08832323.2010.480990
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Implementation of Assurance of Learning Plans:
An Accounting Program and Individual Course
Analysis
Anne L. Christensen , Andrew J. Judd & Nancy B. Nichols
To cite this article: Anne L. Christensen , Andrew J. Judd & Nancy B. Nichols (2011)
Implementation of Assurance of Learning Plans: An Accounting Program and Individual Course
Analysis, Journal of Education for Business, 86:2, 84-91, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.480990
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.480990
Published online: 23 Dec 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 94
View related articles
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:12
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 86: 84–91, 2011
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.480990
Implementation of Assurance of Learning Plans: An
Accounting Program and Individual Course Analysis
Anne L. Christensen
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
Andrew J. Judd
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA
Nancy B. Nichols
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA
The authors surveyed faculty at AACSB-accredited schools regarding the learning goals and
measures for their accounting programs as well as course objectives for the introductory
tax course. They found over 50% of respondents were still developing their learning goals
and measures and only 18% of respondents had completed 2 or more rounds of assessment.
Whereas most accounting program goals are assessed with direct measures, accreditation
program goals typically represent a small subset of the goals specified by professional bodies
such as the AICPA. Assessment results have led to numerous changes in accounting programs
and courses.
Keywords: AACSB, accounting, accreditation, assurance of learning
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
International’s (AACSB) revision of accreditation standards
in 2003 emphasized developing and implementing assurance
of learning (AOL) plans for business and accounting programs. Of the 596 schools with AACSB accreditation, there
are 173 schools with separate accreditation for their accounting programs (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business, 2010). Hence, accounting faculty and the leaders of
separately accredited accounting programs also must ensure
that they have effective AOL plans. The AACSB’s timetable
indicated that by 2007 schools should have developed learning goals, implemented appropriate assessment methods, and
used the assessment data to improve their curricula (Martell
& Calderon, 2005).
The goals of this article are to first (a) summarize the status
of undergraduate accounting programs’ with respect to developing and implementing AOL plans and (b) examine the
programs’ learning objectives and the types of assessments
used to measure the objectives. Second, we analyze under-
graduate introductory tax courses to determine the categories
of learning objectives included in such courses, the frequency
of each objective, and the various assessment measures used
to evaluate each objective. Gaining insight into specific accounting course objectives and assessment measures should
help faculty understand how one or more course objectives
fit with program objectives. Third, we compare the stated objectives for the tax courses with the keys to good course objectives proposed by Mager (1962) to determine if objectives
are stated in terms that can be readily observed and measured.
Fourth, we examine how program and course objectives mesh
with learning outcomes suggested by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). To accomplish these objectives, we surveyed members of the American
Accounting Association (AAA), Accounting Program Leaders Group (APLG), and the American Taxation Association
(ATA) during the summer and fall of 2007. The following
literature review provides a background for the study.
Literature Review
Correspondence should be addressed to Anne L. Christensen, Montana
State University, College of Business, P.O. Box 173040, Bozeman, MT
59717, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Kimmell, Marquette, and Olsen (1998) stated that assessment is an accreditation process that leads to improvement in student learning. The majority of assessment studies
IMPLEMENTATION OF AOL PLANS IN ACCOUNTING
related to AACSB standards discuss AOL in the context of
business programs rather than separate accounting programs
(e.g., Martell, 2007; Martell & Calderon, 2005; Popper, 2005;
Stivers & Phillips, 2009). However, several studies provide
useful insights for developing AOL plans with an accounting
program focus. Calderon (2005) provided a comprehensive
overview of much of this literature up to 2005.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
Direct Versus Indirect Assessment
Shaftel and Shaftel (2007) discussed in detail the AACSB’s
preference for direct (actual student performance) versus indirect (students, employers or alumni perceptions
of students’ capabilities) measures. In 2004, Martell and
Calderon (2005) conducted a survey of 179 deans that found
most had not made the change to direct assessment measures. Their findings are consistent with DeMong, Lindgren,
and Perry (1994), Akers, Giacomino, and Trebbly (1997),
Stivers, Campbell, and Hermanson (2000), and Sinning and
Dykxhoorn (2001), who described the extensive use of
indirect methods to assess learning objectives. Pringle
and Michel (2007) conducted a web-based survey of 508
AACSB-accredited business colleges in 2006. The responses
from 138 survey participants indicated the use of direct assessment measures had increased, but that some institutions
continued to employ indirect measures. Martell (2007) noted,
The transition period is now past, and as of this year, this
language (reference to the 2004 standards’ reference to allowance for a transition schedule) no longer appears in the
standards documentation report that is updated each January.
AACSB-accredited business schools must have AOL programs in place for each of their degree programs that focus
on direct measures of student achievement. (p. 190, italics
added)
Notwithstanding this prescription for compliance by
2007, Martell’s 2006 survey found that only 88% of the 154
responses sent to 469 deans at AASCB-accredited schools
(and those seeking accreditation) had articulated learning
goals for their undergraduate program(s) and of those, only
64% had translated the learning goals into observable behaviors. Although these results indicate there is still work to do,
they also signify substantial progress since 2004 when these
responses were 68% and 31% respectively. The results of
Martell’s survey indicate that the revised 2003 AACSB standards have resulted in significant changes in the assessment
of outcomes in undergraduate business programs.
Education Links to the Accounting Profession
Historically, accounting education leaders have teamed up
with practicing accountants to insure that accounting students develop the knowledge and skills needed to become
successful professionals (Calderon, 2005). The Accounting
Education Change Commission (AECC; 1990), the AICPA
Core Competency Framework (1999), and the AICPA Model
85
Tax Curriculum (MTC; 2007) are recent examples of this type
of collaboration.
Daigle, Hayes, and Hughes (2007) described how their
accounting information systems course objectives supported
both the AICPA Functional Core Competencies (decision
modeling, risk analysis, measurement, reporting, research,
and leveraging technology) and their accounting program’s
AOL plan for AACSB accreditation purposes. The study detailed the information they provided to students, the assessment methods, and the resulting improvements to the course.
This course of action resulted in the AACSB reaccrediting
their undergraduate accounting program. The study demonstrated how externally identified competencies could be successfully integrated and assessed in an individual accounting
course and how incorporating the external competencies ultimately strengthened the course outcomes.
In summary, the literature supports establishing learning
objectives and assessing learning outcomes for educational
programs as a means of measuring their success and providing guidance for improvement (Martell, 2007; Shaftel &
Shaftel, 2007). In addition, an effective strategy for achieving
desired program outcomes involves mapping specific learning outcomes, and the assessment of those outcomes, to an
individual required course within an accounting program.
Further, business program learning goals benefit from incorporating the learning outcomes specified by professional
organizations (Daigle et al., 2007).
AASCB and AICPA Guidance
AACSB accreditation standards and AOL. The 2003
AACSB revisions of Standards 15 and 16 specifically requires accredited members to develop an AOL plan incorporating learning goals, assessment of these goals, and the
implementation of (as necessary) changes in curricula based
on these results.
AICPA MTC framework. Many accounting programs
include in their mission statements a focus on developing
students to enter the public accounting profession, which
requires additional learning outcomes related to this goal.
The AICPA has expressed the expectations of the profession
through its Core Competency Framework and MTC.
