|
| [ HERDSA ]
[ Proceedings Contents ] |
One of the biggest challenges facing the educators of tertiary-level introductory accounting is student boredom. Most introductory accounting courses are both compulsory and designed for the student with no prior accounting knowledge.In many instances students have already done at least two years of accounting studies in their secondary schooling. This means that when they commence their tertiary studies they are introduced to concepts already covered. There are various approaches that could be taken at a faculty level to resolve this issue. However in most instances the dilemma is left to the individual lecturer to resolve. An initiative taken by accounting staff in the Faculty of Business at CQU involved streaming the accounting students. All students who received a high grade in accounting on their secondary school leaving certificate were placed in a class separate from the other accounting students. A lecturer taking this class focused more on the application of knowledge via the use of case studies rather than the reintroduction of known concepts.
The approach resulted in students receiving above average grades for the first semester of introductory accounting, but by the end of second semester there was no significant difference between the grades of these students and other accounting students.
The streaming of accounting students resulted in lecturers revising their teaching methods. It also resulted in qualitative factors which are possibly more responsible for the higher grades in first semester than the prior knowledge or specific teaching approach.
Often accounting is perceived as a stagnant discipline so it is imperative that accounting lecturers review their teaching methods on a regular basis, as accounting students with potential may be lost to other disciplines. It has to be recognised that competent students often have their own peculiar set of problems within class. Today's students have been raised in a technological environment which has contributed to a natural apathy. This factor, combined with unimaginative teaching methods, is an issue that all educators will have to face.
At CQU, the number of students undertaking an accounting major has dropped by about 30% over ten years. While it is recognised that the profile of other majors has risen dramatically during this period eg. human resource management there is also a concern that students in first year are finding introductory accounting tedious and in turn make the assumption that that is the tone for the entire course and the actual profession. This appears to be reinforced by the fact that when surveyed in second year, 80% of students maintained they had taken accounting because they 'were good at it at school' and yet a good many students who had performed well in accounting in secondary school were not necessarily choosing accounting as a major.
With this in mind it was decided that in first year we would take positive steps to improve the teaching of first-year accounting in an attempt to overcome the 'boredom factor'. It was also felt that if we chose the right approach there was every chance we would generate renewed interest in accounting as a major. In 1994 we trialed a new approach to teaching introductory accounting. This approach involved taking into consideration prior experience and learning in the area of accounting and using a workshop approach with the actual teaching of introductory accounting.
For many years at CQU accounting has been taught differently from other first-year units. Most of our units are taught on the basis of four contact hours per week. This normally consists of a single two-hour lecture for all students (classes usually range from two to three hundred) and a two-hour tutorial for smaller groups (twenty to thirty). In the mid-eighties the faculty felt that students needed to be given the opportunity to get to know at least one faculty member well. In a sense this approach was a fore-runner to some of the mentoring systems that are currently in vogue. To accommodate this it was decided that one unit in first year would be taught on the basis of the students being broken into groups (ideally thirty but as student numbers increased and resources decreased the groups fell into the range of forty to fifty) and taught by the one lecturer each week for four hours. The unit chosen was accounting.
A new approach to lecturing in introductory accounting also meant renewed interest on the part of the lecturers. This 'streaming' approach was viewed as not only being as being a challenge for students but also a challenge for lecturing staff. Much of the success of the approach was dependent on the staff-member's approach to both the students and the presentation of material.
| Very High Achievement | VHA |
| High Achievement | HA |
| Sound Achievement | S |
| Low Achievement | LA |
| Very Low Achievement | VLA |
We were aware that the students with practical experience wanting to study during work hours would be minimal, as most of these students attend evening classes. However there are normally a few students who have elected to put their careers on hold while they acquire a business degree. Initially we thought that with these few students and the VHA school students we would have enough for one group in first year. This was not the case.
The streaming process undertaken by staff commenced with a lengthy explanation to all first year students of the process we were about to undertake. It was explained in detail to all first-year accounting students what was being attempted and why. The students were told that those with a high-level of achievement in accounting were being encouraged to combine to form one of the accounting groups and would be taught in a different manner from the other accounting groups. All students, regardless of which group they were in, would have the same type of assessment, the same marking schemes would be used, and any information relating to assessment would be the same for all groups. While the high achievement students were certainly encouraged to group together, it was also stressed that the streaming was voluntary. Students were given the option of remaining in the group or moving to another group. It was not our aim to put any student in a situation which may have been detrimental to their success in accounting.
