Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.80.4.194-199
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Students' Approaches to Study in Introductory
Accounting Courses
Rafik Z. Elias
To cite this article: Rafik Z. Elias (2005) Students' Approaches to Study in Introductory
Accounting Courses, Journal of Education for Business, 80:4, 194-199, DOI: 10.3200/
JOEB.80.4.194-199
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.4.194-199
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 84
View related articles
Citing articles: 10 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: 12 January 2016, At: 22:35
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Students’ Approaches to Study in
Introductory Accounting Courses
RAFIK Z. ELIAS
California State University, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California
E
ducation researchers have examined
the study approaches of university
students. Specifically, their research has
focused on what happens in the time
between receipt of the information from
the instructor and assessment. The student’s approach to study is an important
determinant of learning (Biggs, 1987).
Research findings generally have identified two approaches to studying: deep
and surface. On the one hand, a student
using the deep approach has an intrinsic
interest in the subject matter. The student relates ideas and conclusions to
understand the subject matter thoroughly. On the other hand, a student employing a surface approach merely memorizes information to pass an exam
(Biggs, 1978). Ramsden (1988) argued
that students can change their study
approach depending on many factors,
such as the teaching style and the nature
of the discipline under study.
My purpose in this study was to examine the way in which students approach
studying in introductory accounting
courses. These courses are required of all
business majors and some nonbusiness
majors. Because the courses represent
the first, and sometimes the last, exposure that many students have to accounting, it is useful to examine how they
approach their study in this discipline. I
also examine how different demographic
characteristics such as GPA, expected
194
Journal of Education for Business
ABSTRACT. Significant education
research has focused on the study
approaches of students. Two study
approaches have been clearly identified: deep and surface. In this study,
the author examined the way in which
students approach studying introductory accounting courses. In general, he
found that GPA and expected course
grade were correlated positively with
using the deep approach to studying.
Compared with other business majors,
accounting and nonbusiness majors
used more deep and fewer surface
approaches to studying. In addition,
women and students who were more
mature and senior employed the deep
approach more often than did other
students. The results have implications
for the accounting instructor in these
critical introductory courses.
class grade, gender, and age affect
approaches to study. Identifying subsets
of students who use deep strategies will
be useful to the accounting instructor in
structuring the class.
Approaches to Study
The concept of study approaches
was originally introduced by Marton
and Saljo (1976). They presented students with reading passages along with
comprehension questions and found
that comprehension of the major concepts was dependent upon whether a
student used deep-level or surface-level
processing. Students who used deep-
level processing concentrated more on
the meaning of the article compared
with those using surface-level processing, who memorized key words. Biggs
(1987) further examined the two study
approaches and identified their distinctive characteristics. On the one hand,
he found that students who used a deep
approach to studying have an intrinsic
interest in the material, and their objective is to develop competence in the
subject matter. In doing so, they relate
ideas to other contexts and discover
meaning by reading widely. On the
other hand, Biggs found that students
using a surface approach simply want
to meet the minimum course expectations. To avoid working more than necessary, they limit their studying to
memorizing key concepts and key
words to pass an examination.
Study Approaches and Learning
Researchers
have
investigated
whether study approaches and learning
are related. The general conclusion is
that deep approaches are consistent with
enhanced learning. Trigwell and Posser
(1991) studied the relationship between
study approaches and qualitative learning outcomes. The results indicated that
students using the deep approach
achieved higher learning outcomes than
did those using a surface approach.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay,
and Scott (1997) presented students
with cases and defined successful cases
as those that increased students’ deep
approach to studying. Ramsden (1992)
and Marton and Saljo (1997) concluded
that analytical skills are enhanced
through the use of a deep-study
approach. Biggs (1993) asserted that the
use of a surface approach is inadequate
because its purpose is to avoid failure.
Similarly to previous researchers, in the
present study I assume that a deep
approach to studying is preferable to a
surface approach because the former
encourages learning.
Accounting Education and
Study Approaches
The findings of education research
have shown that study approaches differ, depending on the discipline under
study. Entwistle and Ramsden (1983)
examined differences in study approaches based on discipline. The
results indicated that the deep approach
was more evident in the arts and social
sciences, whereas the examination of
evidence was more characteristic of scientific disciplines. Ramsden (1988) also
argued that study approach was a function of the discipline and asserted that a
student can adapt his or her study
approach to fit the discipline. To test for
discipline differences, Eley (1992) used
a within-subjects design to measure
whether a student changed study
approach according to discipline. The
tendency to use a surface approach was
higher in accounting courses, whereas
English classes fostered a deeper
approach to learning.
More than a decade ago, the Accounting Education Change Commission
(AECC) issued its recommendations
regarding accounting education in general and the introductory accounting
course specifically. The commission
overwhelmingly emphasized the need
for the students to develop analytical
and conceptual skills, rather than memorizing professional standards (AECC,
1990). The commission also emphasized the importance of the first
accounting courses for all business
majors and advocated that these courses
should teach the students to learn on
their own to give an accurate view of the
accounting profession to all students
(AECC, 1992). Sharma (1997) noted
that fostering a deep approach to learning among accounting students was
essential in implementing the commission’s recommendations.
Factors Affecting Study
Approaches
Researchers have obtained mixed
results in their examinations of the relationship between study approaches and
GPA. Rose, Hall, Bolen, and Webster
(1996) found no significant correlation
between the deep or surface approaches
and overall GPA for American psychology students. Davidson (2002) reached
similar conclusions when examining
American accounting students. However,
Booth, Luckett, and Mladenovic (1999)
found a significant correlation between
the use of the surface approach and GPA
among British accounting students.