The Core Competency Framework provides guidance
for the entire accounting program whereas the MTC applies
only to the tax portion of the curriculum. The task force
charged with modifications to the MTC (originally adopted
in 1996) noted,
The Model Tax Curriculum (MTC) provides recommendations for designing the tax component of the accounting
curriculum so that the AICPA’s vision and its tax section’s
mission can be maximized. The MTC’s recommendations
are intended to adequately prepare students for entering
the accounting profession and to aid in the design and
assessment of accounting curricula that will serve to attract
students to careers in taxation. (AICPA, 2007, p. 1)
86
A. L. CHRISTENSEN ET AL.
A student completing the tax component of the body of knowledge for entry into the
accounting profession should have the ability to:
•
Comprehend the rationale for tax laws by differentiating the ty pes of tax
bases and weighing the multiple objectives tax policymakers consider when
developing tax law
•
Apply analytical reasoning tools to assess how taxes affect economic
decisions for all taxpaying entities (including individuals, partnerships,
Subchapters C and S corporations):
o Through the amount and timing of income recognition and deductions
o Related to property transactions that generate recognized, deferred or no
taxable gains or losses
o Related to organizational form decisions
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
•
Analyze how taxes affect financial reporting including:
o Comparing and contrasting book and tax differences and how they impact
tax-based and financial reporting-based income statements and balance
sheets
o Detecting FAS 109 issues including applying the accounting standards for
determining deferred tax assets and liabilities
o Developing an awareness of internal control issues related to tax
reporting
•
Develop a fundamental understanding of the components of taxable income
determination across taxable entities so that the student builds a foundation
for effectively learning future tax laws in order to implement future tax
compliance and planning strategies
•
Draw supportable conclusions regarding tax issues by using research skills
(including accessing and interpreting sources of authoritative support) to
identify and evaluate strengths, weaknesses and opportunities
•
Communicate tax conclusions and recommendations in a clear and concise
manner to relevant stakeholders
•
Appreciate the professional and ethical obligations as well as community
service opportunities for tax service providers
•
Enhance his or her interpersonal skills
•
Develop technological skills necessary to undertake tax planning, compliance
and research strategies
Excerpt from AICPA Model Tax Curriculum available online at
http://ceae.aicpa.org/Resources/Education+and+Curriculum+Development/Model+Tax+Curriculum/tables
FIGURE 1
AICPA model tax curriculum learning outcomes.
Figure 1 includes the learning outcomes identified in the
MTC.
Although the MTC also provides a matrix that maps the
learning outcomes to the AICPA Core Competencies, we
only address the survey respondents’ introductory tax course
learning objectives as they relate to the MTC.
METHOD
The ATA Undergraduate Assessment and Curriculum Issues Committee developed a web-based survey to assess
the progress accounting programs have made in developing
and implementing AOL plans for undergraduate accounting
programs. The questionnaire also requested information on
learning objectives and the measurement of those learning
objectives for the introductory tax class. The questionnaire
was then reviewed by the Ernst & Young Quantitative, Economic, and Statistics team.
In order to examine undergraduate accounting programs’
status with regard to AOL plans and the programs’ learning objectives and assessment methods, the survey included
questions to elicit the following:
IMPLEMENTATION OF AOL PLANS IN ACCOUNTING
1. How long it took the department to develop the learning objectives and formal assessment measures for the
undergraduate accounting program,
2. The program’s specific learning objectives and how
they were assessed, and
3. How many complete rounds of the assessment process
had been completed.
e-mail addresses were available for approximately 90% of
these individuals. In an effort to increase the sample size, a
follow-up e-mail was sent two months later.
We analyzed the data using the report provided by SurveyMonkey. A total of 174 individuals responded to the
questionnaire, with 118 indicating they were familiar with
the accounting AOL plan and 48 completing the program
goals and objectives grid and indicating the methods used to
assess each of the objectives. The questionnaire employed
skip logic, so individuals could complete accounting program information or tax course information, or both. Among
the respondents, 92.6% indicated that their school offered
undergraduate business degrees with a major or option in
accounting. A total of 34 individuals provided the learning objectives for the tax course and indicated how they
assessed those objectives. In addition, 25 individuals (74%
of the 34 respondents) provided both the objectives for the
tax course and the learning goals for the accounting program.
As a result of surveying both accounting program leaders and
tax course instructors most of the respondents answered either the program-related questions or the tax-course-related
questions. We analyzed all data provided, whether the questionnaires were complete and indicated in each table the
number of respondents to each portion of the questionnaire.
Table 1 presents the profile of the respondents and their
institutions.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
To obtain the information necessary to analyze the undergraduate introductory tax course, the survey included questions to elicit the following information:
1. How the learning objectives and assessment measures
for the class were developed;
2. Whether the learning objectives were articulated to the
students and, if so, how they were communicated;
3. The specific learning objectives for the course and how
they were assessed; and
4. How the assessment data were used and any changes
motivated by the results.
The questionnaire was posted on SurveyMonkey and email messages with links to the questionnaire and requests
for participation were sent to members of the Accounting
Programs Leadership Group (APLG) and members of the
ATA. At the time of the survey, respective memberships for
the APLG and ATA were 322 and 721. We estimate that valid
TABLE 1
Profile of Survey Respondents
n
%
Min.
Max.
M
SD
Panel B: Profile of Educational Institution, Students & Faculty (n = 43–57)
Number of undergraduates at university
800
80, 000
Number of undergraduate business students
150
7, 000
Number of undergraduate accounting students
25
2, 000
Number of accounting BS/BA granted in year
3
1, 000
Number of graduate accounting students
0
214
16,614
2,232
377
124
51
14,641
1,636
349
169
49
Number tenure-track accounting faculty
Number full-time non tenure-track faculty
Total years university level teaching experience
Total years college administrative experience
9.1
3.4
17.9
3.8
4.4
3.3
9.6
5.3
Panel A: Profile of Educational Institution, Accreditation and Degrees (n = 174)
Possess separate AACSB accounting
96 (14 applying)
Accreditation
Degrees offered:
BS/BA with accounting major or option
163
MBA with accounting concentration
54
Master’s of accounting
115
Master’s of taxation
10
Ph.D. in accounting and/or business
55
Full professor
Associate professor
Assistant professor
Instructor
87
Panel C: Profile of Respondents’ Rank (n = 55)
34.5
38.2
21.8
5.5
2
0
1
0
21
20
40
25
88
A. L. CHRISTENSEN ET AL.
TABLE 2
Accounting Program Learning Goals (n = 55)
% of programs with learning goal using specific method of assessment
n
Courseembedded
measures (%)
Student
surveys (%)
Employer
surveys (%)
Alumni
surveys (%)
CPA exam
(%)
Other
standardized
tests (%)
48
45
38
41
39
41
40
25
12
18
8
77
89
84
88
87
88
80
80
58
78
50
17
22
24
27
23
17
18
32
42
11
50
19
22
26
20
21
20
18
28
42
17
38
21
18
16
2
13
15
13
12
42
17
25
40
2
0
7
3
5
0
0
0
0
25
25
9
8
17
5
5
5
4
8
28
25
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
Learning goal
Technical accounting competency
Written communication
Oral communication
Technology competency/skills
Critical thinking
Analytical and problem solving skills
Ethical behavior/judgment
Teamwork/interpersonal skills
Lifelong learning
International/global
Other
RESULTS
learning, a goal of only 22% of respondents, was the only goal
that many programs measured indirectly through surveys of
students, employers, and alumni.
Accounting Program Results
Establishing the learning objectives and formal assessment
measures was often a time consuming task for the accounting
programs. Approximately 44% of the respondents were still
in the process of developing assessment measures for the
program’s learning objectives. Of the respondents who had
completed the process, 62.5% indicated that it took more
than one year to complete.
