I agreed to select the article because I was interested in the assessment task

4.87 5.03

1.28 1.02

4.67 5.08

1.18 1.29

4.97

1.64

Component A

Own syndicate’s presentation: selected statements

Avg.

SD

Discussed in Section 5.1.1

 Delivering the presentation helped me to understand more about AIS5000’s topics covered in our chosen article  I learnt a lot about AIS5000 course materials from presenting our chosen article  As we needed to answer audience questions about our chosen article, I found that I thought more about the article’s contents and the relevant curriculum in AIS5000  Overall, delivering the presentation made me think more for myself about the curriculum in AIS5000  Overall, delivering the presentation made me test my own understanding of the curriculum in AIS5000

5.23

0.97

5.26 5.44

1.17 1.06

5.36

0.86

5.31

0.82

Component B

Feedback from an academic: selected statements

Avg.

SD

Discussed in Section 5.1.2

The feedback I received on my part of our presentation made me think more:  how well I conveyed our key messages to the audience  about how the material contained in the article related to AIS5000  holistically about the issues covered in AIS5000  about how well I understood the issues covered in AIS5000  about how well I had applied the article’s contents to AIS5000’s curriculum

5.77 5.54 5.56 5.54 5.64

0.89 0.96 0.81 0.98 0.86

Components C & D

Reflections on presentations: selected statements

Avg.

SD

Discussed in Section 5.1.3

Writing reflectively about our presentation made me think more about:  the content we delivered  how well we conveyed the ideas contained in our article  how well we helped the audience to understand the article’s contents  how we could have improved our presentation  what I still need to learn in AIS5000

5.54 5.64 5.56 6.08 5.67

1.11 1.10 1.13 0.83 1.07

Discussed in Section 5.1.3

Joint reflection on another syndicate’s presentation made me think more about:  the content that they delivered  their presentation and how well it related to AIS5000  how to construct and deliver a presentation  what I needed to learn about the topic(s) that they covered  how their topic fits into the curriculum in AIS5000

5.54 5.51 5.38 5.38 5.33

1.32 1.30 1.27 1.17 1.38

Adopted from Wilkin (2013).

195

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

Given the general tenor of responses regarding delivery of the presentation are >5 (5.10–5.44) and the SDs are <1.2 (0.82–1.17), there is reason to accept that this component of the task achieved the goal of requiring students to independently think about the subject material, inform their learning through research and apply their knowledge in a new context, all of which challenged them to think and learn for themselves. In fact in responding to a global question, 38.5% of students found that delivering their presentation was the best component of the task, although 25.6% found this to be the most difficult component. These two responses are not mutually exclusive and may well support the responses presented in Table 3, which indicate that whilst challenging, the task was achievable. 5.1.2. Component B: Feedback regarding academic assessment of students’ individual performance in their presentation Findings regarding the feedback students received within seven days of completing their presentation endorse this scaffolding (see Table 3). Averages ranged from 5.54 to 5.77, with SDs having the lowest range i.e., between 0.81 and 1.00. The strongest response was to the item concerning how well they conveyed their key messages to the audience (Avg. 5.77; SD 0.89). Indeed the general tenor was that the feedback made students think more about the curriculum via thinking about the content of their presentation (Avg. 5.64; SD 1.00); the issues covered in AIS5000 (Avg. 5.56; SD 0.81); and his/her understanding of these issues (Avg. 5.54; SD 0.98). 5.1.3. Components C & D: Individual reflection on own presentation & joint reflection on another syndicate’s presentation Responses regarding the reflective component of the task (see Table 3) endorsed its weighting at 4 + 4%, especially considering that these were the most innovative components. As detailed in Section 2.4, reflection is an essential component in achieving success in situations involving application of learning (Ash & Clayton, 2009; Stevens & Cooper, 2009). In general few students (12.8%) found this to be the best component, with a number finding it to be the most difficult (25.6%) and least likeable (23.1%). Yet findings (see Table 3) indicate that this component challenged them to directly address how well they had conveyed the content of their chosen article to the audience and what gaps may have been evident (i.e., how the presentation could have been improved Avg. 6.08, SD 0.83; what they still needed to learn in AIS5000 Avg. 5.67, SD 1.07). The joint reflection, which in general students found to be the more difficult of the two reflections, was deliberately scaffolded as a syndicate exercise because it required active, critical listening as well as good recall (Avg. 5.33–5.54). The higher SD (1.17–1.38) may well relate to this being regarded as the least likeable and most difficult part of the task, given it required comparison of the content to the curriculum. 5.2. Comparative analysis of AIS5000’s four assessment tasks Comparative analysis of the four assessment tasks (see Table 4) indicates that students’ results for the reported RLT, PBL task are comparable with, but slightly higher than related performance in the final examination. This is affirmative as the final exam deliberately covered breadth, while both required them to apply their knowledge and understanding of key issues and/or problems. Given the task’s innovative and demanding nature such results are invigorating. With respect to the communication (COM), reflective appraisal (RA), as well as analytical (ANA) and critical thinking (CT) skills that are so desired in higher education curricula, all tasks demanded demonstration of these skills to some degree. Two tasks Table 4 Comparison of the results from all assessment tasks in AIS5000.*