Holschuh (2000) investigated the relationship between grades in an introductory biology course and study approaches.
The results indicated that students who
performed better used more deep
approaches and fewer surface approaches compared with students who did not
perform as well. I used these mixed
results to formulate the following
hypothesis in the null form:
H1: There is no significant correlation between overall GPA and class
grade in Introductory Accounting and the
surface and deep approaches to studying.
A significant amount of research has
focused on whether demographic factors influence study approaches. Studies
regarding gender provided mixed
results. For example, Wilson, Smart,
and Watson (1996) found no differences
in study approaches between male and
female Australian accounting students.
Rose et al. (1996) reached similar conclusions in an examination of a sample
of U.S. psychology students. However,
Hassall and Joyce (1998), investigating
U.K. accounting students, found differences only with respect to the surface
approach to studying. The men generally used surface approaches more often
than did the women.
Age and maturity also have been
examined as possible predictors of study
approaches. Richardson (1995) and
Devlin (1996) concluded that nontraditional (older) students—those over 25
years of age—used the deep approach
more often than did traditional (younger)
students. Trueman and Hartley (1996)
attributed these differences to better
management of time by mature students
compared with traditional students.
Auyeung and Sands (1994) examined
whether high school accounting education predicted study approaches at the
university level. Their results indicated
a significant correlation between previous accounting knowledge and the surface approach to studying in college, but
they found no significant correlation
with the deep approach.
Some researchers have investigated
the learning approaches of accounting
students and compared them with those
of other majors. Gow, Kember, and
Cooper (1994) examined changes in
study approaches of Hong Kong
accounting students over time. Their
results revealed that students used
fewer deep strategies in their 2nd year
compared with their 1st. However, deep
strategies increased in their 3rd and 4th
years of study. Sharma (1997) examined Australian accounting students’
study approaches and found that study
approaches were generally in the “gray
area” between surface and deep. However, the students were more interested
in acquiring necessary professional
skills. Booth et al. (1999) also examined Australian accounting students and
compared them with students majoring
in the arts, education, and the sciences.
Their results showed that, compared
with students in other majors, accounting students used more surface and
fewer deep learning approaches. Very
little research has focused on differences between accounting and other
business majors in their study
approaches.
The inconclusive results presented in
previous research led me to formulate the
following hypothesis in the null form:
H2: There are no differences between
deep and surface approaches to learning
based on gender, age, grade level, major,
and prior accounting education among
introductory accounting students.
March/April 2005
195
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Method
The sample for this study consisted of
introductory accounting students in two
accredited universities (one public and
one private). I administered surveys during the last week of a semester to all sections of Introduction to Financial
Accounting and Introduction to Managerial Accounting. After disregarding
incomplete surveys, I had data from a
sample of 480 students in 14 different
sections taught by eight different instructors. There were no common exams in
either university. The exams generally
consisted of a combination of multiplechoice questions, exercises, and essays.
Nist and Diehl (1994) examined successful study strategies among college
students. Using their conclusions,
Holschuh (2000) developed an instrument to measure deep and surface study
approaches and applied it in an investigation of the study approaches of introductory biology students. The instrument consists of 45 questions about the
use of textbooks, taking notes, studying,
and use of available support. Twentyeight questions measured deep studying, and 17 questions measured surface
studying. Each respondent recorded the
amount of the deep and surface study
methods that he or she used during the
semester.
The results of previous research have
indicated that study approaches are
situation-specific (Eley, 1992; Ramsden, 1988). Previous research in study
approaches has relied on the Study
Process Questionnaire (SPQ) developed
by Biggs (1987). The SPQ originally
consisted of three factors: deep, surface,
and achieving, but research uncovered
significant deficiencies in the instrument. Biggs, Kember, and Leung (2001)
revised the instrument to include only
two factors: deep and surface. However,
the instrument is not intended for measuring study approaches in specific disciplines. Rather, it measures study
approaches in the student’s course of
choice (Biggs et al.).
The instrument developed by
Holschuh (2000) was designed specifically for use in introductory biology
courses. Every statement relating to
study approach directs the student’s
attention to the current discipline under
196
Journal of Education for Business
study. Because study approaches are
domain and content specific (Garner,
1988), I modified the instrument by
replacing “biology” with “accounting.”
No other changes were made to the
instrument.
Results
The first step in my data analysis was
to test for any differences between the
students at the two universities. A comparison of the mean scores of deep and
surface approaches revealed no significant differences. I therefore combined
the two samples in the ensuing tests. In
Table 1, I present the demographic characteristics of the sample.
Demographic characteristics reveal
that the majority of the students were
women, less than 25 years old, and
accounting and management majors. In
addition, about 45% of the students had
learned accounting before taking the
introduction to accounting classes, and
most of the students expected to achieve a
TABLE 1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample
(N = 480)
Characteristic
Gender
Male
Female
Age
< 25
> 25
Grade
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Class grade
A
B
C
D or F
Prior accounting
Yes
No
Major
Accounting
Finance
Economics
Management
Marketing
MIS
General business
Nonbusiness majors
N
196
284
285
195
104
168
172
36
28
108
168
176
224
256
112
56
28
112
36
44
44
48
C or a D in the introductory accounting
courses.