As indicated in Table 2, survey respondents identified the
most common program learning goals as technical accounting competency, written communication skills, technology
competency, analytical and problem-solving skills, ethical
behavior and judgment, critical thinking skills, and oral communication skills. These goals and their related objectives
were predominately measured by direct methods (course
embedded measures, standardized tests, or in the case of
technical accounting competency, the CPA exam). Lifelong
Introductory Tax Course Results and Evaluation
of Course Objectives
The survey instrument also requested that respondents enter their learning objectives for the introductory tax course.
A total of 34 individuals responded, providing 144 learning objectives. The number of course objectives ranged from
one to seven with an average of 4.2 objectives (SD = 2.01).
Six respondents (18% of 34) reported only one objective for
the tax course. One author (A.L.C.) reviewed these learning
objectives and classified them into categories. Both coauthors (A.J.J., N.B.N.) then reviewed these classifications for
consistency. Table 3 lists the learning objectives and the frequency of each objective.
All 34 respondents included a learning objective focused
on students understanding fundamental tax concepts, a tax
TABLE 3
Learning Objectives, First Tax Course (n = 34)
Learning objective
Understand fundamental concepts
Identify issues impact on decisions
Compute taxable income/prepare returns
Research skills
Integrate planning into decisions
Use analytical tools to solve problems
Communication skills
Critical thinking/tax financial
Ethics
Use technology
Frequency
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
34
18
18
17
14
12
10
7
6
5
20
12
6
2
9
7
14
8
9
3
10
8
1
2
2
8
6
7
7
1
3
7
3
1
1
9
2
14
1
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
7
4
4
2
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
3
1
2
14
3
1
4
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Note. A = Multiple choice test questions; B = test questions, not multiple choice; C = written assignments; D = spreadsheet assignments; E = research
projects; F = presentations; G = class participation; H = case studies; I = tax returns; J = pre–post test.
IMPLEMENTATION OF AOL PLANS IN ACCOUNTING
89
Learning objectives are statements that denote the knowledge and skills the learner should possess when s/he
completes the learning experience. Stating well-specified learning objectives in observable terms, with measureable
attributes, will assist faculty in determining if students have achieved the desired course outcomes. These objectives not
only provide a basis for evaluating a course, they guide the selection of appropriate materials, course content, and
instructional methods.
Mager (1962) described meaningful objectives as ones that clearly indicate what the learner will do to
demonstrate his/her knowledge. He states the key to writing good course objectives is to:
1.
2.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
3.
Identify the desired terminal behavior by name; you can specify the kind of behavior that will be
accepted as evidence that the learner has achieved the objective.
Define the desired behavior by describing conditions under which the behavior will be expected to
occur.
Specify the criteria of acceptable performance by describing how well the learner must perform to
be considered acceptable. (1962, 12)
Step 3 often takes the form of a rubric that indicates different levels of student performance, serving as the basis for
determining whether the performance meets, does not meet, or exceeds expectations in relationship to the specified
learning objective.
When writing learning objectives, avoid vague words like know, understand, and appreciate, as they are
difficult to observe. Instead, using explicit words such as students will be able to write, identify, differentiate, solve,
construct, list, compare and contrast will result in observable, measurable student outcomes. The Chartered Financial
Analysts’ (2009) website refers to words used in learning outcome statements as “command words” and provides an
extensive list of these words (see http://www.cfainstitute.org/cfaprog/courseofstudy/commandwords.html). Focusing
on observable behaviors and using appropriate descriptors should lead to clear, comprehensible learning objectives.
FIGURE 2
How to write well-specified learning objectives.
knowledge objective. Any learning objective that involved
understanding tax concepts was included in this category.
As expected, all the introductory tax courses included an
objective focused on obtaining conceptual tax knowledge.
This course objective supports the program level technical
accounting competency learning goal.
The next most frequent objectives were to (a) identify tax
issues and their impact on decisions and (b) compute taxable
income (which includes the preparation of tax returns). Each
of these objectives was included in 18 of the 34 responses
(53%). These objectives could support the program learning
goals of critical thinking and analytical and problem-solving
skills. Fourteen of the 18 responses (77%) specified taxable income computation used in tax return preparation for
assessing the students’ achievement of this objective. Seventeen responses (50%) included a development of tax research
skills objective.
Respondents identified the remaining objectives in less
than half of the courses. Integrating planning into decision
making was included in 14 courses (41%); applying analytical reasoning tools to solve problems was included in 12
courses (35%); communication skills in was included in 10
courses (29%); critical thinking, including comparing tax accounting to financial accounting, was included in 7 courses
(21%); ethics was included in 6 courses (18%); and developing technology skills was included in 5 courses (15%). Thus,
there was less of a focus on the learning goals of analytical
reasoning, communication skills, critical thinking, and ethics
in the tax course than the learning goals related to technical
tax knowledge.
Comparing course objectives for the tax course with the
keys to good course objectives proposed by Mager (1962;
see Figure 2) revealed that 50% were not stated in terms
that would be easy to measure. For example, objectives
such as “become familiar with the basic sources of information on the tax law” or “students will know the basic concepts of taxation” do not describe what the student
will be able to do to demonstrate his or her knowledge.
Figure 2 contains guidelines for writing effective course
objectives.
Comparison to MTC Learning Outcomes
Because MTC revisions were made in 2007 (the same year
the survey was conducted), survey respondents would not
have had sufficient time to evaluate the new MTC and adjust course objectives to reflect the revisions. Even though
the MTC changed, we compared the current tax course objectives and the revised MTC learning outcomes to identify
differences between the two that tax faculty will need to
address in future years.
The tax course objectives appear to address the two MTC
learning outcomes focused on (1) developing “fundamental
understanding of the components of taxable income” and (2)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
90
A. L. CHRISTENSEN ET AL.
“applying analytical reasoning to assess how tax affects economic decisions” (AICPA, 2007, p. 2). However, not all the
courses specifically address all taxable entities as required in
both MTC learning outcomes. The introductory course may
cover all taxable entities, but it is not obvious from the respondents’ listed objectives. In addition, a number of programs
require two tax courses, so it is possible that the knowledge
regarding all taxable entities could be achieved across the
two undergraduate courses or in a graduate program.
The MTC includes a learning outcome for “differentiating the types of tax bases and weighing the multiple objectives tax policymakers consider when developing tax law”
(AICPA, 2007, p. 2). Only a few respondents provided a specific objective addressing differing tax bases or tax policy.
Most introductory tax textbooks cover this information in the
first chapter and faculty likely cover these topics during the
first few class sessions. In this instance, the learning outcome
is probably being met, but it is not reflected in the course objectives and, therefore, not being specifically assessed.
Six respondents reported an objective addressing ethical issues. It is unlikely that other accounting courses cover
ethical issues related to tax practice. Most introductory tax
textbooks include a section on ethics in tax practice and
examples of ethical issues throughout the book. Although
only six respondents include a specific objective regarding
ethics, it is likely that many more professors cover ethical
considerations in their classroom. This may be another instance in which programs are meeting the MTC learning
outcome, but the objective is neither formally articulated nor
assessed.
As previously mentioned, the mean number of learning
objectives for the tax course was 4.2 (SD = 2.01). It appears
that many introductory tax courses do not specify a comprehensive list of learning objectives on the same scale as the
MTC (nine learning outcomes). This finding may be mitigated to the extent MTC learning outcomes are measured in
a second tax course. Additionally, many of the MTC learning
outcomes are topics common to introductory tax textbooks,
so they may receive some coverage even though they are not
specified learning objectives.