Mark as a% of the total for AIS5000 Average mark** Median** Range** * **

RLT, PBL task

Practical test

Business report

Examination

20 Mid D Almost mid D Low-to-mid C to HD

10 High C Mid D N to HD

10 Low-to-mid D Almost mid D N to HD

60 High C Mid-to-high C High-N to HD

Adopted from Wilkin (2013). Grades awarded are: Fail (N), Pass (P), Credit (C), Distinction (D), and High Distinction (HD).

196

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

in the subject (RLT, PBL and the Business Report) particularly required analysis, reflective appraisal and application of the curriculum to new contexts (ANA, RA and CT). However ANA and CT were more difficult for the RLT, PBL task as the context was both less familiar (a research paper) and unrelated to the task of other student groups (unlike a common assignment). All tasks required COM, but the RLT, PBL task most obviously required demonstration of RA, particularly in Tasks C and D. Two written (COM) tasks (the examination and especially Part D of RLT, PBL) were more challenging as these tasks required students to apply their knowledge (ANA and CT) in an unexpected context. The class test required application of the curriculum through the medium of technology, and the RLT, PBL task required oral as well as written assessment. Hence, in both cases COM of CT was tested in new ways. As with any innovation, the purpose of reporting is both to delineate what has been done well and offer suggestions regarding how to improve the task. Thus, before concluding it is useful to review how the three methodologies (RLT, PBL and scaffolding) contributed to these findings. 5.3. Contribution of RLT, PBL and scaffolding to the task outcomes The results suggest that despite English not being the primary language spoken at home, the student-centered learning task was successful. Overall 28.2% of students found reading and choosing a research article the most difficult. This is closely followed by 25.6% who found delivering the presentation and 20.5% who found reflecting on another syndicate’s presentation to be difficult elements. 38.5% found delivering the presentation to be the best component followed by 28.2% who enjoyed all components of the task. One student even commented that ‘‘This is a process of further learning:-).’’ Responses to the questionnaire endorse the view that the students achieved a breadth of engagement with and reflection upon the subject curriculum through active learning via RLT and PBL, albeit with some scaffolding. 5.3.1. RLT The RLT strategy successfully raised student awareness about current research related to AIS5000 and prompted them to think about how research issues affect the relativism of their learning. Some students (17.9%) indicated that this was the best component of the task, others (28.2%) that it was the most difficult and least liked (12.8%). Yet they all engaged appropriately. For example, when surveyed about the basis for selecting an article, the students responded that choice was related to it being easy to see how the material in the article related to the material covered in AIS5000 (5.03) rather than because it was easy to find (4.46) or interesting (4.67). Similarly, regarding the joint reflection, students indicated that it made them think how this material fitted into the curriculum (5.33); and about the relationship between the presentation and the curriculum (5.51). 5.3.2. PBL The core problem in the task concerned relating the contents of a self-chosen research article to the subject curriculum, developing understanding about these concepts and clearly communicating how the research enhanced/was reflective of/differed from the subject curriculum. In general students agreed that delivering an assessable oral presentation was more demanding than a written task, as it made them think more about how the topic fitted into AIS5000 (5.38); made them try harder to understand material with which they had difficulty (5.23); and learn more independently (4.95). Equally, PBL was required in the joint reflection. Few found this to be the best component of the task (5.1%); more found it to be the most difficult component (20.5%); and 12.8% found it to be the least likeable component. This may be because it was harder to prepare for and hence less able to be controlled. Even so student evaluations of this were consistently >5 (see Table 3), ranging from 5.33 to 5.54, so there appears to be acknowledgment that this task contributed usefully to making them think about the subject curriculum. 5.3.3. Scaffolding Whilst the value of scaffolding was not directly surveyed, except in the section related to feedback, it plays a critical role in building trust. As the task was student-centered and the RLT, PBL aspects required each syndicate to separately develop their understanding of how their article related to

