View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Impact of Unstructured Case Studies on Surface Learners: A Study of Second-Year Accounting Students

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Impact of Unstructured Case Studies on Surface Learners: A Study of Second-Year Accounting Students
Language: English
Authors: Wynn-Williams, Kate, Beatson, Nicola, Anderson, Cameron
Source: Accounting Education. 2016 25(3):272-286.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2016
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Accounting, Cognitive Style, Questionnaires, Statistical Analysis, Grades (Scholastic), Case Method (Teaching Technique), Formative Evaluation, Feedback (Response), Undergraduate Students, Goal Orientation, Student Motivation, Teaching Methods, Student Evaluation, Student Attitudes, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: New Zealand
DOI: 10.1080/09639284.2016.1165125
ISSN: 0963-9284
Abstract: The empirical study described here uses the R-SPQ-2F questionnaire [Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. "British Journal of Educational Psychology," 71(1), 133-149] to test deep and surface approaches to learning in a university intermediate-level accounting class that uses business cases in group presentations. Statistical testing of results for learning style before and after group presentations indicates an increase in surface learning over time, with no detectable change in deep learning style. The type of business case used has no effect, in this setting. Course grades, however, are significantly less for students who did not participate in the group presentation activity at all. The results support the claim that students focus on what is required; they may adopt a strategic approach to learning. In a similar way, accounting academics and workload models may be reacting to incentives that discourage reflective and formative feedback. If deeper approaches to learning are desirable, assessments need to reward this behaviour.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 32
Entry Date: 2016
Accession Number: EJ1107207
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFyTeWKDCX9rv7FB0Gq56hFAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHJfuqWD-4Tenm2aXwIBEICBm-vxoTYmzIFyRa0PzD-KhassxaAOUQstoScfQerf0j8M0C3d4VmbOLMdUK23Ys_QecCxvBD8GmqTMgno9IhWk3anxjTCJCn6pQEMvgQADpwLYMQIJqbGGRA1DsRfa_nSm4EEXOSJGtKqRbLkdXeZv8pyCM5l-N47qcK5A80WOxQRgN0wg4QSOLycdVuyRpPd6FPt5aVOTRFkLqU_
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0116263712;5cb01jun.16;2019Feb12.16:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0116263712-1">The impact of unstructured case studies on surface learners: a study of second-year accounting students. </title> <p>The empirical study described here uses the R-SPQ-2F questionnaire [Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>), 133–149] to test deep and surface approaches to learning in a university intermediate-level accounting class that uses business cases in group presentations. Statistical testing of results for learning style before and after group presentations indicates an increase in surface learning over time, with no detectable change in deep learning style. The type of business case used has no effect, in this setting. Course grades, however, are significantly less for students who did not participate in the group presentation activity at all. The results support the claim that students focus on what is required; they may adopt a strategic approach to learning. In a similar way, accounting academics and workload models may be reacting to incentives that discourage reflective and formative feedback. If deeper approaches to learning are desirable, assessments need to reward this behaviour.</p> <p>Keywords: Deep and surface learning; strategic learners; business cases; assessments; academic workloads</p> <hd id="AN0116263712-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Deep approaches to learning are consistent with the aims of higher education (Duff, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref2">13</reflink>]), being an environment that seeks to promote generic competencies such as critical thinking, the ability to deal with complex problems containing high levels of uncertainty and reflective thinking (Kyndt, Dochy, Struyven, & Cascallar, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref3">19</reflink>]). Graduate profiles, learning objectives for courses and other outcome statements in universities routinely include aspirational goals such as a love of lifelong learning, and abilities in critical analysis, reflective thinking and solving complex problems. These goals reflect deep approaches to learning with understanding, which is often considered more desirable than a surface approach with rote learning and memorisation (Lucas & Mladenovic, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the Western approach to education, teachers[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>] believe in the benefits of students being critically engaged with their learning experiences as a means of fostering deep learning. Literature has identified the benefits of students being actively involved with their education, being 'more than just passive listening' and 'engaging in activities' such as writing, reading, discussing (Bonwell & Eison, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref6">8</reflink>], p. 2). Several studies have shown a positive relationship between the use of active learning tools and academic performance across disciplines (Freeman et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref7">16</reflink>]; Prince, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref8">24</reflink>]; Sternberg & Grigorenko, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref9">27</reflink>]; Tong & Chang, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref10">30</reflink>]; Yoder & Hochevar, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref11">32</reflink>]). Accounting teachers have long appreciated the value of business cases in classroom teaching, as a vehicle for promoting active engagement and deep learning (Adler, Whiting, & Wynn-Williams<emph>,</emph>[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>]). Accounting educators also appreciate the value placed on these abilities by employers, as their students seek meaningful employment post-graduation in an increasingly competitive world.</p> <p>Business cases used in the classroom vary with respect to the level of detail and complexity provided, and in the ways in which students participate (Healy & McCutcheon, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>]). This paper is concerned with the question of whether using unstructured business cases is an effective means (or not) for increasing deep approaches to learning. The empirical study is based in the debate over the 'best' use of business cases, in particular with respect to the development of deep learning strategies. Based in the belief that unstructured business cases will foster investigative skills and critical analysis, the relationship between the <emph>nature</emph> of business cases (structured or unstructured) with respect to learning approach is considered. The impact on course grades is also tested, being a ready measure of academic performance. The results indicate that students are behaving with a strategic learning approach, analysing a situation and applying effort as required.</p> <p>The paper also focuses on the teaching environment. Academics deal with pressure to publish for academic rankings. High teaching loads restrict research time and publishers provide increasing amounts of test banks and online assessment resources with textbooks. In New Zealand, performance-based research funding (the PBRF scheme) has a significant impact on academic behaviour. With less time to read, reflect and assess students' unstructured written work, teachers might also be seen to show strategic behaviour with respect to student assessment.