Similar to the MTC’s nine learning outcomes, the AICPA
lists 16 separate core competencies plus leveraging technology to support functional, personal, and broad business perspectives competencies. Thus, whereas tax course learning
objectives support a number of the AICPA Core Competencies, many of the competencies are not directly supported
by one course. Of the 16 Core Competencies, tax course
learning objectives usually support three competencies (reporting, measurement, and legal or regulatory perspectives)
and some courses provide support for five others (problem solving, critical thinking, research, communication, and
leveraging technology). These results are similar to the findings of Abraham and Karns (2009) that business schools often do not emphasize the competencies that businesses find
important.
DISCUSSION
Limitations
The survey has several limitations related to the individuals
receiving the survey and the respondents. First, we selected
the individuals who received the survey based on membership in either the APLG or the ATA. A more comprehensive approach would be to survey all accounting program
directors and tax faculty. A second limitation involved the
lack of random selection of accounting programs. Survey respondents were self-selected based on the individuals who
responded to the survey. This is not uncommon in survey research; however, it introduces bias and potentially skews the
results of the study. In addition, due to the AACSB’s rolling
schedule of reaccreditation visits following the adoption of
the revised standards, some respondents were more familiar
with the AOL process than others.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of this study provide information on accounting
programs’ progress toward creating AOL plans consistent
with AACSB requirements. This study indicates accounting
programs have made significant progress in adopting direct
measures of assessment for the 4–10 learning outcomes suggested by the AACSB. However, not all institutions have
completed the entire five-step assessment process outlined
by the AACSB, suggesting that accounting programs are
collectively behind the AACSB’s implementation timetable.
Determining whether accounting programs have closed this
gap and the extent to which repeated AOL outcomes lead
to program design and course content modifications require
further research.
The learning objectives for the introductory tax course
for each of the respondents included at least one technical
tax knowledge objective, supporting the program’s technical
competency learning objective. However, less than 50% of
the courses included objectives focused on analytical reasoning, communication skills, critical thinking, and ethics.
An introductory tax course can be structured to include and
assess any of these four program learning objectives. It appears that some programs may not be far enough along in
the assessment process to have completed the mapping of
specific course objectives to the program objectives. All the
respondents used course-embedded measures to assess their
learning objectives, consistent with the AACSB’s preference
for direct student measures. Comparing the stated objectives
for the introductory tax course to Mager’s (1962) keys to
good course objectives, revealed that many of the objectives
were not stated in terms that described what the student would
be able to do to demonstrate that he or she had achieved the
objective.
Given the MTC revision in the same year as the survey,
not enough time had passed for the MTC learning outcomes
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
IMPLEMENTATION OF AOL PLANS IN ACCOUNTING
to be included as tax course objectives. However, the mean
number of tax course objectives was 4.2, far fewer than the
MTC’s nine objectives. Further research is needed to determine if and where the revised MTC learning objectives are
being included and assessed in accounting programs. Some
objectives could be included and assessed in tax courses beyond the introductory course and some may be included and
assessed in nontax accounting courses or a combination of
courses. Assessing all nine MTC objectives in a single tax
course could prove daunting.
The results suggest a more challenging issue—the manner in which accounting programs reconcile the AACSB’s
4–10 learning outcomes with the AICPA’s Core Competencies and MTC. It is apparent that accounting programs have
incorporated elements of the AICPA’s Core Competencies
into the AASCB learning outcomes assessment, but there
does not appear to be a systematic approach that ensures the
achievement of AICPA competencies. We are concerned that
the AICPA’s specification of such a large number of specific
learning outcomes may be creating a compliance dilemma
for accounting programs seeking to assess learning outcomes
for both the accrediting agency and the professional organization. With limited resources, programs may be unable to
assess the learning objectives for both groups. The AICPA
may need to reconsider the number of specific outcomes it
identifies. At a minimum, it is our opinion that programs
need additional guidance and training before they can integrate the learning outcomes for both organizations into a
single assessment program.
REFERENCES
Abraham, S. E., & Karns, L. A. (2009). Do business schools value the
competencies that businesses value? Journal of Education for Business,
85, 350–356.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2010). Accredited institutions. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation
/AccreditedMembers.asp
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International Accreditation Coordinating Committee and International Accreditation
Quality Committee. (2007). AACSB assurance of learning standards:
An interpretation. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/
papers/AOLPaper-final-11–20–07.pdf
Accounting Education Change Commission. (1990). Objectives of education for accountants education. Position statement no. 1. Sarasota, FL:
American Accounting Association.
91
Akers, M. D., Giacomino, D. E., & Trebbly, J. P. (1997). Designing and
implementing an accounting assessment program. Issues in Accounting
Education, 12, 259–280.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1999). AICPA core
competency framework. Retrieved from http://ceae.aicpa.org/Resources/
Education+and+Curriculum+Development/Core+Competency+
Framework+and+Educational+Competency+Assessment+Web+Site/
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2007). Model
tax curriculum (MTC). Retrieved from http://ceae.aicpa.org/Resources/
Education+and+Curriculum+Development/Model+Tax+Curriculum/
Calderon, T. G. (2005). Assessment in the accounting discipline: Review
and reflection. In K. Martell & T. Calderon (Eds.), Assessment of student
learning in business schools: Best practices each step of the way (pp.
187–206). Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research.
Charted Financial Analyst Institute. (2009) CFA program command
words. Retrieved from http://www.cfainstitute.org/cfaprog/courseofstudy
/commandwords.html
Daigle, R. J., Hayes, D. C., & Hughes, K. E. II. (2007). Assessing student
learning outcomes in the introductory accounting information systems
course using the AICPA’s core competency framework. Journal of Information Systems, 21, 149–169.
DeMong, R. F., Lindgren, J. H., & Perry, S. E. (1994). Designing an assessment program for accounting. Issues in Accounting Education, 9,
11–27.
Kimmel, S. L., Marquette, R. P., & Olsen, D. H. (1998). Outcomes assessment programs: Historical perspective and state of the art. Issues in
Accounting Education, 13, 851–868.
Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Belmont, CA:
Fearon.
Martell, K. (2007). Assessing student learning: Are business schools making
the grade? Journal of Education for Business, 82, 189–195.
Martell, K., & Calderon, T. (2005). Assessment in business schools: What
it is, where we are, and where we need to go now. In K. Martell & T.
Calderon (Eds.), Assessment of student learning in business schools: Best
practices each step of the way (Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 1–26). Tallahassee,
FL: Association for Institutional Research.
Popper, E. T. L. (2005). Learning goals: The foundation of curriculum development & assessment. In K. Martell & T. Calderon (Eds.), Assessment of
student learning in business schools: Best practices each step of the way
(Vol. 1, Issue 2, pp. 1–23). Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional
Research.
Pringle, C., & Michel, M. (2007). Assessment practices in AACSBaccredited business schools. Journal of Education for Business, 82,
202–211.
Shaftel, J., & Shaftel, T. (2007). Educational assessment and the AACSB.
Issues in Accounting Education, 22, 215–232.
Sinning, K. E., & Dykxhoorn, H. J. (2001). Processes implemented for
AACSB accreditation and the degree of faculty involvement. Issues in
Accounting Education, 16, 181–204.
Stivers, B. P., Campbell, J. E., & Hermanson, H. M. (2000). An assessment
program for accounting: Design, implementation, and reflection. Issues
in Accounting Education, 15, 553–581.