To examine the relationship between
overall GPA and study approach, I used
correlation analysis between deep and
surface approaches and overall GPA. The
results indicated a significant positive
correlation between the deep approach
and GPA (r = .21, p < .001) and a negative correlation between the surface
approach and GPA (r = –.22, p < .001).
I used students’ self-reported expected grades instead of actual grades for
two reasons. First, I administered the
survey 1 week before the end of the
semester in many of the introductory
accounting classes. Some of the
instructors indicated that they had
assigned voluntary extra-credit homework to some students for submission
after the survey. Some instructors also
had comprehensive final exams, and
others did not. Therefore, to account
for different grading criteria and the
possibility that some students’ grades
could change significantly in the ensuing week compared with their current
grades, I judged expected grades to be
more accurate measures of performance. The use of expected class
grades is also grounded in education
and psychology research. Expected
class grades have been used extensively in research regarding teaching evaluations (Greenwald & Gillmore,
1997). Goldman (1985) found that
expected grades had a positive relationship with instructor rating and
overall value of the course. In addition,
the social psychological theory of attribution holds that successful outcomes
for one’s own behavior lead to positive
beliefs about one’s abilities, and vice
versa (Greenwald, 1980). Following
this theory, Marks (2000) stated that
expected grades were positively related
to perceived learning. Expected grades,
therefore, have theoretical and practical advantages over actual grades in
measuring students’ perceptions of
learning. However, expected grades
suffer from the possibility of overly
optimistic expectations (Garavalia &
Gredler, 2002). This disadvantage is a
limitation of the present study. I used
correlation analysis to investigate the
relationship between study approach
and expected class grade. My results
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
showed a positive correlation between
the deep-study approach and expected
class grade (r = .25, p < .001) and a
negative correlation between the surface approach and expected class grade
(r = –.25, p < .001).
Correlation analysis also revealed a
weak positive statistical correlation
between the deep and surface approaches
to studying (r = .07, p < .09). This result
is consistent with the findings of Kember
and Gow (1989), who concluded that students may sometimes employ both methods in their studying, depending on the
circumstances and required tasks. Rose et
al. (1996) also found the same overlap
between the deep and surface approaches
and concluded that this finding indicated
the ability of students to adapt to specific
situations.
My next series of tests involved
demographic differences. I used an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the effect of each factor on the deep
and surface approaches, separately. I
followed the ANOVA with t tests to
compare the means of the significant
factors. I present the ANOVA results
and mean comparisons in Table 2.
All factors except for prior accounting
knowledge were significant with regard
to the deep-study approach. In general,
female and nontraditional students used
the deep approach more often compared
with men and traditional students. Also,
freshman students used the deep
approach more often than did sophomores and juniors, but use of the deep
approach increased again among
seniors. There were significant differences based on selected major. Accounting and nonbusiness majors used the
deep approach the most, whereas economics and general business majors
used it the least.
In regard to the surface approach to
studying, women and nontraditional
students used it the least. Senior students used this approach the least,
whereas freshmen and juniors used it
the most. Students with prior accounting education used the surface approach
more often compared with those who
were introduced to accounting in college. I also found that economics, marketing, and general business majors
used the surface approach more often
compared with other majors.
TABLE 2. Factors Affecting Deep and Surface Studying
ANOVA factor
F
M
Panel A. Deep approach
Gender
Male
Female
Age
< 25
> 25
Grade
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Accounting
Yes
No
Major
Accounting
Finance
Economics
Management
Marketing
MIS
General business
Nonbusiness
8.59**
11.16**
12.38**
3.10*
11.58*
12.31*
8.69**
13.00**
11.33**
11.18**
14.55**
2.30
12.21
11.59
6.34**
14.00**
10.64**
9.00**
11.92**
12.46**
12.81**
9.54**
13.25**
Panel B. Surface approach
Gender
Male
Female
Age
< 25
> 25
Grade
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Accounting
Yes
No
Major
Accounting
Finance
Economics
Management
Marketing
MIS
General business
Nonbusiness
9.91**
5.30**
4.65**
17.15**
5.39**
4.52**
14.85**
5.34**
5.09**
5.30**
2.66**
11.33**
5.41**
4.71**
1.77*
4.78*
4.57*
5.28*
5.25*
5.66*
4.54*
5.54*
5.08*
*Significant at the .10 level. **Significant at the .001 level.
Conclusions and Implications
My purpose in this study was to examine the study approaches of undergraduate students in the introduction to
accounting courses. My results generally
revealed that the deep approach to
studying was positively correlated with
expected course grade in these critical
classes and with overall GPA. These
results are positive from the instructor’s
perspective. Because there were no
March/April 2005
197
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
common exams and eight different
instructors were involved in teaching
these courses, it seems that the examinations and other assessment methods
required a deep understanding of the
subject matter rather than memorizing
key words. A future study could investigate more closely the relationship
between study approaches and specific
examination types. For example,
Scouller (1998) found that multiplechoice questions typically encouraged
Australian education students to use a
surface approach to studying, whereas
essay questions required a deeper
approach. A similar study could be conducted in accounting. In the present
study, I also found a slight correlation
between the two approaches to study.
This correlation means that a student
can use a combination of surface and
deep methods in a particular discipline
(Marton & Saljo, 1997).
My results generally revealed that
demographic factors were important
determinants of study approach. Women
used more deep strategies and fewer surface strategies, compared with men.