</p> <p>The research question concerns the way in which business cases are included in accounting curricula: in one particular university setting, are business cases being used in a way that encourages deep learning? The results suggest that the debate is not as simple as deciding whether to use business cases or not. A wider context needs to be referenced, in particular the ways in which educators measure academic performance and student outcomes, as well as how student assessments are designed.</p> <p>There are a number of contributions from this study. Evidence is provided concerning the way in which business cases are used in the classroom. Inferences can be made concerning student behaviour in the face of increasing time pressure and academic demands. And serious questions are raised about the nature of student assessments.</p> <p>The next section of the paper describes related literature. This is followed by a description of the empirical study and results. Concluding comments and an appreciation of limitations provide some challenges for teachers of the future.</p> <hd id="AN0116263712-3">Literature review</hd> <p>Beginning with established educational philosophies, approaches to learning can be characterised as deep (students who seek understanding, who learn to relate ideas to previous knowledge and experience and critically examine the logic of arguments) and surface (students who rely on memorisation, who simply accept information without examination, who do not try to understand underlying principles and who are significantly influenced by assessment requirements) (Beattie, Collins, & McInnes, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>]; Biggs, Kember, & Leung, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]; Entwistle & Ramsden, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref16">14</reflink>]). Deep approaches to learning in particular are consistent with goals and desirable graduate attributes established by tertiary educators (Duff, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>]), such as critical thinking and problem solving (Kyndt et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref18">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0116263712-4">Learning styles, goals and motivation</hd> <p>The two classifications of goal orientation theory, mastery goals and performance goals (Anderman, Anderman, Yough, & Gimbert<emph>,</emph>[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]), may provide the underlying principles behind these approaches to learning. Three reasons are outlined for the relevance of goal theory to education (Anderman et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref20">2</reflink>]). First, through the relationship between goal theory and academic outcomes (taken to be performance in standardised exams), mastery goals have an indirect impact on outcomes through using 'higher order cognitive processing strategies' (p. 125). Mixed results are described regarding performance goals, with both high and low levels of achievement reported. Second, goal theory recognises student growth and improvement over time, especially as regards mastery goals. This relates to universities' graduate profiles and lists of desirable attributes such as critical thinking and the ability to solve unstructured problems. And third, goal theory recognises the importance of social comparison and motivation. Mastery goals emphasise self-comparisons, while performance goals recognise comparison to others.</p> <p>In an educational context, mastery goals and a deep approach to learning are related through their common emphasis on understanding principles, with learning activities that allow exploration, correction of errors and reliance on self-improvement. Performance goals and a surface approach, by contrast, do not see situations in their entirety, emphasising instead test results and scores and learning just what is necessary. This can also be described in terms of extracting personal meaning (deep) as opposed to reproducing material (surface) (Lucas, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref21">20</reflink>]). The need to provide an appropriate learning environment is reinforced through goal theory's acknowledgement of the importance of motivation (Anderman et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>]), arguably an unstable influence and likely to change according to circumstances (Kyndt et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Lucas and Mladenovic ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]) describe research involving learning activities and changes in both surface and deep learning styles, including increases in surface learning scores through the progression of undergraduate degree programmes. Whether or not there are corollary changes to deep learning scores is possibly context-dependent, and this introduces a variety of mitigating factors, including whether a student's approach to learning is fixed or variable (Kyndt et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref25">19</reflink>]). There is evidence that 'educational outcomes' are linked to learning strategies (Crooks, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>], p. 441).</p> <p>Educational psychologists such as Entwistle and Ramsden ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref27">14</reflink>]) and Biggs et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref28">5</reflink>]) tend to explain learning approaches in terms of consistent individual traits (personality, motivation and attitudes), and assume there is little or no influence by contextual factors (the nature of the learning task). Lucas and Mladenovic ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref29">21</reflink>]) indicate support for student tendencies towards particular learning styles, but with context-driven variability. This can be seen as regards student learning styles, but also as regards the teaching environment. Different teachers can approach the same body of material with a variety of preferred styles and strategies; the teaching environment will also reflect workloads and available resources.</p> <p>The importance of aligning desired learning outcomes (for the student) and designed learning activities (by the teacher) is crucial. Student perceptions and responses to a particular teaching context may not match the teacher's intentions (Lucas & Mladenovic, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref30">21</reflink>]). Again, student motivation and educational context are significant. Further, it is important to not oversimplify and state that <emph>all</emph> learning should be on a deep level. 'Much higher education research implies that a surface approach is inappropriate whereas a deep approach is desirable' (Lucas & Mladenovic, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref31">21</reflink>], p. 405). The specific context in which the learning is occurring must be examined to determine if indeed a deep level of understanding is required. Sometimes memorisation and rote learning really is required (e.g. learning multiplication tables or verb tenses). The ability to determine which approach is required in a new situation in itself requires a deep understanding of that situation. Part of deep learning is acquiring an understanding of when it is (and when it is not) the best approach (Beattie et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0116263712-5">Accounting education</hd> <p>Educational research has identified that different disciplines have different types of students, with some disciplines promoting deeper approaches than others, especially disciplines relating to human sciences (Baeten, Kyndt, Struyven, & Dochy, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]). These factors are particularly relevant for accounting education. There are some technical skills that require a surface approach; the mechanics of double-entry need to be learned and processed, arithmetic results are calculational. The <emph>application</emph> of those techniques and the interpretation of the resulting reports require a deep level of understanding. Good teaching helps to develop the ability to discern the need for different skill sets (Cadiz Dyball, Reid, Ross, & Schoch, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref34">11</reflink>]). Particularly in the world of accounting, these attributes are considered essential. Accounting requires a blend of surface and deep learning.