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

197

the subject curriculum, the successful outcomes suggest the scaffolding was appropriately framed. For example, the templates provided to support Components C and D, where written reflection was required, have evolved from reflection on students’ problems with this component. In initial instantiations, despite the provision of oral instructions regarding how and what kinds of issues were relevant, student reflections were superficial. Recognizing that they needed to engage more deeply with the task, templates were constructed, which have led to improvements such that 12.8% now regard it as the best component of the task! 6. Research limitations, opportunities for future research and conclusions In summary, this paper has reported on a descriptive case study of how RLT and PBL (with scaffolding) may be successfully linked in a task that integrates AIS research into the curriculum experiences of postgraduate students. Whilst the task responds to growing pressures to reform and differentiate higher accounting education programs to ensure students acquire skills rather than memorize content; learn strategies to update knowledge and skills in order to remain operative in the profession (Killian, 2013); and acquire the ‘‘core professional competencies (e.g., communication, analytical skill, critical thinking) [which] are important for success’’ (Apostolou et al., 2013, 146), there is evidence that students not only enjoyed the challenge, but also embraced it. Whilst the study of AIS5000’s task has been a success, a number of limitations create opportunities for future research. Firstly, the study is restricted to application of the task into a single subject. This creates opportunities to analyze the effects of introducing the task into other subjects and even looking at students’ perceptions across multiple semesters. Secondly, the evidence base could be extended through the inclusion of interviews with students; through comparison of student evaluations of learning and teaching in this subject with the results from the questionnaire; and/or their evaluation of learning in related subjects. Thirdly, whilst it is thought that the task impacts student learning, evaluation of long-term student learning outcomes is yet to be derived. Unlike prior research that has measured success in terms of student perceptions (Irving, 2011; Stanley & Marsden, 2012) or in terms of academic performance (Heagy & Lehmann, 2005), the outcomes reported in this paper indicate that the task was successful on both accounts. Of particular interest is that students had to apply critical thinking to all stages of the RLT, PBL task. Selection and presentation of the research article (where relevance had to be gauged and demonstrated) was a student-centered exercise, as were the two parts related to reflection on performance. The most important contributions come from the inclusion of CT about the relevance and accuracy of material both presented by the syndicate itself, which tested their capacity to appraise one’s own analysis (i.e., RA) and communication (COM); and as presented by another syndicate, which tested students’ capacity to apply knowledge from the curriculum (i.e., ANA) to an unanticipated scenario. The fact that the task was so successful with students who were studying in a language that differed from their native language, attests to the benefit of the underlying scaffolding. There are, however, some important factors to be considered. The task creates an additional load for the academics involved. Firstly they must critique the suitability of each article at the time of its selection and be prepared to evaluate each presentation in terms of communication and demonstrated understanding of the relevance of the myriad of selected articles to AIS5000’s curriculum. Secondly, they must critique students’ capabilities to reflect on the presentation of another syndicate. Herein the academics may be more open to challenge. Yet equally the inclusion of new material and new ideas invigorates both the curriculum and the dialogue between the students and academic staff. As such the task reported on in this paper positively and proactively addresses calls to promote scholarship, innovation and collaborative learning (AACSB, 2013). Acknowledgements I sincerely thank the editors, Roberta Barra and Mark Simkin, for their efforts in scoping such an interesting call for papers. I gratefully acknowledge the significant input and comments I have received from these editors and the reviewer in developing the ideas presented here.