These findings correspond with those of
Hassall and Joyce (1998), who examined
British accounting students. I also found
that, compared with traditional students,
nontraditional students used more deep
and fewer surface strategies, a result similar to that of Devlin (1996), who attributed it to better time management skills
among nontraditional students. Also, in a
finding similar to that of Gow et al.
(1994), freshmen and seniors in my
study used more deep approaches, compared with sophomores and juniors. Gow
et al. attributed these results to the
burnout effect and the fact that many
2nd- and 3-year students take more
courses than they can handle. However,
the results of the present study should be
interpreted with caution because I did not
conduct a longitudinal analysis.
It is interesting to note that students
who learned accounting before taking
these introductory courses used more
surface strategies compared with those
who were first exposed to accounting in
college. A possible explanation is that
the material was redundant for those
who had already studied accounting, so
they felt that they needed only to memorize keywords to pass the exams.
198
Journal of Education for Business
Further investigation of this variable
is warranted, especially given that the
accounting profession is attempting to
attract qualified students from high
school. My analysis of major differences provided comforting results.
Accounting majors used a deeper
approach to studying compared with
other business majors. The accounting
instructor should emphasize to other
majors the importance of accounting in
their chosen fields. It is possible that
these students did not value accounting
in their career and therefore did not
attempt to study it deeply.
Although the results of this study did
not show that introductory accounting
courses foster a deeper understanding of
accounting, instructors should make
more effort to foster this understanding
among traditional students and other
business majors. This emphasis is important in light of the major challenges facing the accounting profession and the crisis of confidence in corporate reporting.
REFERENCES
Accounting Education Change Commission
(AECC). (1990). Objectives of education for
accountants: Position statement number one.
Issues in Accounting Education, 5, 307–312.
Accounting Education Change Commission
(AECC). (1992). The first course in accounting:
Position statement number two. Issues in
Accounting Education, 7, 249–251.
Auyeung, P. K., & Sands, D. F. (1994). Predicting
success in first-year university accounting using
gender-based learning analysis. Accounting
Education: An International Journal, 3,
259–272.
Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 48, 266–279.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Students’ approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Vic.: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice: A
cognitive systems approach. Higher Education
Research and Development, 12, 73–85.
Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001).
The revised two-actor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.
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:
An International Journal, 8, 277–300.
Davidson, R. A. (2002). Relationship of study
approach and exam performance. Journal of
Accounting Education, 20, 29–44.
Devlin, M. (1996). Older and wiser? A comparison of the learning and study strategies of
mature age and younger teacher education students. Higher Education Research and Development, 15, 51–60.
Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study
approaches within individual students. Higher
Education, 23, 231–254.
Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Garavalia, L. S., & Gredler, M. E. (2002). An
exploratory study of academic goal setting,
achievement calibration and self-regulated
learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
29, 221–230.
Garner, R. (1988). Verbal-report data on cognitive
and metacognitive strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.),
Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Goldman, L. (1985). The betrayal of the gatekeepers: Grade inflation. Journal of General
Education, 37, 97–121.
Gow, L., Kember, D., & Cooper, B. (1994). The
teaching context and approaches to study of
accountancy students. Issues in Accounting
Education, 9, 118–130.
Greenwald, A. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603–618.
Greenwald, A., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52,
1,209–1,217.
Hassall, T., & Joyce, J. (1998). Floating on the
surface or in the deep end? Management
Accounting, 76, 46–50.
Holschuh, J. P. (2000). Do as I say, not as I do:
High, average, and low-performing students’
strategy use in biology. Journal of College
Reading and Learning, 31, 94–108.
Kember, D., Charlesworth, M., Davies, H.,
McKay, J., & Scott, V. (1997). Evaluating the
effectiveness of educational innovations: Using
the study process questionnaire to show that
meaningful learning occurs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23, 141–157.
Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1989). A model of students, approaches to learning encompassing
ways to influence and change approaches.
Instructional Science, 18, 263–288.
Marks, R. B. (2000). Determinants of student
evaluations of global measures of instructor and
course value. Journal of Marketing Education,
22, 108–119.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46,
4–11.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1997). Approaches to
learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N.
Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning:
Implications for teaching and studying in higher education. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic
Press.
Nist, S. L., & Diehl, W. (1994). Developing textbook thinking (3rd ed.). Lexington, MA: Heath.
Ramsden, P. (1988). Context and strategy: Situational influences on learning. In R. E. Schmeck
(Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles.
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher
education. London: Routledge.
Richardson, J. T. (1995). Mature students in higher education: II. An investigation of approaches
to studying and academic performance. Studies
in Higher Education, 20, 5–17.
Rose, R. J., Hall, C. W., Bolen, L. M., & Webster,
R. E. (1996). Locus of control and college students’ approaches to learning. Psychological
Reports, 79, 163–171.
Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment
tion: An International Journal, 6, 125–146.
Trigwell, K., & Posser, M. (1991). Relating
approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 61, 265–275.
Trueman, M., & Hartley, J. (1996). A comparison between the time-management skills and
academic performance of mature and traditional-entry university students. Higher Education, 32, 199–215.
Wilson, K. L., Smart, R. M., & Watson, R. J. (1996).
Gender differences in approaches to learning in
first-year psychology students. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 66, 59–71.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453–472.