</p> <p>The use of business cases in accounting education is used in some classroom settings to simulate the real world and to introduce the unstructured nature of business. They are used to promote balanced learning styles (Adler et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>]) and, as previously mentioned, to promote a deeper understanding of principles and as a useful technique for enabling collaborative learning activities. By grappling with the complexities of a situation with no obvious 'right answer', students should begin to gain an appreciation of their world to come after graduation.</p> <p>Business cases are used in various ways (Prince, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref36">24</reflink>]) to encourage active involvement in the learning process, by promoting the use of judgement in resolving uncertainty. In promoting interaction with others, cases provide opportunities for active discussion, for developing communication and interpersonal skills. In respect of accounting education, cases move the focus from procedures and practice to concepts and issues. The application and resolution of case problems can provide a very practical demonstration of the importance of a sound underlying knowledge of accounting procedures, placing 'technical' accounting learning in an appropriate context (Boyce, Williams, Kelly, & Yee, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref37">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Part of deep learning is acquiring an understanding of when it is (and when it is not) the best approach (Beattie et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref38">4</reflink>]). Accounting is believed to attract a relatively high proportion of reproducing and achieving students, yet the mix of procedural and conceptual knowledge in accounting requires teaching methods that promote deep levels of understanding. The use of business cases can be argued as highly relevant to accounting education (Adler et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>]; Wynn-Williams, Whiting, & Adler, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref40">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Healy and McCutcheon ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref41">17</reflink>]) interviewed accounting lecturers about their views on using business cases in an Irish university, identifying three areas of benefit. They are used as a method for reinforcing knowledge, for applying knowledge and stimulating interest, and as a means of extending students' personal development. Challenges to providing a good learning environment are also discussed, including class size and uncertainty over how best to use business cases. The need for some base levels of knowledge and a personal level of maturity are identified as student factors that affect a full appreciation of business cases.</p> <hd id="AN0116263712-6">Student assessments</hd> <p>The nature of student assessments should also be considered. Traditional assessment strategies and techniques have relied heavily on closed-book examinations, essay-type assessments or multiple-choice questions (Serafini, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref42">25</reflink>]). Accounting assessments frequently comprise technical mid-semester tests and end-of-semester examinations. The relevance of examinations to effectively assess student learning is increasingly being questioned for a number of reasons, including changes in the nature of student cohorts, an increased awareness of the need to develop and assess multiple skills and the impact of technological developments and alternative forms of teaching and assessments to be utilised (Joshi & Babacan, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>]). There is a cloudy relationship between desired outcomes (the teachers' perspective) and the perceived learning environment (the students' perspective), which is affected by multiple layers of motivation. Where in the degree programme a student is located, study workload and timetabling of assessments, the significance of grades attributed to any particular assessment, peer or social pressures are but some. These contribute to a student's drive to acquire deep understanding (mastery goals) or merely to pass the paper (performance goals). Crooks ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>]) contends that tests may emphasise lower cognitive levels than stated course objectives would justify, leading to doubt over the validity of such assessments. Further, he makes the claim that, in order to change students' learning, the nature of the assessments needs to change.</p> <p>Booth, Luckett, and Mladenovic ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref45">9</reflink>]) contend that the nature and form of assessment in accounting and law courses results in perceptions that a surface approach is appropriate for the study of accounting, seemingly at odds with the purpose for using business cases. Accounting educators need to plan course assessments to shape student learning and to enhance deep learning through the inclusion of teaching and assessment tasks that require a level of critical analysis rather than simply rewarding the students for memorisation (Joshi & Babacan, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref46">18</reflink>]). Teaching strategies need to encourage students' awareness of their own styles, and their abilities to consciously use alternative approaches. Further, consideration is needed for those forms of assessment that reward critical thinking and encouraging a deep approach to learning.</p> <hd id="AN0116263712-7">Academics</hd> <p>If student perceptions and reactions are context-dependent, by extension so are those of teachers. As human participants in the educational environment, academics are not exempt from conflicting tensions and pressures. The provision of online assessments provided by publishers as accompaniment to textbooks and the ability to make use of computer-marked multi-choice questions are all tempting as time-saving devices. 'Publish or perish' is an oft-heard call.</p> <p>Performance-based funding of research represents a fundamental change to the funding model for the New Zealand tertiary sector (Performance-Based Research Fund, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref47">23</reflink>]; Tertiary Education Commission, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref48">28</reflink>]). PBRF is intended to reward research, through a government fund allocated to New Zealand tertiary-level educational organisations on the basis of factors such as quality evaluation, the number of research degrees completed and external research income earned. For universities in 2015, the New Zealand government allocated approximately $280 million for PBRF, out of a total of $1535 million; this represents about 18% of universities' funding (Tertiary Investment Funding, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref49">29</reflink>]–[<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref50">29</reflink>]). The academic culture of New Zealand universities has accommodated the PBRF, with an increased focus on preserving time for research. As early as 2004, research indicated that academics were changing behaviour to diminish time spent on educational activities, and to increase time and attention spent on publishing in international (as opposed to local) journals (Middleton, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref51">22</reflink>]). Moving from a model based in student enrolments to one which includes a contestable fund based on the quality of research has meant an increase in the quantity and quality of research outputs since 2004 (Smart, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref52">26</reflink>]). Billot ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref53">7</reflink>]) reports ongoing tensions in the academic community between traditional identities, current responsibilities in teaching and administrative workloads, and research demands. The impact of this focus on research outputs may have some impact on classroom activities; the issue will be discussed further.