198

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

Appendix A The RLT/PBL task in AIS5000. Appendix B Questionnaire related to the RLT, PBL task in AIS5000. References Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business [AACSB]. (2013). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for accounting accreditation. Adopted: April 8, 2013 South Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 750, Tampa, FL USA. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants [AICPA] (2013). Core competency framework & educational competency assessment (Note: competency copyrighted 2005). Retrieved 21.08.2013. Apostolou, B., Dorminey, J. W., Hassell, J. M., & Watson, S. F. (2013). Accounting education literature review (2010–2012). Journal of Accounting Education, 31(2), 107–161. Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection in applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1, 25–48. Ballantyne, R., Bothwick, J., & Packer, J. (2000). Beyond student evaluation of teaching: Identifying and addressing academic staff development needs. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(3), 221–236. Baxter-Magolda, M. (2002). Epistemological reflection: The evolution of epistemological assumptions from age 18 to 30. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bedard, D., Lison, C., Dalle, D., Cote, D., & Boutin, N. (2012). Problem-based and project-based learning in engineering and medicine: Determinants of students’ engagement and persistence. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 6(2), 7–32. Bierstaker, J. L. (2007). Using student-centered writing assignments to introduce students to accounting education and facilitate interaction with practitioners. Global Perspectives in Accounting Education, 4, 61–68. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. Biggs, J. (2012). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 39–55. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: Society for research into higher education (4th ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill. Brenton, G. (1999). Some empirical evidence on the superiority of the problem-based learning (PBL) method. Accounting Education, 8(1), 1–12. Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(1), 3–18. Brew, A. (2006). Research and teaching: Beyond the divide. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Brew, A., & Pesta, T. (2001). Research-led teaching: What does it look like and how and why should academic developers encourage it? Seminar presented at the annual conference of the staff and educational development association, Manchester, UK. 20–21 November. Brew, A., & Prosser, M. (2003). Integrating quality practices in research-led teaching and institutional priorities. In Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum. Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 16–32. Clarke, A., & Hubball, H. T. (2001). Physical education methods course as an immersion experience in an elementary setting. Avante, 7(2), 11–27. Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15. Dickie, C., & Jay, L. (2010). Innovation in postgraduate teaching: Mixed methods to enhance learning and learning about learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(1), 29–43. Dublin Institute of Technology [DIT] School of Physics (2012). Problem Based learning. . Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for integrating content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 355–385. Galliers, R. (2011). Call for papers: Special issue: Information systems strategy as practice: Micro strategy and strategizing for IS. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. . Griggs, L. (2005). Comment: The integration of teaching and research in higher education. HERDSA News, 27(3), 1–5. Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542. Heagy, C., & Lehmann, C. (2005). Is PBL an improved delivery method for the accounting curriculum? In B. Schwartz & J. Ketz (Eds.), Advances in accounting education teaching and curriculum innovation (pp. 221–251). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2005). Supporting research informed teaching. HERDSA News, 25(3), 6–9. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2006). Design principles for scaffolding technology based inquiry. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative reasoning, learning and technology (pp. 147–170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