Sharma, D. S. (1997). Accounting students’ learning conceptions, approaches to learning, and
the influence of the learning-teaching context
on approaches to learning. Accounting Educa-
March/April 2005
199
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Students' Approaches to Study in Introductory
Accounting Courses
Rafik Z. Elias
To cite this article: Rafik Z. Elias (2005) Students' Approaches to Study in Introductory
Accounting Courses, Journal of Education for Business, 80:4, 194-199, DOI: 10.3200/
JOEB.80.4.194-199
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.4.194-199
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 84
View related articles
Citing articles: 10 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: 12 January 2016, At: 22:35
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Students’ Approaches to Study in
Introductory Accounting Courses
RAFIK Z. ELIAS
California State University, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California
E
ducation researchers have examined
the study approaches of university
students. Specifically, their research has
focused on what happens in the time
between receipt of the information from
the instructor and assessment. The student’s approach to study is an important
determinant of learning (Biggs, 1987).
Research findings generally have identified two approaches to studying: deep
and surface. On the one hand, a student
using the deep approach has an intrinsic
interest in the subject matter. The student relates ideas and conclusions to
understand the subject matter thoroughly. On the other hand, a student employing a surface approach merely memorizes information to pass an exam
(Biggs, 1978). Ramsden (1988) argued
that students can change their study
approach depending on many factors,
such as the teaching style and the nature
of the discipline under study.
My purpose in this study was to examine the way in which students approach
studying in introductory accounting
courses. These courses are required of all
business majors and some nonbusiness
majors. Because the courses represent
the first, and sometimes the last, exposure that many students have to accounting, it is useful to examine how they
approach their study in this discipline. I
also examine how different demographic
characteristics such as GPA, expected
194
Journal of Education for Business
ABSTRACT. Significant education
research has focused on the study
approaches of students. Two study
approaches have been clearly identified: deep and surface. In this study,
the author examined the way in which
students approach studying introductory accounting courses. In general, he
found that GPA and expected course
grade were correlated positively with
using the deep approach to studying.
Compared with other business majors,
accounting and nonbusiness majors
used more deep and fewer surface
approaches to studying. In addition,
women and students who were more
mature and senior employed the deep
approach more often than did other
students. The results have implications
for the accounting instructor in these
critical introductory courses.
class grade, gender, and age affect
approaches to study. Identifying subsets
of students who use deep strategies will
be useful to the accounting instructor in
structuring the class.
Approaches to Study
The concept of study approaches
was originally introduced by Marton
and Saljo (1976). They presented students with reading passages along with
comprehension questions and found
that comprehension of the major concepts was dependent upon whether a
student used deep-level or surface-level
processing. Students who used deep-
level processing concentrated more on
the meaning of the article compared
with those using surface-level processing, who memorized key words. Biggs
(1987) further examined the two study
approaches and identified their distinctive characteristics. On the one hand,
he found that students who used a deep
approach to studying have an intrinsic
interest in the material, and their objective is to develop competence in the
subject matter. In doing so, they relate
ideas to other contexts and discover
meaning by reading widely. On the
other hand, Biggs found that students
using a surface approach simply want
to meet the minimum course expectations. To avoid working more than necessary, they limit their studying to
memorizing key concepts and key
words to pass an examination.
Study Approaches and Learning
Researchers
have
investigated
whether study approaches and learning
are related. The general conclusion is
that deep approaches are consistent with
enhanced learning. Trigwell and Posser
(1991) studied the relationship between
study approaches and qualitative learning outcomes. The results indicated that
students using the deep approach
achieved higher learning outcomes than
did those using a surface approach.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay,
and Scott (1997) presented students
with cases and defined successful cases
as those that increased students’ deep
approach to studying. Ramsden (1992)
and Marton and Saljo (1997) concluded
that analytical skills are enhanced
through the use of a deep-study
approach. Biggs (1993) asserted that the
use of a surface approach is inadequate
because its purpose is to avoid failure.
Similarly to previous researchers, in the
present study I assume that a deep
approach to studying is preferable to a
surface approach because the former
encourages learning.
Accounting Education and
Study Approaches
The findings of education research
have shown that study approaches differ, depending on the discipline under
study. Entwistle and Ramsden (1983)
examined differences in study approaches based on discipline. The
results indicated that the deep approach
was more evident in the arts and social
sciences, whereas the examination of
evidence was more characteristic of scientific disciplines. Ramsden (1988) also
argued that study approach was a function of the discipline and asserted that a
student can adapt his or her study
approach to fit the discipline. To test for
discipline differences, Eley (1992) used
a within-subjects design to measure
whether a student changed study
approach according to discipline. The
tendency to use a surface approach was
higher in accounting courses, whereas
English classes fostered a deeper
approach to learning.
More than a decade ago, the Accounting Education Change Commission
(AECC) issued its recommendations
regarding accounting education in general and the introductory accounting
course specifically. The commission
overwhelmingly emphasized the need
for the students to develop analytical
and conceptual skills, rather than memorizing professional standards (AECC,
1990). The commission also emphasized the importance of the first
accounting courses for all business
majors and advocated that these courses
should teach the students to learn on
their own to give an accurate view of the
accounting profession to all students
(AECC, 1992). Sharma (1997) noted
that fostering a deep approach to learning among accounting students was
essential in implementing the commission’s recommendations.
Factors Affecting Study
Approaches
Researchers have obtained mixed
results in their examinations of the relationship between study approaches and
GPA. Rose, Hall, Bolen, and Webster
(1996) found no significant correlation
between the deep or surface approaches
and overall GPA for American psychology students. Davidson (2002) reached
similar conclusions when examining
American accounting students. However,
Booth, Luckett, and Mladenovic (1999)
found a significant correlation between
the use of the surface approach and GPA
among British accounting students.