</p> <p>The next section of the paper describes an empirical study that tests these ideas. Duff ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref54">13</reflink>]) heralds the results of this study when he discusses strategic learners as those who rely on 'cues' regarding assessments and effective analysis of the requirements for academic success. Referencing prior research that identifies 'cue seekers' (Duff, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref55">13</reflink>], p. 411), strategic learning is proposed not as a distinct approach as such, but rather as the ability to maximise academic performance by using surface or deep approaches as required. They will adopt the techniques according to the situation. The next section describes one attempt to test all these factors in a classroom situation.</p> <hd id="AN0116263712-8">The empirical study</hd> <p>This section of the paper describes the hopes and expectations of the study. The classroom context is described, followed by the methods used to investigate the use of business cases in one setting. The statistical results and discussion form separate sections of the paper.</p> <p>Against the broader background of the modern academic world (for both students and academics), and a desire to encourage deep approaches to learning, an empirical study tests whether or not business cases are being used appropriately in one context. The research question asks whether the way in which structured and unstructured business cases are used in teaching intermediate-level accounting students in a particular setting encourages deep approaches to learning. Although there were prior expectations based in literature, the survey (Biggs et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref56">5</reflink>]) was conceptualised as an exploratory investigation, to let the results tell their own story.</p> <p>In the course chosen for this study, students have previously mastered basic accounting skills and the mechanics of constructing financial reports. The students continue to study the preparation of financial reports within a more in-depth context of accounting standards. Some of the more complex issues relating to recognition and presentation are covered as well as the principles and concepts of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as they have been adapted to New Zealand conditions. In other words, students are expected to move beyond the more technical aspects of financial accounting; they need to understand and apply conceptual material.</p> <p>The focus activity for the study is a small-group presentation that requires independent thinking and judgment. Some groups have unstructured business cases around which to plan and prepare an oral presentation: there is a description of an organisation with some accounting issues described, but no specific direction provided about how to resolve any identified problems. Other groups have a series of questions on an accounting topic, given without descriptive context to help students imagine how the accounting issue might arise.</p> <p>If unstructured cases are being used appropriately, the anticipated result is that deep learning scores will increase over the semester for the groups given unstructured business cases. Groups that are presented with less organised and more contextualised situations will engage with the material in a deep and meaningful way in order to find a sensible response. These students are expected to demonstrate a different approach to learning than will students whose presentations are based around a series of structured questions that have no business contextualisation.</p> <p>To describe the setting for the study in more detail, the class involved is a one-semester intermediate-level financial accounting course, with three one-hour lectures per week, supplemented by a one-hour small-group tutorial session. The course assessments include a mid-semester test worth 35% of the overall course grade, a group presentation worth 10% and a final exam worth 55 of their final grade. The entire class cohort was 264 students, divided into a number of tutorial sessions with approximately 25 students in attendance each week. Tutorials provide the opportunity for more in-depth discussion of weekly homework assignments (ungraded) and any other topics, as well as providing the setting for the group presentations.</p> <p>For the graded group presentation activity, students were given the opportunity to form their own groups and then to prepare a set topic for a 15-minute presentation to their tutorial group. Each tutorial session had six presentation groups; three were given unstructured business cases and three were given a series of questions to answer. The questions were based on the same accounting topics as discussed in the cases, but without any simulated context. The presentations were assessed according to presentation style, the level of engagement and discussion with the tutorial class, not on having a 'correct' answer as such. All students were given their topics at the same time.</p> <p>Deep and surface approaches to learning are tested using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) developed by Biggs et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref57">5</reflink>]). The survey comprises 20 questions, 10 each for deep and for surface learning approaches; each student establishes a score for their inclination towards both deep and surface learning at the same time. The entire class was asked to complete the SPQ during a lecture session in the second week of the teaching semester in 2013, and again in the last week of the teaching semester, after the group presentation activity had occurred. Thus each student has a total of four scores: one each for deep and for surface learning determined at the beginning of the semester (SPQ-1), and again at the end of the semester (SPQ-2).</p> <p>The research project has University Ethics Committee approval. Students signed a consent form that informs them that participation in the surveys is voluntary, and that their student identification number will be used to match their responses and grades. Once the matching process occurs, student ID numbers are not used again. The consent form states that any results will be presented in summarised form only.</p> <hd id="AN0116263712-9">Analysis and results</hd> <p>The response rates are as seen in Table 1; 200 students (76% of the class) took some part in the survey sample. Reliability and confirmatory factor analysis show the student responses loaded cleanly onto the deep and surface approaches to learning. This provides confirmation that the questions as understood and answered by the students in this sample do relate to the concepts described by Biggs et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref58">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1. Response rates.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>SPQ completed</td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>Percentage of class</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SPQ-1 (first survey only)</td><td char=".">68</td><td char=".">26</td></tr><tr><td>SPQ-2 (second survey only)</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">11</td></tr><tr><td>SPQ-1 and 2 (both surveys)</td><td char=".">104</td><td char=".">39</td></tr><tr><td>Neither survey</td><td char=".">64</td><td char=".">24</td></tr><tr><td>Total number of students</td><td char=".">264</td><td char=".">100</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Initially, matched pairs <emph>t</emph>-tests were conducted as an investigation into any differences learning styles for the same students across time (Field, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref59">15</reflink>]). Table 2 indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in learning styles from the beginning to the end of the semester, in that surface learning style scores increased. Inasmuch as there were prior hopes, expectations were that students using unstructured cases would show an increase in deep surface scores. However, deep learning style scores did not appear to change during the semester.