Stivers, B., & Phillips, J. (2009). Assessment of student learning: A fasttrack experience. Journal of Education for Business, 85, 258–262.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Implementation of Assurance of Learning Plans:
An Accounting Program and Individual Course
Analysis
Anne L. Christensen , Andrew J. Judd & Nancy B. Nichols
To cite this article: Anne L. Christensen , Andrew J. Judd & Nancy B. Nichols (2011)
Implementation of Assurance of Learning Plans: An Accounting Program and Individual Course
Analysis, Journal of Education for Business, 86:2, 84-91, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.480990
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.480990
Published online: 23 Dec 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 94
View related articles
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:12
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 86: 84–91, 2011
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.480990
Implementation of Assurance of Learning Plans: An
Accounting Program and Individual Course Analysis
Anne L. Christensen
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
Andrew J. Judd
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA
Nancy B. Nichols
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA
The authors surveyed faculty at AACSB-accredited schools regarding the learning goals and
measures for their accounting programs as well as course objectives for the introductory
tax course. They found over 50% of respondents were still developing their learning goals
and measures and only 18% of respondents had completed 2 or more rounds of assessment.
Whereas most accounting program goals are assessed with direct measures, accreditation
program goals typically represent a small subset of the goals specified by professional bodies
such as the AICPA. Assessment results have led to numerous changes in accounting programs
and courses.
Keywords: AACSB, accounting, accreditation, assurance of learning
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
International’s (AACSB) revision of accreditation standards
in 2003 emphasized developing and implementing assurance
of learning (AOL) plans for business and accounting programs. Of the 596 schools with AACSB accreditation, there
are 173 schools with separate accreditation for their accounting programs (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business, 2010). Hence, accounting faculty and the leaders of
separately accredited accounting programs also must ensure
that they have effective AOL plans. The AACSB’s timetable
indicated that by 2007 schools should have developed learning goals, implemented appropriate assessment methods, and
used the assessment data to improve their curricula (Martell
& Calderon, 2005).
The goals of this article are to first (a) summarize the status
of undergraduate accounting programs’ with respect to developing and implementing AOL plans and (b) examine the
programs’ learning objectives and the types of assessments
used to measure the objectives. Second, we analyze under-
graduate introductory tax courses to determine the categories
of learning objectives included in such courses, the frequency
of each objective, and the various assessment measures used
to evaluate each objective. Gaining insight into specific accounting course objectives and assessment measures should
help faculty understand how one or more course objectives
fit with program objectives. Third, we compare the stated objectives for the tax courses with the keys to good course objectives proposed by Mager (1962) to determine if objectives
are stated in terms that can be readily observed and measured.
Fourth, we examine how program and course objectives mesh
with learning outcomes suggested by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). To accomplish these objectives, we surveyed members of the American
Accounting Association (AAA), Accounting Program Leaders Group (APLG), and the American Taxation Association
(ATA) during the summer and fall of 2007. The following
literature review provides a background for the study.
Literature Review
Correspondence should be addressed to Anne L. Christensen, Montana
State University, College of Business, P.O. Box 173040, Bozeman, MT
59717, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Kimmell, Marquette, and Olsen (1998) stated that assessment is an accreditation process that leads to improvement in student learning. The majority of assessment studies
IMPLEMENTATION OF AOL PLANS IN ACCOUNTING
related to AACSB standards discuss AOL in the context of
business programs rather than separate accounting programs
(e.g., Martell, 2007; Martell & Calderon, 2005; Popper, 2005;
Stivers & Phillips, 2009). However, several studies provide
useful insights for developing AOL plans with an accounting
program focus. Calderon (2005) provided a comprehensive
overview of much of this literature up to 2005.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
Direct Versus Indirect Assessment
Shaftel and Shaftel (2007) discussed in detail the AACSB’s
preference for direct (actual student performance) versus indirect (students, employers or alumni perceptions
of students’ capabilities) measures. In 2004, Martell and
Calderon (2005) conducted a survey of 179 deans that found
most had not made the change to direct assessment measures. Their findings are consistent with DeMong, Lindgren,
and Perry (1994), Akers, Giacomino, and Trebbly (1997),
Stivers, Campbell, and Hermanson (2000), and Sinning and
Dykxhoorn (2001), who described the extensive use of
indirect methods to assess learning objectives. Pringle
and Michel (2007) conducted a web-based survey of 508
AACSB-accredited business colleges in 2006. The responses
from 138 survey participants indicated the use of direct assessment measures had increased, but that some institutions
continued to employ indirect measures. Martell (2007) noted,
The transition period is now past, and as of this year, this
language (reference to the 2004 standards’ reference to allowance for a transition schedule) no longer appears in the
standards documentation report that is updated each January.
AACSB-accredited business schools must have AOL programs in place for each of their degree programs that focus
on direct measures of student achievement. (p. 190, italics
added)
Notwithstanding this prescription for compliance by
2007, Martell’s 2006 survey found that only 88% of the 154
responses sent to 469 deans at AASCB-accredited schools
(and those seeking accreditation) had articulated learning
goals for their undergraduate program(s) and of those, only
64% had translated the learning goals into observable behaviors. Although these results indicate there is still work to do,
they also signify substantial progress since 2004 when these
responses were 68% and 31% respectively. The results of
Martell’s survey indicate that the revised 2003 AACSB standards have resulted in significant changes in the assessment
of outcomes in undergraduate business programs.
Education Links to the Accounting Profession
Historically, accounting education leaders have teamed up
with practicing accountants to insure that accounting students develop the knowledge and skills needed to become
successful professionals (Calderon, 2005). The Accounting
Education Change Commission (AECC; 1990), the AICPA
Core Competency Framework (1999), and the AICPA Model
85
Tax Curriculum (MTC; 2007) are recent examples of this type
of collaboration.
Daigle, Hayes, and Hughes (2007) described how their
accounting information systems course objectives supported
both the AICPA Functional Core Competencies (decision
modeling, risk analysis, measurement, reporting, research,
and leveraging technology) and their accounting program’s
AOL plan for AACSB accreditation purposes. The study detailed the information they provided to students, the assessment methods, and the resulting improvements to the course.
This course of action resulted in the AACSB reaccrediting
their undergraduate accounting program. The study demonstrated how externally identified competencies could be successfully integrated and assessed in an individual accounting
course and how incorporating the external competencies ultimately strengthened the course outcomes.
In summary, the literature supports establishing learning
objectives and assessing learning outcomes for educational
programs as a means of measuring their success and providing guidance for improvement (Martell, 2007; Shaftel &
Shaftel, 2007). In addition, an effective strategy for achieving
desired program outcomes involves mapping specific learning outcomes, and the assessment of those outcomes, to an
individual required course within an accounting program.
Further, business program learning goals benefit from incorporating the learning outcomes specified by professional
organizations (Daigle et al., 2007).
AASCB and AICPA Guidance
AACSB accreditation standards and AOL. The 2003
AACSB revisions of Standards 15 and 16 specifically requires accredited members to develop an AOL plan incorporating learning goals, assessment of these goals, and the
implementation of (as necessary) changes in curricula based
on these results.
AICPA MTC framework. Many accounting programs
include in their mission statements a focus on developing
students to enter the public accounting profession, which
requires additional learning outcomes related to this goal.
The AICPA has expressed the expectations of the profession
through its Core Competency Framework and MTC.