Holschuh (2000) investigated the relationship between grades in an introductory biology course and study approaches.
The results indicated that students who
performed better used more deep
approaches and fewer surface approaches compared with students who did not
perform as well. I used these mixed
results to formulate the following
hypothesis in the null form:
H1: There is no significant correlation between overall GPA and class
grade in Introductory Accounting and the
surface and deep approaches to studying.
A significant amount of research has
focused on whether demographic factors influence study approaches. Studies
regarding gender provided mixed
results. For example, Wilson, Smart,
and Watson (1996) found no differences
in study approaches between male and
female Australian accounting students.
Rose et al. (1996) reached similar conclusions in an examination of a sample
of U.S. psychology students. However,
Hassall and Joyce (1998), investigating
U.K. accounting students, found differences only with respect to the surface
approach to studying. The men generally used surface approaches more often
than did the women.
Age and maturity also have been
examined as possible predictors of study
approaches. Richardson (1995) and
Devlin (1996) concluded that nontraditional (older) students—those over 25
years of age—used the deep approach
more often than did traditional (younger)
students. Trueman and Hartley (1996)
attributed these differences to better
management of time by mature students
compared with traditional students.
Auyeung and Sands (1994) examined
whether high school accounting education predicted study approaches at the
university level. Their results indicated
a significant correlation between previous accounting knowledge and the surface approach to studying in college, but
they found no significant correlation
with the deep approach.
Some researchers have investigated
the learning approaches of accounting
students and compared them with those
of other majors. Gow, Kember, and
Cooper (1994) examined changes in
study approaches of Hong Kong
accounting students over time. Their
results revealed that students used
fewer deep strategies in their 2nd year
compared with their 1st. However, deep
strategies increased in their 3rd and 4th
years of study. Sharma (1997) examined Australian accounting students’
study approaches and found that study
approaches were generally in the “gray
area” between surface and deep. However, the students were more interested
in acquiring necessary professional
skills. Booth et al. (1999) also examined Australian accounting students and
compared them with students majoring
in the arts, education, and the sciences.
Their results showed that, compared
with students in other majors, accounting students used more surface and
fewer deep learning approaches. Very
little research has focused on differences between accounting and other
business majors in their study
approaches.
The inconclusive results presented in
previous research led me to formulate the
following hypothesis in the null form:
H2: There are no differences between
deep and surface approaches to learning
based on gender, age, grade level, major,
and prior accounting education among
introductory accounting students.
March/April 2005
195
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Method
The sample for this study consisted of
introductory accounting students in two
accredited universities (one public and
one private). I administered surveys during the last week of a semester to all sections of Introduction to Financial
Accounting and Introduction to Managerial Accounting. After disregarding
incomplete surveys, I had data from a
sample of 480 students in 14 different
sections taught by eight different instructors. There were no common exams in
either university. The exams generally
consisted of a combination of multiplechoice questions, exercises, and essays.
Nist and Diehl (1994) examined successful study strategies among college
students. Using their conclusions,
Holschuh (2000) developed an instrument to measure deep and surface study
approaches and applied it in an investigation of the study approaches of introductory biology students. The instrument consists of 45 questions about the
use of textbooks, taking notes, studying,
and use of available support. Twentyeight questions measured deep studying, and 17 questions measured surface
studying. Each respondent recorded the
amount of the deep and surface study
methods that he or she used during the
semester.
The results of previous research have
indicated that study approaches are
situation-specific (Eley, 1992; Ramsden, 1988). Previous research in study
approaches has relied on the Study
Process Questionnaire (SPQ) developed
by Biggs (1987). The SPQ originally
consisted of three factors: deep, surface,
and achieving, but research uncovered
significant deficiencies in the instrument. Biggs, Kember, and Leung (2001)
revised the instrument to include only
two factors: deep and surface. However,
the instrument is not intended for measuring study approaches in specific disciplines. Rather, it measures study
approaches in the student’s course of
choice (Biggs et al.).
The instrument developed by
Holschuh (2000) was designed specifically for use in introductory biology
courses. Every statement relating to
study approach directs the student’s
attention to the current discipline under
196
Journal of Education for Business
study. Because study approaches are
domain and content specific (Garner,
1988), I modified the instrument by
replacing “biology” with “accounting.”
No other changes were made to the
instrument.
Results
The first step in my data analysis was
to test for any differences between the
students at the two universities. A comparison of the mean scores of deep and
surface approaches revealed no significant differences. I therefore combined
the two samples in the ensuing tests. In
Table 1, I present the demographic characteristics of the sample.
Demographic characteristics reveal
that the majority of the students were
women, less than 25 years old, and
accounting and management majors. In
addition, about 45% of the students had
learned accounting before taking the
introduction to accounting classes, and
most of the students expected to achieve a
TABLE 1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample
(N = 480)
Characteristic
Gender
Male
Female
Age
< 25
> 25
Grade
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Class grade
A
B
C
D or F
Prior accounting
Yes
No
Major
Accounting
Finance
Economics
Management
Marketing
MIS
General business
Nonbusiness majors
N
196
284
285
195
104
168
172
36
28
108
168
176
224
256
112
56
28
112
36
44
44
48
C or a D in the introductory accounting
courses.