</p> <p>Table 2. Matched pairs t-tests.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Mean difference</td><td>Std. deviation</td><td>Std. error mean</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td>df</td><td>Sig.* (two-tailed)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pair 1</td><td>SPQ-1 deep SPQ-2 deep</td><td char=".">.144</td><td char=".">4.195</td><td char=".">.411</td><td char=".">0.351</td><td>103</td><td char=".">.727</td></tr><tr><td>Pair 2</td><td>SPQ-1 surface SPQ-2 surface</td><td char=".">2.423</td><td char=".">4.993</td><td char=".">.490</td><td char=".">4.949</td><td>103</td><td char=".">.000</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.</p> <p>The analysis then proceeded to investigate differences according to structured or unstructured business cases. The results from a repeated measures ANOVA (Field, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref60">15</reflink>]) are shown in Table 3. The first row reflects the matched pairs <emph>t</emph>-tests; statistically significant differences are seen between the deep and surface scores from the beginning and the end of the semester. In the second row, the six presentation groups were used as a between-subjects effect. For the sample of 104 students who completed both surveys, no differences are seen between the presentation groups.</p> <p>Table 3. Within-subjects effects according to presentation group.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Source</td><td>Type III sum of squares</td><td>df</td><td>Mean square</td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td>Sig.*</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Learning style (deep and surface)</td><td>Sphericity assumed</td><td char=".">948.109</td><td>3</td><td char=".">316.036</td><td char=".">10.315</td><td char=".">.000</td></tr><tr><td>Greenhouse-Geisser</td><td char=".">948.109</td><td>1.651</td><td char=".">574.353</td><td char=".">10.315</td><td char=".">.000</td></tr><tr><td>Huynh-Feldt</td><td char=".">948.109</td><td>1.782</td><td char=".">531.960</td><td char=".">10.315</td><td char=".">.000</td></tr><tr><td>Lower-bound</td><td char=".">948.109</td><td>1.000</td><td char=".">948.109</td><td char=".">10.315</td><td char=".">.002</td></tr><tr><td>Learning style by presentation group</td><td>Sphericity assumed</td><td char=".">382.290</td><td>18</td><td char=".">21.238</td><td char=".">.693</td><td char=".">.817</td></tr><tr><td>Greenhouse-Geisser</td><td char=".">382.290</td><td>9.904</td><td char=".">38.598</td><td char=".">.693</td><td char=".">.728</td></tr><tr><td>Huynh-Feldt</td><td char=".">382.290</td><td>10.694</td><td char=".">35.749</td><td char=".">.693</td><td char=".">.740</td></tr><tr><td>Lower-bound</td><td char=".">382.290</td><td>6.000</td><td char=".">63.715</td><td char=".">.693</td><td char=".">.656</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.</p> <p>Based in literature, any prior hope was that the different <emph>type</emph> of presentation group would be related to a difference in learning style, whether structured questions without a business context, or unstructured contextualised business cases. Three of the six presentation groups were given a series of structured accounting questions to discuss, and three were given contextualised business cases. A second repeated measures ANOVA was conducted using <emph>type of group</emph> as the between-subjects effect. As Table 4 indicates, the results are similar. That is, the type of presentation group does not explain the differences detected in learning styles from the beginning of the semester to the end.</p> <p>Table 4. Within-subjects effects according to type of presentation group.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Source</td><td>Type III sum of squares</td><td>df</td><td>Mean square</td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td>Sig.*</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Learning style (deep and surface)</td><td>Sphericity assumed</td><td char=".">1204.291</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">401.430</td><td char=".">14.435</td><td char=".">.000</td></tr><tr><td>Greenhouse-Geisser</td><td char=".">1204.291</td><td>1.753</td><td char=".">687.076</td><td char=".">14.435</td><td char=".">.000</td></tr><tr><td>Huynh-Feldt</td><td char=".">1204.291</td><td>1.804</td><td char=".">667.541</td><td char=".">14.435</td><td char=".">.000</td></tr><tr><td>Lower-bound</td><td char=".">1204.291</td><td>1.000</td><td char=".">1204.291</td><td char=".">14.435</td><td char=".">.000</td></tr><tr><td>Learning style by type of group</td><td>Sphericity assumed</td><td char=".">78.958</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">26.319</td><td char=".">.946</td><td char=".">.419</td></tr><tr><td>Greenhouse-Geisser</td><td char=".">78.958</td><td>1.753</td><td char=".">45.047</td><td char=".">.946</td><td char=".">.380</td></tr><tr><td>Huynh-Feldt</td><td char=".">78.958</td><td>1.804</td><td char=".">43.767</td><td char=".">.946</td><td char=".">.382</td></tr><tr><td>Lower-bound</td><td char=".">78.958</td><td>1.000</td><td char=".">78.958</td><td char=".">.946</td><td char=".">.333</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.</p> <p>The change in surface scores indicates an increasing level of surface learning over time, and the type of presentation activity has not provided the explanation. The exploratory nature of the study included consideration of academic performance. Based in literature, the expectation might be that a positive relationship would be seen for students who develop a deep approach to learning and academic performance (grades). Thus, an analysis tested final course grades between students who participated in structured and unstructured presentation. The type of presentation, once again, showed no significant result (Table 5).</p> <p>Table 5. Course grades according to type of presentation.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Descriptive statistics</td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>Mean</td><td>Std. dev.</td><td>Std. error</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Course grade if structured cases</td><td char=".">49</td><td>63.53</td><td char=".">13.771</td><td char=".">1.967</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Course grade if unstructured cases</td><td char=".">44</td><td>60.59</td><td char=".">12.617</td><td char=".">1.902</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">93</td><td>62.14</td><td char=".">13.248</td><td char=".">1.374</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>ANOVA</td><td>Sum of squares</td><td>df</td><td>Mean square</td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td>Sig.</td><td>Levene statistic</td><td>Sig.*</td></tr><tr><td>Between groups</td><td char=".">200.342</td><td>1</td><td char=".">200.342</td><td char="."><bold> </bold></td><td char="."><bold> </bold></td><td char="."><bold> </bold></td><td char="."><bold> </bold></td></tr><tr><td>Within groups</td><td char=".">15,946.840</td><td>91</td><td char=".">175.240</td><td char=".">1.143</td><td char=".">.288</td><td char=".">1.133</td><td char=".">0.290</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">16,147.183</td><td>92</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.</p> <p>A proportion of the class (24%, or 64 students) did not complete either survey. ANOVA testing with Bonferroni post hoc tests considered non-participants against the three categories of respondents as shown in Table 1 (including SPQ-1, SPQ-2 or both). A statistically significant difference between the categories is seen in Table 6, with the non-respondents showing lower final course results than all categories of respondents. Students who completed SPQ-2 (as a single survey or as the second of both surveys) have final course grades 11 or 12 marks higher than those who did not complete either survey. Students who completed SPQ-1 only have final course results at 6 marks higher than the non-respondents.</p> <p>Table 6. Final exam grade according to survey participation.