The first round of streaming resulted in a group which was too small. We then elected to put all the VHAs and HAs into a single group. This resulted in a more acceptable group (referred to from here on in as the HA group) size. Most students elected to remain in the group. The few that chose to leave, left because they were either dependent on someone from another group for transport or they had a 'very good' friend in another group and preferred to remain with this friend. In the first year of trialing the HA group, one student who had not done accounting before asked to go into the group because she had transport problems and her friend wanted to remain in the group. This was allowed on the condition that the student was made aware of the extra work she may have to do to keep up with the other students. This particular student agreed to the conditions and actually achieved a credit grade the first semester of accounting.
Teaching within all the accounting groups varied to a degree with some lecturers preferring the set lecture and tutorials and others opting for a workshop approach. With the HA group all lecturers agreed that the workshop approach should be used. Prior results in accounting or past experience indicated that there was no need to spend time with lengthy lectures as it was generally felt that this group of students already had the basic skills. Instead the format in Table 2 was used for the four hours each week.
| Topic covered in module | 30 minutes |
| Application of topic to practical questions | 30 minutes |
| Set tutorial questions | 60 minutes |
| Case study application | 90 minutes |
| General discussion on cases and topic covered | 30 minutes |
The questions and cases used were taken from other text books. Students did a lot of work in smaller groups and frequently discussion was conducted by spokespeople for the various smaller groups. The sessions focused on getting the students to think about the concepts that had learned and to actually apply them. In the first lecture it was made clear to the students that if they felt this approach was not working for them, they should let the lecturer know and the approach would be revised.
This approach to the lectures and tutorials was only really successful for the first six weeks. At this stage the basic areas of bookkeeping listed in Table 3 had been covered.
| Introduction to accounting |
| General journal and ledger |
| Process of recording |
| Preparation of a trial balance |
| Adjusting entries |
| Preparation of basic financial reports |
After these modules were covered the group moved on to the area of special journals and subsidiary ledgers. In 1994 the lecturer decided to cover this area by getting each group of students to prepare a short seminar on a particular aspect of special journals eg. cash receipt journals or purchases journal. After establishing that the students felt comfortable with this topic they were then given about one-and-a-half hours to prepare their seminar. In the final two hour session each group selected a spokesperson and presented a fifteen-minute seminar. At the end of this session, several students approached the lecturer requesting that the class revert to a full two-hour lecture. Although the lecturer in 1995 and 1996 used a different approach to teaching special journals a similar situation was experienced. It became apparent that these students were only at ease with the very basic aspects of bookkeeping. Surprisingly enough the students themselves predicted that they were expecting problems with special journals.
At CQU grades are awarded using the scale set out in Table 4.
| High Distinction | HD | 85 - 100% |
| Distinction | D | 75 - 84% |
| Credit | C | 65 - 74% |
| Pass | P | 50 - 64% |
| Fail | F | < 50% |
As you can see from Table 5, the results for the HA group (Group E - highlighted) are better overall than the other groups. Interestingly enough this particular group does not have an outstanding high percentage of HDs, but the group is very top-heavy for combined HDs and Ds and has a lower failure rate than the other day-time groups. (The part-time student group is often much smaller than the day-time classes which could partially explain their good results. It should also be noted that this particular group of students are normally studying because they want not for any other reasons.) However, given the background of these students it is difficult to say whether or not their results are solely the result of the way they have been taught. It is reasonable however, to assume it has been a contributing factor.