To examine the relationship between
overall GPA and study approach, I used
correlation analysis between deep and
surface approaches and overall GPA. The
results indicated a significant positive
correlation between the deep approach
and GPA (r = .21, p < .001) and a negative correlation between the surface
approach and GPA (r = –.22, p < .001).
I used students’ self-reported expected grades instead of actual grades for
two reasons. First, I administered the
survey 1 week before the end of the
semester in many of the introductory
accounting classes. Some of the
instructors indicated that they had
assigned voluntary extra-credit homework to some students for submission
after the survey. Some instructors also
had comprehensive final exams, and
others did not. Therefore, to account
for different grading criteria and the
possibility that some students’ grades
could change significantly in the ensuing week compared with their current
grades, I judged expected grades to be
more accurate measures of performance. The use of expected class
grades is also grounded in education
and psychology research. Expected
class grades have been used extensively in research regarding teaching evaluations (Greenwald & Gillmore,
1997). Goldman (1985) found that
expected grades had a positive relationship with instructor rating and
overall value of the course. In addition,
the social psychological theory of attribution holds that successful outcomes
for one’s own behavior lead to positive
beliefs about one’s abilities, and vice
versa (Greenwald, 1980). Following
this theory, Marks (2000) stated that
expected grades were positively related
to perceived learning. Expected grades,
therefore, have theoretical and practical advantages over actual grades in
measuring students’ perceptions of
learning. However, expected grades
suffer from the possibility of overly
optimistic expectations (Garavalia &
Gredler, 2002). This disadvantage is a
limitation of the present study. I used
correlation analysis to investigate the
relationship between study approach
and expected class grade. My results
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
showed a positive correlation between
the deep-study approach and expected
class grade (r = .25, p < .001) and a
negative correlation between the surface approach and expected class grade
(r = –.25, p < .001).
Correlation analysis also revealed a
weak positive statistical correlation
between the deep and surface approaches
to studying (r = .07, p < .09). This result
is consistent with the findings of Kember
and Gow (1989), who concluded that students may sometimes employ both methods in their studying, depending on the
circumstances and required tasks. Rose et
al. (1996) also found the same overlap
between the deep and surface approaches
and concluded that this finding indicated
the ability of students to adapt to specific
situations.
My next series of tests involved
demographic differences. I used an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the effect of each factor on the deep
and surface approaches, separately. I
followed the ANOVA with t tests to
compare the means of the significant
factors. I present the ANOVA results
and mean comparisons in Table 2.
All factors except for prior accounting
knowledge were significant with regard
to the deep-study approach. In general,
female and nontraditional students used
the deep approach more often compared
with men and traditional students. Also,
freshman students used the deep
approach more often than did sophomores and juniors, but use of the deep
approach increased again among
seniors. There were significant differences based on selected major. Accounting and nonbusiness majors used the
deep approach the most, whereas economics and general business majors
used it the least.
In regard to the surface approach to
studying, women and nontraditional
students used it the least. Senior students used this approach the least,
whereas freshmen and juniors used it
the most. Students with prior accounting education used the surface approach
more often compared with those who
were introduced to accounting in college. I also found that economics, marketing, and general business majors
used the surface approach more often
compared with other majors.
TABLE 2. Factors Affecting Deep and Surface Studying
ANOVA factor
F
M
Panel A. Deep approach
Gender
Male
Female
Age
< 25
> 25
Grade
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Accounting
Yes
No
Major
Accounting
Finance
Economics
Management
Marketing
MIS
General business
Nonbusiness
8.59**
11.16**
12.38**
3.10*
11.58*
12.31*
8.69**
13.00**
11.33**
11.18**
14.55**
2.30
12.21
11.59
6.34**
14.00**
10.64**
9.00**
11.92**
12.46**
12.81**
9.54**
13.25**
Panel B. Surface approach
Gender
Male
Female
Age
< 25
> 25
Grade
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Accounting
Yes
No
Major
Accounting
Finance
Economics
Management
Marketing
MIS
General business
Nonbusiness
9.91**
5.30**
4.65**
17.15**
5.39**
4.52**
14.85**
5.34**
5.09**
5.30**
2.66**
11.33**
5.41**
4.71**
1.77*
4.78*
4.57*
5.28*
5.25*
5.66*
4.54*
5.54*
5.08*
*Significant at the .10 level. **Significant at the .001 level.
Conclusions and Implications
My purpose in this study was to examine the study approaches of undergraduate students in the introduction to
accounting courses. My results generally
revealed that the deep approach to
studying was positively correlated with
expected course grade in these critical
classes and with overall GPA. These
results are positive from the instructor’s
perspective. Because there were no
March/April 2005
197
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
common exams and eight different
instructors were involved in teaching
these courses, it seems that the examinations and other assessment methods
required a deep understanding of the
subject matter rather than memorizing
key words. A future study could investigate more closely the relationship
between study approaches and specific
examination types. For example,
Scouller (1998) found that multiplechoice questions typically encouraged
Australian education students to use a
surface approach to studying, whereas
essay questions required a deeper
approach. A similar study could be conducted in accounting. In the present
study, I also found a slight correlation
between the two approaches to study.
This correlation means that a student
can use a combination of surface and
deep methods in a particular discipline
(Marton & Saljo, 1997).
My results generally revealed that
demographic factors were important
determinants of study approach. Women
used more deep strategies and fewer surface strategies, compared with men.