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>ANOVA</td><td>Sum of squares</td><td>df</td><td>Mean square</td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td>Sig.</td><td>Levene statistic</td><td>Sig.</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Between groups</td><td>6087.763</td><td>3</td><td>2029.254</td><td>11.243</td><td>.000</td><td>5.348</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Within groups</td><td>46,928.476</td><td>260</td><td>180.494</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>53,016.239</td><td>263</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td char="." /><td /><td /><td /><td>95% Confidence interval</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Bonferroni post hoc test</td><td char="." /><td>Mean difference</td><td>Std. error</td><td>Sig.</td><td>Lower bound</td><td>Upper bound</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Neither test</td><td>SPQ-1</td><td>−6.422*</td><td>2.340</td><td>.039</td><td>−12.64</td><td>−20</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SPQ-2</td><td>−12.743*</td><td>3.044</td><td>.000</td><td>−20.84</td><td>−4.65</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Both</td><td>−11.470*</td><td>2.134</td><td>.000</td><td>−17.14</td><td>−5.80</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Course information</td><td char="." /><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td>Final exam</td><td>Course grade</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td char="." /><td /><td char="." /><td>Average</td><td>61</td><td>60</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td char="." /><td /><td char="." /><td>Standard deviation</td><td>12</td><td>14</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td char="." /><td /><td char="." /><td>Minimum mark</td><td>28</td><td>14</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td char="." /><td /><td char="." /><td>Maximum mark</td><td>90</td><td>90</td><td char="." /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.</p> <p>In summary, as used in one university setting, the use of business cases does not make a difference to student approaches to learning. There is no difference between unstructured business cases and structured questions. The only statistically significant result is with respect to final course grades and participation in the survey. Those who did not participate at all had lower grades than all other students. This does not shed any light on the issue of how best to use business cases in classroom settings.</p> <hd id="AN0116263712-10">Discussion and implications</hd> <p>The investigation explored the impact of using unstructured business cases as a means of encouraging students to take a more meaningful and thoughtful approach to their studies. Prior literature and practical experience leads teachers to believe that the more students understand concepts and principles, as opposed to rote learning 'the answers,' the better able they will be to apply their disciplinary knowledge in a real world context. In other words, they will become better graduates. The intention is for students to learn the value of investigating a situation that does not have a single 'right' answer, and that this will be evident in other measures of academic performance (final course grades). That this study does not produce expected results prompts further investigation.</p> <p>Taking a different line of argument to extend Duff ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref61">13</reflink>]), perhaps one of the most challenging questions for teachers is that of the strategic learner. One of the most important results of this study is to suggest that students learn what they need to learn. Scores for surface approaches to learning increased over time, despite efforts to provide a learning experience that should have increased deep approaches. Students find out what will be tested and examined, and they allocate their attention, their time and their resources to achieving just that.</p> <p>To function successfully as practitioners, accounting graduates need to have the ability to apply broad concepts, theory and principles, but to pass courses during their studies, many succeed very well by learning 'how to do it.' As long as courses are designed to be examined along relatively mechanical methods, then students will focus on learning those skills, as described for many years (e.g. Crooks, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref62">12</reflink>]). Students claim (anecdotally) that assessments requiring extra effort, especially those that attract only a small proportion of the course grade, will be completed with token attention. The tutorial activity described in this study represented only 10% of the total course grade. The other 90% relied on short 'practical' computational assessments (a mid-semester test and a final exam). So one important consideration is the importance of the assessment to the students' value system.</p> <p>Further, in order to fully appreciate the implications of these results, the nature of assessments merits consideration. If students understand that most of their course grade will depend on being able to reproduce material and calculate answers, then there is no incentive (reward) for understanding principles and being able to discuss concepts. This concept underscores the relationship between the teacher and the learner: what the learner will study depends on what the teacher signals. Perhaps teachers' signals need to be included into the exploration of student approaches to learning.</p> <p>If students are strategic learners, taking their cues from the context in which they find themselves, similar reflections can be aimed at educators as well. Academics world-wide are increasingly encouraged to pursue research and publish their results. In New Zealand, a proportion of universities' funding is directly related to publication-based funding (Performance-Based Research Fund, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref63">23</reflink>]). Although universities mainly rely on government funding allocated according to formulae based on student numbers, research outputs comprise a small but significant financial incentive. There is, therefore, significant pressure on academics to focus on research outputs, arguably at the expense of time-consuming teaching activities.</p> <p>An ancillary incentive arrives with textbook publishers. It is common in accounting to find supplementary resources provided that 'streamline' assessments. Test banks of multi-choice questions or short-answer calculations are provided. With large class sizes, the automation of such student assessments is attractive. In many parts of the world, including New Zealand, class sizes are large and academic accountants are few. If an academic now views enrolments of 100 as a small-sized class, then no wonder assessments are designed to be easier to mark. Reviewing 100 in-depth reflective essays cannot be done in a short space of time, tests and final examinations are produced that can be marked quickly.</p> <p>In other words, accounting academics are behaving just as strategically as students. In response to competing demands, educators make choices that will generate the biggest rewards. And this will continue until the rewards change.</p> <p>The empirical study described in this paper was designed to gather evidence regarding the success of business cases as used in a particular classroom setting. The evidence suggests that both students and teachers react to conflicting and imperative demands on time in a similar way. Both exhibit the same strategic behaviour in response to similar pressures on time and attention. For all that teachers want to develop and engender deep learning styles, there simply is not enough time to devote to reading extensive essays or to engage otherwise in individual student encouragement. Activities are designed to encourage deep learning (mastery goals), but unless the assessments align with the learning objectives, this will not occur.