| 1995 | |||||||||||
| GROUP | HD | D | C | P | F | TOTAL | |||||
| A | 3 | 9% | 5 | 16% | 2 | 6% | 6 | 19% | 16 | 50% | 32 |
| B | 5 | 13% | 7 | 18% | 2 | 5% | 7 | 18% | 17 | 45% | 38 |
| C | 3 | 7% | 2 | 4% | 4 | 9% | 18 | 40% | 18 | 40% | 45 |
| D | 3 | 11% | 2 | 7% | 10 | 36% | 5 | 18% | 8 | 29% | 28 |
| E | 7 | 18% | 10 | 25% | 9 | 23% | 5 | 13% | 9 | 23% | 40 |
| PT | 6 | 24% | 2 | 8% | 6 | 24% | 5 | 20% | 6 | 24% | 25 |
| 1994 | |||||||||||
| GROUP | HD | D | C | P | F | TOTAL | |||||
| A | 0 | 0% | 1 | 3% | 7 | 19% | 18 | 49% | 11 | 30% | 37 |
| B | 1 | 2% | 5 | 9% | 12 | 23% | 12 | 23% | 23 | 43% | 53 |
| C | 2 | 5% | 6 | 15% | 8 | 20% | 12 | 30% | 12 | 30% | 40 |
| D | 1 | 2% | 4 | 9% | 9 | 20% | 12 | 26% | 20 | 43% | 46 |
| E | 3 | 6% | 23 | 45% | 10 | 20% | 8 | 16% | 7 | 14% | 51 |
| PT | 5 | 22% | 10 | 43% | 4 | 17% | 2 | 9% | 2 | 9% | 23 |
In second semester all groups in accounting are taught the same because of the change in course content. It would be reasonable to assume that as the students in the HA group not only have a good grounding in accounting, their results suggest a natural aptitude in this area and they would probably perform well in the second semester of introductory accounting. This was not an accurate assumption as can be seen in Tables 6 and 7 which looks at the comparative results of both accounting units and then the second semester unit only for 1994 and 1995. By the time students had completed the second semester of introductory accounting there was very little difference between the results of the HA group and the other groups.
| 1995 | ||||||||||||
| GROUP | HD | D | C | P | F | TOTAL | ||||||
| A | IA | 3 | 9% | 5 | 16% | 2 | 6% | 6 | 19% | 16 | 50% | 32 |
| IB | 2 | 6% | 6 | 18% | 3 | 9% | 15 | 44% | 8 | 24% | 34 | |
| B+D | IA | 8 | 12% | 9 | 14% | 12 | 18% | 12 | 18% | 25 | 38% | 66 |
| IB | 1 | 2% | 6 | 12% | 9 | 18% | 19 | 37% | 16 | 31% | 51 | |
| C | IA | 3 | 7% | 2 | 4% | 4 | 9% | 18 | 40% | 18 | 40% | 45 |
| IB | 1 | 4% | 4 | 16% | 3 | 12% | 11 | 44% | 6 | 24% | 25 | |
| E | IA | 7 | 18% | 10 | 25% | 9 | 23% | 5 | 13% | 9 | 23% | 40 |
| IB | 2 | 7% | 4 | 14% | 1 | 3% | 14 | 48% | 8 | 28% | 29 | |
| PT | IA | 6 | 24% | 2 | 8% | 6 | 24% | 5 | 20% | 6 | 24% | 25 |
| IB | 4 | 15% | 2 | 8% | 4 | 15% | 11 | 42% | 5 | 19% | 26 | |
| 1994 | ||||||||||||
| GROUP | HD | D | C | P | F | TOTAL | ||||||
| A | IA | 0 | 0% | 1 | 3% | 7 | 19% | 18 | 49% | 11 | 30% | 37 |
| IB | 1 | 3% | 1 | 3% | 4 | 12% | 10 | 30% | 17 | 52% | 33 | |
| B | IA | 1 | 2% | 5 | 9% | 12 | 23% | 12 | 23% | 23 | 43% | 53 |
| IB | 2 | 4% | 2 | 4% | 4 | 8% | 20 | 39% | 23 | 45% | 51 | |
| C | IA | 2 | 5% | 6 | 15% | 8 | 20% | 12 | 30% | 12 | 30% | 40 |
| IB | 0 | 0% | 2 | 6% | 6 | 18% | 9 | 26% | 17 | 50% | 34 | |
| D | IA | 1 | 2% | 4 | 9% | 9 | 20% | 12 | 26% | 20 | 43% | 46 |
| IB | 0 | 0% | 1 | 7% | 3 | 20% | 3 | 20% | 5 | 33% | 15 | |
| E | IA | 3 | 6% | 23 | 45% | 10 | 20% | 8 | 16% | 7 | 14% | 51 |
| IB | 3 | 8% | 5 | 13% | 12 | 31% | 9 | 23% | 10 | 26% | 39 | |
| PT | IA | 5 | 22% | 10 | 43% | 4 | 17% | 2 | 9% | 2 | 9% | 23 |
| IB | 3 | 11% | 3 | 11% | 4 | 14% | 2 | 7% | 16 | 57% | 28 | |
There also appears to be a complicating factor in second semester in that it is difficult for the lecturer to retain this group solely as VHA/HA students. Timetabling problems often mean that repeat students have no option but to join this group. In realty these students have done the work before so it really shouldn't have a large impact.