The Core Competency Framework provides guidance
for the entire accounting program whereas the MTC applies
only to the tax portion of the curriculum. The task force
charged with modifications to the MTC (originally adopted
in 1996) noted,
The Model Tax Curriculum (MTC) provides recommendations for designing the tax component of the accounting
curriculum so that the AICPA’s vision and its tax section’s
mission can be maximized. The MTC’s recommendations
are intended to adequately prepare students for entering
the accounting profession and to aid in the design and
assessment of accounting curricula that will serve to attract
students to careers in taxation. (AICPA, 2007, p. 1)
86
A. L. CHRISTENSEN ET AL.
A student completing the tax component of the body of knowledge for entry into the
accounting profession should have the ability to:
•
Comprehend the rationale for tax laws by differentiating the ty pes of tax
bases and weighing the multiple objectives tax policymakers consider when
developing tax law
•
Apply analytical reasoning tools to assess how taxes affect economic
decisions for all taxpaying entities (including individuals, partnerships,
Subchapters C and S corporations):
o Through the amount and timing of income recognition and deductions
o Related to property transactions that generate recognized, deferred or no
taxable gains or losses
o Related to organizational form decisions
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
•
Analyze how taxes affect financial reporting including:
o Comparing and contrasting book and tax differences and how they impact
tax-based and financial reporting-based income statements and balance
sheets
o Detecting FAS 109 issues including applying the accounting standards for
determining deferred tax assets and liabilities
o Developing an awareness of internal control issues related to tax
reporting
•
Develop a fundamental understanding of the components of taxable income
determination across taxable entities so that the student builds a foundation
for effectively learning future tax laws in order to implement future tax
compliance and planning strategies
•
Draw supportable conclusions regarding tax issues by using research skills
(including accessing and interpreting sources of authoritative support) to
identify and evaluate strengths, weaknesses and opportunities
•
Communicate tax conclusions and recommendations in a clear and concise
manner to relevant stakeholders
•
Appreciate the professional and ethical obligations as well as community
service opportunities for tax service providers
•
Enhance his or her interpersonal skills
•
Develop technological skills necessary to undertake tax planning, compliance
and research strategies
Excerpt from AICPA Model Tax Curriculum available online at
http://ceae.aicpa.org/Resources/Education+and+Curriculum+Development/Model+Tax+Curriculum/tables
FIGURE 1
AICPA model tax curriculum learning outcomes.
Figure 1 includes the learning outcomes identified in the
MTC.
Although the MTC also provides a matrix that maps the
learning outcomes to the AICPA Core Competencies, we
only address the survey respondents’ introductory tax course
learning objectives as they relate to the MTC.
METHOD
The ATA Undergraduate Assessment and Curriculum Issues Committee developed a web-based survey to assess
the progress accounting programs have made in developing
and implementing AOL plans for undergraduate accounting
programs. The questionnaire also requested information on
learning objectives and the measurement of those learning
objectives for the introductory tax class. The questionnaire
was then reviewed by the Ernst & Young Quantitative, Economic, and Statistics team.
In order to examine undergraduate accounting programs’
status with regard to AOL plans and the programs’ learning objectives and assessment methods, the survey included
questions to elicit the following:
IMPLEMENTATION OF AOL PLANS IN ACCOUNTING
1. How long it took the department to develop the learning objectives and formal assessment measures for the
undergraduate accounting program,
2. The program’s specific learning objectives and how
they were assessed, and
3. How many complete rounds of the assessment process
had been completed.
e-mail addresses were available for approximately 90% of
these individuals. In an effort to increase the sample size, a
follow-up e-mail was sent two months later.
We analyzed the data using the report provided by SurveyMonkey. A total of 174 individuals responded to the
questionnaire, with 118 indicating they were familiar with
the accounting AOL plan and 48 completing the program
goals and objectives grid and indicating the methods used to
assess each of the objectives. The questionnaire employed
skip logic, so individuals could complete accounting program information or tax course information, or both. Among
the respondents, 92.6% indicated that their school offered
undergraduate business degrees with a major or option in
accounting. A total of 34 individuals provided the learning objectives for the tax course and indicated how they
assessed those objectives. In addition, 25 individuals (74%
of the 34 respondents) provided both the objectives for the
tax course and the learning goals for the accounting program.
As a result of surveying both accounting program leaders and
tax course instructors most of the respondents answered either the program-related questions or the tax-course-related
questions. We analyzed all data provided, whether the questionnaires were complete and indicated in each table the
number of respondents to each portion of the questionnaire.
Table 1 presents the profile of the respondents and their
institutions.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
To obtain the information necessary to analyze the undergraduate introductory tax course, the survey included questions to elicit the following information:
1. How the learning objectives and assessment measures
for the class were developed;
2. Whether the learning objectives were articulated to the
students and, if so, how they were communicated;
3. The specific learning objectives for the course and how
they were assessed; and
4. How the assessment data were used and any changes
motivated by the results.
The questionnaire was posted on SurveyMonkey and email messages with links to the questionnaire and requests
for participation were sent to members of the Accounting
Programs Leadership Group (APLG) and members of the
ATA. At the time of the survey, respective memberships for
the APLG and ATA were 322 and 721. We estimate that valid
TABLE 1
Profile of Survey Respondents
n
%
Min.
Max.
M
SD
Panel B: Profile of Educational Institution, Students & Faculty (n = 43–57)
Number of undergraduates at university
800
80, 000
Number of undergraduate business students
150
7, 000
Number of undergraduate accounting students
25
2, 000
Number of accounting BS/BA granted in year
3
1, 000
Number of graduate accounting students
0
214
16,614
2,232
377
124
51
14,641
1,636
349
169
49
Number tenure-track accounting faculty
Number full-time non tenure-track faculty
Total years university level teaching experience
Total years college administrative experience
9.1
3.4
17.9
3.8
4.4
3.3
9.6
5.3
Panel A: Profile of Educational Institution, Accreditation and Degrees (n = 174)
Possess separate AACSB accounting
96 (14 applying)
Accreditation
Degrees offered:
BS/BA with accounting major or option
163
MBA with accounting concentration
54
Master’s of accounting
115
Master’s of taxation
10
Ph.D. in accounting and/or business
55
Full professor
Associate professor
Assistant professor
Instructor
87
Panel C: Profile of Respondents’ Rank (n = 55)
34.5
38.2
21.8
5.5
2
0
1
0
21
20
40
25
88
A. L. CHRISTENSEN ET AL.
TABLE 2
Accounting Program Learning Goals (n = 55)
% of programs with learning goal using specific method of assessment
n
Courseembedded
measures (%)
Student
surveys (%)
Employer
surveys (%)
Alumni
surveys (%)
CPA exam
(%)
Other
standardized
tests (%)
48
45
38
41
39
41
40
25
12
18
8
77
89
84
88
87
88
80
80
58
78
50
17
22
24
27
23
17
18
32
42
11
50
19
22
26
20
21
20
18
28
42
17
38
21
18
16
2
13
15
13
12
42
17
25
40
2
0
7
3
5
0
0
0
0
25
25
9
8
17
5
5
5
4
8
28
25
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
Learning goal
Technical accounting competency
Written communication
Oral communication
Technology competency/skills
Critical thinking
Analytical and problem solving skills
Ethical behavior/judgment
Teamwork/interpersonal skills
Lifelong learning
International/global
Other
RESULTS
learning, a goal of only 22% of respondents, was the only goal
that many programs measured indirectly through surveys of
students, employers, and alumni.
Accounting Program Results
Establishing the learning objectives and formal assessment
measures was often a time consuming task for the accounting
programs. Approximately 44% of the respondents were still
in the process of developing assessment measures for the
program’s learning objectives. Of the respondents who had
completed the process, 62.5% indicated that it took more
than one year to complete.