</p> <hd id="AN0116263712-11">Limitations</hd> <p>There are a number of limitations to the study described here. The activity in which deep and surface learning was tested comprised a single tutorial exercise only, and one that was graded according to presentation skills and not to content. If there had been more than one such activity, or if it had represented a larger proportion of the course grade, there may well have been a bigger impact on students' approaches to learning.</p> <p>Also, course grades are used as the measure of academic performance. Many factors are rolled into this one measure, and perhaps it is not the best or a complete measure of ability to function in real world. It is a strategic measure, easy to obtain, and one upon which students place a great deal of importance.</p> <p>The impact of prior academic exposure (e.g. in high school) is unknown in this study. Another factor might be the combination of other courses being studied alongside intermediate-level accounting; Duff ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref64">13</reflink>]) references the importance of prior academic achievement with respect to deep learning and self-confidence. This extent of this limitation is difficult to judge.</p> <p>In order to test the effect of the strategic teacher, a repeat study could be conducted, one that uses student assessment activities that are more clearly connected to deep learning approaches, such as reflective logs or essays. In the institution concerned, teaching resources are limited and the time required to read, assess and provide feedback on such work would not be possible.</p> <p>The impact of participation is important, since this factor produced the only significant results. The data as collected for this particular empirical study did not explicitly address this factor. Future research should consider participation, what it involves and how it affects student learning.</p> <hd id="AN0116263712-12">Conclusion</hd> <p>Educators hold deep learning and the search for meaningful understanding in high regard. Educators design a variety of classroom activities in order to foster the development of this type of learning. As an exercise in reflection upon an activity so designed, intermediate-level accounting students provided evidence about one way in which business cases have been used. The ineffectiveness of the activity is proposed as being created from two directions.</p> <p>First, there is much to learn about today's students. Their academic world is different than previous generations. They access information differently than did their parents and teachers, they have different (and perhaps more complex) demands on their time and abilities. In accounting, they seem rarely to engage in tertiary studies for the sake of learning, purely for the love of education. They have developed the ability to define an end-goal and prioritise how to achieve it. They know how to get what they want, and they make choices over how to get there. They want good jobs.</p> <p>Teaching and assessment strategies should be designed to encourage students to adopt appropriate learning strategies according to need, and to enhance the learning style preferences of students towards deep learning approaches. There are suggestions that conventional accounting education actually promotes surface, less generic skills (Boyce et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref65">10</reflink>]). For example, including multiple-choice questions as a form of assessment does not result in a deep learning experience for the students; Biggs and Tang ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>]) describe a negative relationship between these two. But in an environment with increasing class enrolments and textbook supports that provide online teaching resources and ready-made assessments, there is pressure on academics to use this type of assessment.</p> <p>Second, academic efforts should target systems of teaching and assessment as well as students' learning styles. Teachers in accounting are reacting to the challenges of today's academic environment, and are acting just as strategically as the students. Although the reasons are different, the behaviour is just the same. Educators cannot continue to decry the rise of procedural learning on the part of students if that is how their abilities are examined. When the academic world changes, at large and inside particular institutions, and encourages learning environments that value student development in a different way, then graduate profiles can be truly achieved. Students are unlikely to do this on their own. This is the challenge.</p> <hd id="AN0116263712-13">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0116263712-14"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The term 'teachers' is used in a generic manner to include educators, lecturers and course designers.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0116263712-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Adler, R. W., Whiting, R. H., & Wynn-Williams, K. (2004). Student-led and teacher-led case presentations: Empirical evidence about learning styles in an accounting course. Accounting Education, 13(2), 213–229. doi: 10.1080/09639280410001676620</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L. H., Yough, M. S., & Gimbert, B. G. (2010). Value-added models of assessment: Implications for motivation and accountability. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 123–137. doi: 10.1080/00461521003703045</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref33" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243–260. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref14" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Beattie IV, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning: A simple or simplistic dichotomy? Accounting Education, 6(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1080/096392897331587</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref15" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149. doi: 10.1348/000709901158433</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref66" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). eISBN: 978-0-33-524276-4. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VC1FBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=biggs+2011&ots=E6zPjz7DRs&sig=oNdM2jw8tZCLX3_mN5dpnuPp0PA#v=onepage&q=biggs%202011&f=false</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref53" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Billot, J. (2010). The imagined and the real: Identifying the tensions for academic identity. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(6), 709–721. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2010.487201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref6" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref45" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Booth, P., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting education: The impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education, 8(4), 277–300. doi: 10.1080/096392899330801</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boyce, G., Williams, S., Kelly, A., & Yee, H. (2001). Fostering deep and elaborative learning and generic (soft) skill development: The strategic use of case studies in accounting education. Accounting Education, 10(1), 37–60. doi: 10.1080/09639280121889</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cadiz Dyball, M., Reid, A., Ross, P., & Schoch, H. (2010). Compulsory group Work – Accounting students' conceptions and suggestions. Asian Review of Accounting, 18(2), 92–105. doi: 10.1108/13217341011059372</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crooks, T. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438–481. doi: 10.3102/00346543058004438</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duff, A. (2004). Understanding academic performance and progression of first-year accounting and business economics undergraduates: The role of approaches to learning and prior academic achievement. Accounting Education, 13(4), 409–430. doi: 10.1080/0963928042000306800</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (2015). Understanding student learning (Routledge Revivals). Abingdon: Routledge. (Previously published 1983 by Croom Helm).