These findings correspond with those of
Hassall and Joyce (1998), who examined
British accounting students. I also found
that, compared with traditional students,
nontraditional students used more deep
and fewer surface strategies, a result similar to that of Devlin (1996), who attributed it to better time management skills
among nontraditional students. Also, in a
finding similar to that of Gow et al.
(1994), freshmen and seniors in my
study used more deep approaches, compared with sophomores and juniors. Gow
et al. attributed these results to the
burnout effect and the fact that many
2nd- and 3-year students take more
courses than they can handle. However,
the results of the present study should be
interpreted with caution because I did not
conduct a longitudinal analysis.
It is interesting to note that students
who learned accounting before taking
these introductory courses used more
surface strategies compared with those
who were first exposed to accounting in
college. A possible explanation is that
the material was redundant for those
who had already studied accounting, so
they felt that they needed only to memorize keywords to pass the exams.
198
Journal of Education for Business
Further investigation of this variable
is warranted, especially given that the
accounting profession is attempting to
attract qualified students from high
school. My analysis of major differences provided comforting results.
Accounting majors used a deeper
approach to studying compared with
other business majors. The accounting
instructor should emphasize to other
majors the importance of accounting in
their chosen fields. It is possible that
these students did not value accounting
in their career and therefore did not
attempt to study it deeply.
Although the results of this study did
not show that introductory accounting
courses foster a deeper understanding of
accounting, instructors should make
more effort to foster this understanding
among traditional students and other
business majors. This emphasis is important in light of the major challenges facing the accounting profession and the crisis of confidence in corporate reporting.
REFERENCES
Accounting Education Change Commission
(AECC). (1990). Objectives of education for
accountants: Position statement number one.
Issues in Accounting Education, 5, 307–312.
Accounting Education Change Commission
(AECC). (1992). The first course in accounting:
Position statement number two. Issues in
Accounting Education, 7, 249–251.
Auyeung, P. K., & Sands, D. F. (1994). Predicting
success in first-year university accounting using
gender-based learning analysis. Accounting
Education: An International Journal, 3,
259–272.
Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 48, 266–279.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Students’ approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Vic.: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice: A
cognitive systems approach. Higher Education
Research and Development, 12, 73–85.
Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001).
The revised two-actor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.
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:
An International Journal, 8, 277–300.
Davidson, R. A. (2002). Relationship of study
approach and exam performance. Journal of
Accounting Education, 20, 29–44.
Devlin, M. (1996). Older and wiser? A comparison of the learning and study strategies of
mature age and younger teacher education students. Higher Education Research and Development, 15, 51–60.
Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study
approaches within individual students. Higher
Education, 23, 231–254.
Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Garavalia, L. S., & Gredler, M. E. (2002). An
exploratory study of academic goal setting,
achievement calibration and self-regulated
learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
29, 221–230.
Garner, R. (1988). Verbal-report data on cognitive
and metacognitive strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.),
Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Goldman, L. (1985). The betrayal of the gatekeepers: Grade inflation. Journal of General
Education, 37, 97–121.
Gow, L., Kember, D., & Cooper, B. (1994). The
teaching context and approaches to study of
accountancy students. Issues in Accounting
Education, 9, 118–130.
Greenwald, A. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603–618.
Greenwald, A., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52,
1,209–1,217.
Hassall, T., & Joyce, J. (1998). Floating on the
surface or in the deep end? Management
Accounting, 76, 46–50.
Holschuh, J. P. (2000). Do as I say, not as I do:
High, average, and low-performing students’
strategy use in biology. Journal of College
Reading and Learning, 31, 94–108.
Kember, D., Charlesworth, M., Davies, H.,
McKay, J., & Scott, V. (1997). Evaluating the
effectiveness of educational innovations: Using
the study process questionnaire to show that
meaningful learning occurs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23, 141–157.
Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1989). A model of students, approaches to learning encompassing
ways to influence and change approaches.
Instructional Science, 18, 263–288.
Marks, R. B. (2000). Determinants of student
evaluations of global measures of instructor and
course value. Journal of Marketing Education,
22, 108–119.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46,
4–11.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1997). Approaches to
learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N.
Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning:
Implications for teaching and studying in higher education. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic
Press.
Nist, S. L., & Diehl, W. (1994). Developing textbook thinking (3rd ed.). Lexington, MA: Heath.
Ramsden, P. (1988). Context and strategy: Situational influences on learning. In R. E. Schmeck
(Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles.
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher
education. London: Routledge.
Richardson, J. T. (1995). Mature students in higher education: II. An investigation of approaches
to studying and academic performance. Studies
in Higher Education, 20, 5–17.
Rose, R. J., Hall, C. W., Bolen, L. M., & Webster,
R. E. (1996). Locus of control and college students’ approaches to learning. Psychological
Reports, 79, 163–171.
Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment
tion: An International Journal, 6, 125–146.
Trigwell, K., & Posser, M. (1991). Relating
approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 61, 265–275.
Trueman, M., & Hartley, J. (1996). A comparison between the time-management skills and
academic performance of mature and traditional-entry university students. Higher Education, 32, 199–215.
Wilson, K. L., Smart, R. M., & Watson, R. J. (1996).
Gender differences in approaches to learning in
first-year psychology students. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 66, 59–71.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453–472.
Sharma, D. S. (1997). Accounting students’ learning conceptions, approaches to learning, and
the influence of the learning-teaching context
on approaches to learning. Accounting Educa-
March/April 2005
199