| 1995 | |||||||||||
| GROUP | HD | D | C | P | F | TOTAL | |||||
| A | 2 | 6% | 6 | 18% | 3 | 9% | 15 | 44% | 8 | 24% | 34 |
| B+D | 1 | 2% | 6 | 12% | 9 | 18% | 19 | 37% | 16 | 31% | 51 |
| C | 1 | 4% | 4 | 16% | 3 | 12% | 11 | 44% | 6 | 24% | 25 |
| E | 2 | 7% | 4 | 14% | 1 | 3% | 14 | 48% | 8 | 28% | 29 |
| PT | 4 | 15% | 2 | 8% | 4 | 15% | 11 | 42% | 5 | 19% | 26 |
| 1994 | |||||||||||
| A | 1 | 3% | 1 | 3% | 4 | 12% | 10 | 30% | 17 | 52% | 33 |
| B | 2 | 4% | 2 | 4% | 4 | 8% | 20 | 39% | 23 | 45% | 51 |
| C | 0 | 0% | 2 | 6% | 6 | 18% | 9 | 26% | 17 | 50% | 34 |
| D | 0 | 0% | 1 | 7% | 3 | 20% | 3 | 20% | 5 | 33% | 15 |
| E | 3 | 8% | 5 | 13% | 12 | 31% | 9 | 23% | 10 | 26% | 39 |
| PT | 3 | 11% | 3 | 11% | 4 | 14% | 2 | 7% | 16 | 57% | 28 |
It probably should also be noted at this stage that from year to year, as part of our assessment we set tutorial work on a weekly basis that must be submitted. Since this has been implemented it has become obvious that the HA group are a more motivated group. The percentage of students who complete there work each week is much higher than some of the other groups.
The only other results we obtained from the groups was looking at the percentage of students who went on to do the accounting major. Table 8 summarises the choice of the various groups. Once again it is difficult to suggest that the only reason the students chose the accounting major was because of the teaching approach but certainly there is an indication that retained interest in accounting was better in this group than the other groups.
| Year/Groups | HA Group | Other Groups |
| 1994 | 46% | 20% |
| 1995 | 40% | 14% |
This particular group has by far the best class attendance of any accounting group. In Business at CQU students are not compelled to attend either lectures or tutorials. When assessment for other units falls due, it is not uncommon to have attendance fall by 40%. This group never had more than a 20% drop in attendance. No doubt this may be attributed to the fact that they are naturally high achievers.
The group created healthy competition amongst the first-year accounting students. The HA group were always keen to be seen as the 'best' group and the other groups took a remarkable interest in how the HA group was progressing. With the on-the-spot tests the non-HA group students saw their topping the test as a great accomplishment. So while in some ways they may be viewed as an elitist group there dose not appear to be any negative feelings towards the concept of streaming out the better students.
In class the HA group were excellent students in the sense that class discussions were lively and voluntary. The students generally worked well and appreciated the opportunity to discuss concepts and application with their peers prior to a general class discussion.
Once the HA group was formed, the lecturers noticed the students rapidly became over-confident with their own abilities. In class they did not always recognise their limitations and when they finally realised they were having severe difficulties they did not want to discuss them in front of the group they were supposedly comfortable with. This group of students generally remained together for both semesters in first year and in second semester their over-confidence became a real problem. In general, even with feedback from tests and assignments this group of students felt they knew more than they actually did.
While on the one hand this group was good to work with from a lecturer's point of view, on the other hand this group of students proved difficult from a control aspect. They were particularly noisy in class and tended to digress from the topic in hand. When they worked in small groups they had to have constant supervision to ensure that they were actually working.
As it is we are not getting all the HA group majoring in accounting but if we don't take steps to maintain their interest and continually challenge this set of students we will lose the better accounting students due to boredom!
| Authors: Robyn Alcock and Beth Tennent Department of Accounting and Finance, Central Queensland University r.alcock@cqu.edu.au, b.tennent@cqu.edu.au Please cite as: Alcock, R. and Tennent, B. (1996). Is boredom killing the future accountant??? Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/alcock.html |