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman, S., O'Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 132–139. doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-09-0194</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Healy, M., & McCutcheon, M. (2010). Teaching with case studies: An empirical investigation of accounting lecturers' experiences. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 19(6), 555–567. doi: 10.1080/09639284.2010.501577</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joshi, M., & Babacan, A. (2009). Enhancing deep learning through assessments: A framework for accounting and law students. Review of Business Research, 9(1), 124–131.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Struyven, K., & Cascallar, E. (2011). The perception of workload and task complexity and its influence on students' approaches to learning: A study in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(3), 393–415. doi: 10.1007/s10212-010-0053-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lucas, U. (2001). Deep and surface approaches to learning within introductory accounting: A phenomenographic study. Accounting Education, 10(2), 161–184. doi: 10.1080/09639280110073443</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lucas, U., & Mladenovic, R. (2004). Approaches to learning in accounting education: Editorial. Accounting Education, 13(4), 399–407. doi: 10.1080/0963928042000306783</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Middleton, S. (November, 2004). Disciplining the subject: The impact of PBRF on Education academics. Paper presented at the annual conference of the NZ Association for Research in Education, Wellington.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Performance-Based Research Fund. (2015). Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.tec.govt.nz/Funding/Fund-finder/Performance-Based-Research-Fund-PBRF-/">http://www.tec.govt.nz/Funding/Fund-finder/Performance-Based-Research-Fund-PBRF-/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Serafini, F. (2000). Three paradigms of assessment: Measurement, procedure, and inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 54(4), 384–393.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smart, W. (2009). The impact of the Performance-Based Research Fund on the research productivity of New Zealand universities. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj34/34-impact-on-research.html#top">www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj34/34-impact-on-research.html#top</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2007). Teaching for successful intelligence: To increase student learning and achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tertiary Education Commission. (2014). Performance-Based Research Fund user manual, version 3. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Publications/PBRF-User-Manual-April2015.pdf">http://www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Publications/PBRF-User-Manual-April2015.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tertiary Investment Funding 2013–2015 accessed through: <ulink href="http://www.tec.govt.nz/Funding/funding-allocations/#spreadsheet">http://www.tec.govt.nz/Funding/funding-allocations/#spreadsheet</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong, S., & Chang, E. (2001, October). Support vector machine active learning for image retrieval. In Proceedings of the ninth ACM international conference on Multimedia (pp. 107–118). New York: ACM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wynn-Williams, K., Whiting, R. H., & Adler, R. W. (2008). The influence of business case studies on learning styles: An empirical investigation. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 17(2), 113–128. doi: 10.1080/09639280601026030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoder, J. D., & Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students' performance on examinations. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 91–95. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top3202_2</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kate Wynn-Williams; Nicola Beatson and Cameron Anderson</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref59"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1107207
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Impact of Unstructured Case Studies on Surface Learners: A Study of Second-Year Accounting Students
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wynn-Williams%2C+Kate%22">Wynn-Williams, Kate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Beatson%2C+Nicola%22">Beatson, Nicola</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anderson%2C+Cameron%22">Anderson, Cameron</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Accounting+Education%22"><i>Accounting Education</i></searchLink>. 2016 25(3):272-286.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accounting%22">Accounting</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Style%22">Cognitive Style</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grades+%28Scholastic%29%22">Grades (Scholastic)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Case+Method+%28Teaching+Technique%29%22">Case Method (Teaching Technique)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Formative+Evaluation%22">Formative Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Goal+Orientation%22">Goal Orientation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+Zealand%22">New Zealand</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09639284.2016.1165125
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0963-9284
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The empirical study described here uses the R-SPQ-2F questionnaire [Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. "British Journal of Educational Psychology," 71(1), 133-149] to test deep and surface approaches to learning in a university intermediate-level accounting class that uses business cases in group presentations. Statistical testing of results for learning style before and after group presentations indicates an increase in surface learning over time, with no detectable change in deep learning style. The type of business case used has no effect, in this setting. Course grades, however, are significantly less for students who did not participate in the group presentation activity at all. The results support the claim that students focus on what is required; they may adopt a strategic approach to learning. In a similar way, accounting academics and workload models may be reacting to incentives that discourage reflective and formative feedback. If deeper approaches to learning are desirable, assessments need to reward this behaviour.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 32
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1107207
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1107207
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09639284.2016.1165125
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 272
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Accounting
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Style
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grades (Scholastic)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Case Method (Teaching Technique)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Formative Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Goal Orientation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: New Zealand
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Impact of Unstructured Case Studies on Surface Learners: A Study of Second-Year Accounting Students
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wynn-Williams, Kate
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Beatson, Nicola
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anderson, Cameron
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2016
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0963-9284
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 25
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Accounting Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1