C.L. Wilkin / J. of Acc. Ed. 32 (2014) 185–199

199

Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 14(4), 353–383. International Accounting Education Standards Board [IAESB] (2009). IES3 professional skills and general education. In IAESB handbook of international education pronouncements. New York: International Federation of Accountants. . Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia & CPA Australia [ICAA] (2009). Professional accreditation guidelines for higher education programs. . Irving, J. H. (2011). Integrating research into an undergraduate accounting course. Issues in Accounting Education, 26(2), 287–303. Jenkins, A., & Healey, M. (2005). Institutional strategies to link teaching and research. York, U.K: The Higher Education Academy. Jiang, F., & Roberts, P. J. (2011). An investigation of the impact of research-led education on student learning and understandings of research. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 8(2), 1–14. Johnstone, K., & Biggs, S. (1998). Problem-based learning: Introduction, analysis, and accounting curriculum implications. Journal of Accounting Education, 16(3/4), 407–427. Kendler, B. S., & Grove, P. A. (2004). Problem-based learning in the biology curriculum. American Biology Teacher, 66(5), 348–354. Killian, L. (2013). The budgetary interview: Intentional learning for students in governmental and non-profit accounting. Journal of Accounting Education, 31(3), 350–362. Killian, L. J., & Brandon, C. (2009). Using the significant learning taxonomy and active learning to improve accounting education. Journal of Faculty Development, 23(3), 30–36. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. Kolb, D. (1976). Learning style inventory technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer and Company. Light, G., Cox, R., & Calkins, S. (2009). Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective professional. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McGowan, S. (2012). Going beyond the numbers in teaching financial accounting: The newsletter as an assignment option. Issues in Accounting Education, 27(4), 1095–1117. Milne, M., & McConnell, P. (2001). Problem-based learning: A pedagogy for using case material in accounting education. Accounting education, 10(1), 61–82. Moisander, J., & Stenfors, S. (2009). Exploring the edges of theory-practice gap: Epistemic cultures in strategy-tool development and use. Organization, 16(2), 227–247. Moore, W. S. (2001). Understanding learning in a postmodern world: Reconsidering the perry scheme of intellectual and ethical development. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Morrison, J. (2004). Where now for problem-based learning? The Lancet, 363(9403), 174–176. Paisey, C., & Paisey, N. (2003). Developing research awareness in students: An action research project explored. Accounting Education, 12(3), 283–302. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Saacti, E. (2008). Problem-based learning in an intercultural business communication course. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 22(2), 237–260. Saudagaran, S. M. (1996). The first course in accounting: An innovative approach. Issues in Accounting Education, 11(1), 83–94. Savin-Baden, M. (1998). Equipping students for employment through problem-based learning: Realising curriculum change across the boundaries. Paper presented at Managing Learning Innovation. The challenges of the changing curriculum, University of Lincolnshire and Humberside, 1–2 September. . Schapper, J., & Mayson, S. (2008). Research-led teaching: Moving from a fractured engagement to a marriage of convenience. Journal of Higher Education and Research Development, 29(6), 641–651. Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook on qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stanley, T., & Marsden, S. (2012). Problem-based learning: Does accounting education need it? Journal of Accounting Education, 30, 267–289. Stevens, D. D., & Cooper, J. E. (2009). Journal keeping: How to use reflective writing for learning, teaching, professional insight and positive change. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishers. Tobin, R. (2010). Descriptive case study. In A. J. Mills, D. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. University of Adelaide (2009). A handbook for research skill development. Published with support from the Australian Teaching & Learning Council. . Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watson, S. F., Apostolou, B., Hassell, J. M., & Webber, S. A. (2007). Accounting education literature review (2003–2005). Journal of Accounting Education, 25, 1–58. Wilkin, C. L. (2013). Incorporation of a research-led, problem-based learning task into an AIS curriculum. 24th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 4–6 December, Melbourne. Willson, J., & O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: A framework for students becoming researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(4), 393–409. Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). What students learn in problem-based learning: A process analysis. Instructional Science, 40(2), 371–395. Yin, R. K. (2003a). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2003b). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multi-dimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41.