As indicated in Table 2, survey respondents identified the
most common program learning goals as technical accounting competency, written communication skills, technology
competency, analytical and problem-solving skills, ethical
behavior and judgment, critical thinking skills, and oral communication skills. These goals and their related objectives
were predominately measured by direct methods (course
embedded measures, standardized tests, or in the case of
technical accounting competency, the CPA exam). Lifelong
Introductory Tax Course Results and Evaluation
of Course Objectives
The survey instrument also requested that respondents enter their learning objectives for the introductory tax course.
A total of 34 individuals responded, providing 144 learning objectives. The number of course objectives ranged from
one to seven with an average of 4.2 objectives (SD = 2.01).
Six respondents (18% of 34) reported only one objective for
the tax course. One author (A.L.C.) reviewed these learning
objectives and classified them into categories. Both coauthors (A.J.J., N.B.N.) then reviewed these classifications for
consistency. Table 3 lists the learning objectives and the frequency of each objective.
All 34 respondents included a learning objective focused
on students understanding fundamental tax concepts, a tax
TABLE 3
Learning Objectives, First Tax Course (n = 34)
Learning objective
Understand fundamental concepts
Identify issues impact on decisions
Compute taxable income/prepare returns
Research skills
Integrate planning into decisions
Use analytical tools to solve problems
Communication skills
Critical thinking/tax financial
Ethics
Use technology
Frequency
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
34
18
18
17
14
12
10
7
6
5
20
12
6
2
9
7
14
8
9
3
10
8
1
2
2
8
6
7
7
1
3
7
3
1
1
9
2
14
1
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
7
4
4
2
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
3
1
2
14
3
1
4
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Note. A = Multiple choice test questions; B = test questions, not multiple choice; C = written assignments; D = spreadsheet assignments; E = research
projects; F = presentations; G = class participation; H = case studies; I = tax returns; J = pre–post test.
IMPLEMENTATION OF AOL PLANS IN ACCOUNTING
89
Learning objectives are statements that denote the knowledge and skills the learner should possess when s/he
completes the learning experience. Stating well-specified learning objectives in observable terms, with measureable
attributes, will assist faculty in determining if students have achieved the desired course outcomes. These objectives not
only provide a basis for evaluating a course, they guide the selection of appropriate materials, course content, and
instructional methods.
Mager (1962) described meaningful objectives as ones that clearly indicate what the learner will do to
demonstrate his/her knowledge. He states the key to writing good course objectives is to:
1.
2.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
3.
Identify the desired terminal behavior by name; you can specify the kind of behavior that will be
accepted as evidence that the learner has achieved the objective.
Define the desired behavior by describing conditions under which the behavior will be expected to
occur.
Specify the criteria of acceptable performance by describing how well the learner must perform to
be considered acceptable. (1962, 12)
Step 3 often takes the form of a rubric that indicates different levels of student performance, serving as the basis for
determining whether the performance meets, does not meet, or exceeds expectations in relationship to the specified
learning objective.
When writing learning objectives, avoid vague words like know, understand, and appreciate, as they are
difficult to observe. Instead, using explicit words such as students will be able to write, identify, differentiate, solve,
construct, list, compare and contrast will result in observable, measurable student outcomes. The Chartered Financial
Analysts’ (2009) website refers to words used in learning outcome statements as “command words” and provides an
extensive list of these words (see http://www.cfainstitute.org/cfaprog/courseofstudy/commandwords.html). Focusing
on observable behaviors and using appropriate descriptors should lead to clear, comprehensible learning objectives.
FIGURE 2
How to write well-specified learning objectives.
knowledge objective. Any learning objective that involved
understanding tax concepts was included in this category.
As expected, all the introductory tax courses included an
objective focused on obtaining conceptual tax knowledge.
This course objective supports the program level technical
accounting competency learning goal.
The next most frequent objectives were to (a) identify tax
issues and their impact on decisions and (b) compute taxable
income (which includes the preparation of tax returns). Each
of these objectives was included in 18 of the 34 responses
(53%). These objectives could support the program learning
goals of critical thinking and analytical and problem-solving
skills. Fourteen of the 18 responses (77%) specified taxable income computation used in tax return preparation for
assessing the students’ achievement of this objective. Seventeen responses (50%) included a development of tax research
skills objective.
Respondents identified the remaining objectives in less
than half of the courses. Integrating planning into decision
making was included in 14 courses (41%); applying analytical reasoning tools to solve problems was included in 12
courses (35%); communication skills in was included in 10
courses (29%); critical thinking, including comparing tax accounting to financial accounting, was included in 7 courses
(21%); ethics was included in 6 courses (18%); and developing technology skills was included in 5 courses (15%). Thus,
there was less of a focus on the learning goals of analytical
reasoning, communication skills, critical thinking, and ethics
in the tax course than the learning goals related to technical
tax knowledge.
Comparing course objectives for the tax course with the
keys to good course objectives proposed by Mager (1962;
see Figure 2) revealed that 50% were not stated in terms
that would be easy to measure. For example, objectives
such as “become familiar with the basic sources of information on the tax law” or “students will know the basic concepts of taxation” do not describe what the student
will be able to do to demonstrate his or her knowledge.
Figure 2 contains guidelines for writing effective course
objectives.
Comparison to MTC Learning Outcomes
Because MTC revisions were made in 2007 (the same year
the survey was conducted), survey respondents would not
have had sufficient time to evaluate the new MTC and adjust course objectives to reflect the revisions. Even though
the MTC changed, we compared the current tax course objectives and the revised MTC learning outcomes to identify
differences between the two that tax faculty will need to
address in future years.
The tax course objectives appear to address the two MTC
learning outcomes focused on (1) developing “fundamental
understanding of the components of taxable income” and (2)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
90
A. L. CHRISTENSEN ET AL.
“applying analytical reasoning to assess how tax affects economic decisions” (AICPA, 2007, p. 2). However, not all the
courses specifically address all taxable entities as required in
both MTC learning outcomes. The introductory course may
cover all taxable entities, but it is not obvious from the respondents’ listed objectives. In addition, a number of programs
require two tax courses, so it is possible that the knowledge
regarding all taxable entities could be achieved across the
two undergraduate courses or in a graduate program.
The MTC includes a learning outcome for “differentiating the types of tax bases and weighing the multiple objectives tax policymakers consider when developing tax law”
(AICPA, 2007, p. 2). Only a few respondents provided a specific objective addressing differing tax bases or tax policy.
Most introductory tax textbooks cover this information in the
first chapter and faculty likely cover these topics during the
first few class sessions. In this instance, the learning outcome
is probably being met, but it is not reflected in the course objectives and, therefore, not being specifically assessed.
Six respondents reported an objective addressing ethical issues. It is unlikely that other accounting courses cover
ethical issues related to tax practice. Most introductory tax
textbooks include a section on ethics in tax practice and
examples of ethical issues throughout the book. Although
only six respondents include a specific objective regarding
ethics, it is likely that many more professors cover ethical
considerations in their classroom. This may be another instance in which programs are meeting the MTC learning
outcome, but the objective is neither formally articulated nor
assessed.
As previously mentioned, the mean number of learning
objectives for the tax course was 4.2 (SD = 2.01). It appears
that many introductory tax courses do not specify a comprehensive list of learning objectives on the same scale as the
MTC (nine learning outcomes). This finding may be mitigated to the extent MTC learning outcomes are measured in
a second tax course. Additionally, many of the MTC learning
outcomes are topics common to introductory tax textbooks,
so they may receive some coverage even though they are not
specified learning objectives.
Similar to the MTC’s nine learning outcomes, the AICPA
lists 16 separate core competencies plus leveraging technology to support functional, personal, and broad business perspectives competencies. Thus, whereas tax course learning
objectives support a number of the AICPA Core Competencies, many of the competencies are not directly supported
by one course. Of the 16 Core Competencies, tax course
learning objectives usually support three competencies (reporting, measurement, and legal or regulatory perspectives)
and some courses provide support for five others (problem solving, critical thinking, research, communication, and
leveraging technology). These results are similar to the findings of Abraham and Karns (2009) that business schools often do not emphasize the competencies that businesses find
important.
DISCUSSION
Limitations
The survey has several limitations related to the individuals
receiving the survey and the respondents. First, we selected
the individuals who received the survey based on membership in either the APLG or the ATA. A more comprehensive approach would be to survey all accounting program
directors and tax faculty. A second limitation involved the
lack of random selection of accounting programs. Survey respondents were self-selected based on the individuals who
responded to the survey. This is not uncommon in survey research; however, it introduces bias and potentially skews the
results of the study. In addition, due to the AACSB’s rolling
schedule of reaccreditation visits following the adoption of
the revised standards, some respondents were more familiar
with the AOL process than others.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of this study provide information on accounting
programs’ progress toward creating AOL plans consistent
with AACSB requirements. This study indicates accounting
programs have made significant progress in adopting direct
measures of assessment for the 4–10 learning outcomes suggested by the AACSB. However, not all institutions have
completed the entire five-step assessment process outlined
by the AACSB, suggesting that accounting programs are
collectively behind the AACSB’s implementation timetable.
Determining whether accounting programs have closed this
gap and the extent to which repeated AOL outcomes lead
to program design and course content modifications require
further research.
The learning objectives for the introductory tax course
for each of the respondents included at least one technical
tax knowledge objective, supporting the program’s technical
competency learning objective. However, less than 50% of
the courses included objectives focused on analytical reasoning, communication skills, critical thinking, and ethics.
An introductory tax course can be structured to include and
assess any of these four program learning objectives. It appears that some programs may not be far enough along in
the assessment process to have completed the mapping of
specific course objectives to the program objectives. All the
respondents used course-embedded measures to assess their
learning objectives, consistent with the AACSB’s preference
for direct student measures. Comparing the stated objectives
for the introductory tax course to Mager’s (1962) keys to
good course objectives, revealed that many of the objectives
were not stated in terms that described what the student would
be able to do to demonstrate that he or she had achieved the
objective.
Given the MTC revision in the same year as the survey,
not enough time had passed for the MTC learning outcomes
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:12 11 January 2016
IMPLEMENTATION OF AOL PLANS IN ACCOUNTING
to be included as tax course objectives. However, the mean
number of tax course objectives was 4.2, far fewer than the
MTC’s nine objectives. Further research is needed to determine if and where the revised MTC learning objectives are
being included and assessed in accounting programs. Some
objectives could be included and assessed in tax courses beyond the introductory course and some may be included and
assessed in nontax accounting courses or a combination of
courses. Assessing all nine MTC objectives in a single tax
course could prove daunting.
The results suggest a more challenging issue—the manner in which accounting programs reconcile the AACSB’s
4–10 learning outcomes with the AICPA’s Core Competencies and MTC. It is apparent that accounting programs have
incorporated elements of the AICPA’s Core Competencies
into the AASCB learning outcomes assessment, but there
does not appear to be a systematic approach that ensures the
achievement of AICPA competencies. We are concerned that
the AICPA’s specification of such a large number of specific
learning outcomes may be creating a compliance dilemma
for accounting programs seeking to assess learning outcomes
for both the accrediting agency and the professional organization. With limited resources, programs may be unable to
assess the learning objectives for both groups. The AICPA
may need to reconsider the number of specific outcomes it
identifies. At a minimum, it is our opinion that programs
need additional guidance and training before they can integrate the learning outcomes for both organizations into a
single assessment program.
REFERENCES
Abraham, S. E., & Karns, L. A. (2009). Do business schools value the
competencies that businesses value? Journal of Education for Business,
85, 350–356.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2010). Accredited institutions. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation
/AccreditedMembers.asp
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International Accreditation Coordinating Committee and International Accreditation
Quality Committee. (2007). AACSB assurance of learning standards:
An interpretation. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/
papers/AOLPaper-final-11–20–07.pdf
Accounting Education Change Commission. (1990). Objectives of education for accountants education. Position statement no. 1. Sarasota, FL:
American Accounting Association.
91
Akers, M. D., Giacomino, D. E., & Trebbly, J. P. (1997). Designing and
implementing an accounting assessment program. Issues in Accounting
Education, 12, 259–280.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1999). AICPA core
competency framework. Retrieved from http://ceae.aicpa.org/Resources/
Education+and+Curriculum+Development/Core+Competency+
Framework+and+Educational+Competency+Assessment+Web+Site/
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2007). Model
tax curriculum (MTC). Retrieved from http://ceae.aicpa.org/Resources/
Education+and+Curriculum+Development/Model+Tax+Curriculum/
Calderon, T. G. (2005). Assessment in the accounting discipline: Review
and reflection. In K. Martell & T. Calderon (Eds.), Assessment of student
learning in business schools: Best practices each step of the way (pp.
187–206). Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research.
Charted Financial Analyst Institute. (2009) CFA program command
words. Retrieved from http://www.cfainstitute.org/cfaprog/courseofstudy
/commandwords.html
Daigle, R. J., Hayes, D. C., & Hughes, K. E. II. (2007). Assessing student
learning outcomes in the introductory accounting information systems
course using the AICPA’s core competency framework. Journal of Information Systems, 21, 149–169.
DeMong, R. F., Lindgren, J. H., & Perry, S. E. (1994). Designing an assessment program for accounting. Issues in Accounting Education, 9,
11–27.
Kimmel, S. L., Marquette, R. P., & Olsen, D. H. (1998). Outcomes assessment programs: Historical perspective and state of the art. Issues in
Accounting Education, 13, 851–868.
Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Belmont, CA:
Fearon.
Martell, K. (2007). Assessing student learning: Are business schools making
the grade? Journal of Education for Business, 82, 189–195.
Martell, K., & Calderon, T. (2005). Assessment in business schools: What
it is, where we are, and where we need to go now. In K. Martell & T.
Calderon (Eds.), Assessment of student learning in business schools: Best
practices each step of the way (Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 1–26). Tallahassee,
FL: Association for Institutional Research.
Popper, E. T. L. (2005). Learning goals: The foundation of curriculum development & assessment. In K. Martell & T. Calderon (Eds.), Assessment of
student learning in business schools: Best practices each step of the way
(Vol. 1, Issue 2, pp. 1–23). Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional
Research.
Pringle, C., & Michel, M. (2007). Assessment practices in AACSBaccredited business schools. Journal of Education for Business, 82,
202–211.
Shaftel, J., & Shaftel, T. (2007). Educational assessment and the AACSB.
Issues in Accounting Education, 22, 215–232.
Sinning, K. E., & Dykxhoorn, H. J. (2001). Processes implemented for
AACSB accreditation and the degree of faculty involvement. Issues in
Accounting Education, 16, 181–204.
Stivers, B. P., Campbell, J. E., & Hermanson, H. M. (2000). An assessment
program for accounting: Design, implementation, and reflection. Issues
in Accounting Education, 15, 553–581.
Stivers, B., & Phillips, J. (2009). Assessment of student learning: A fasttrack experience. Journal of Education for Business, 85, 258–262.