Learning Outcomes In Accounting Education

Brief summary of the theory and progression in the field

Raghavan and Thomas (2014) pointed out that the faced paced globalization, technological advancements, and weak financial foundations have created zones of instability around the education system in the US, which have resulted in disruptive innovation and ethical lapses. Furthermore, public trust has also eroded due to the financial scandals. Madsen (2014) suggested the even though there has not been the quality of accounting education did not decline significantly since the 1970’s, the competitions among business degree programs for high quality students however have underperformed. Sin and McGuigan (2012) uses a multi disciplinary research and principles of best practice to suggest a framework to design innovative assessment, and assessment learning activities for graduate students in order to develop education in accounting, and address the challenges in accounting education with a scarcity of resource and high demand in the higher education sectors in accounting. Freeman and Hancock (2011) suggested that benchmarking process that includes double blind external peer review for the assessment of the achievements of the graduate students can be effective strategy to develop the standard of accounting education in the US.

The four articles reflects a significant development in accounting education, which are informed by framework that fosters innovative assessment strategy and learning through assessments, utilize peer review methods for more effective assessments.

Common themes/findings across the four articles

The common theme that was evident in all the four articles was a shared concern regarding the standard of accounting education in US. The study by Raghavan and Thomas (2014) highlighted an inherent instability in the education system, which is caused due to rapidly pacing technological advancements and globalization, coupled with weak financial systems. This has caused disruptive innovations in the system, and therefore affects the long term viability and sustenance. Challenges in the accounting education system such as an increased demand in high education centers for accounting education and a scarcity of resources have also affected the system, and this implicated reformation in the system, informed by best research practices and development of frameworks for education (Sin and McGuigan 2012). Study by Madsen (2014) also showed that the accounting education system is currently challenged due to a steep rise in the competition between the various business degree programs to draw quality students, as a result of which they have suffered from a below par performance. All these articles highlights that the accounting education system is being constrained by the factors mentioned above, which is affecting the quality of accounting education, and is a roadblock towards sustainable development.

Different themes/findings across four articles

The four articles also pointed out some different aspects, which are also vital to be considered in understanding the current scenario and performance of the accounting education sector. Madsen (2015) used comparative analysis of the quality of accounting education from 1970’s to 2000’s, which showed a steady increase in quality in the given timeframe. The study showed a disparity between the quality in accounting education and quality of non-accounting business program, which is rarely reflected in the pay received by accounting graduates versus the business graduates. Freeman and Hancock (2011) suggest a framework for accounting education which can improve the process of learning and teaching the subject. The authors implied that standardization is needed in the evaluation and assessment practices to ensure continuous improvement in the domain and have proposed a system of double blind peer reviews. Sin and McGuigan (2012) studied the relation between graduate skills with accounting programs, which results in divergent and intermediate learning outcomes, and suggested that motivational factors that can be used to inform assessment frameworks. Studies by Raghavan and Thomas (2014) have pointed out an erosion in public trust due to the financial scandals which have affected the quality of accounting education, and the role of accounting educators in the sustenance of the social contract of the profession through the maintenance of ethical standards, practice related research, innovation in student education and with the involvement of cognition, knowledge acquisition and accounting skills.

Managerial implications in the four articles

The four articles provided different implication for the management in order to improve accounting education. Kamala and Raghavan (2014) proposed that the management in accounting education should focus on sustaining the social contract of the profession to prevent further erosion of public trust. The authors also recommended purposeful integration of accounting research, education, and practice for accounting students, practitioners and educators to develop accounting profession and creating mechanisms for collection, analysis and dissemination of information related to current and future markets for accounting professionals and faculty. Sin and McGuigan (2012) proposed that assessment framework for accounting education should involve attributes such as Student centered learning, cooperative learning environment and Dialogue feedback, self reflection and formative assessment. Integrating changes in the process of assessment, feedback and cooperative learning can help in the better development of graduate attributes according to the authors. Freeman and Hancock (2011) suggested that standards must be set in accounting education and standardized procedure such as double blind peer review can provide an optimum method for the assessment of graduate skills. Madsen (2015) implied the need to identify indicators of the quality of accounting education to assess its progress or decline with time. This can help to understand any shortcomings in the system.

Study limitations and future research direction proposed in the four articles.

The selected studies had different limitations and each showed a different direction for further studies. The study of Kamala and Raghavan (2014) was limited to the historical context which have affected the accounting education system and supported with theoretical underpinnings to describe how instability was incorporated into the accounting education system. However, it did not include any cohort studies and statistical information to support this information. The study provided scope for the understanding of future accounting education system, based on theoretical frameworks, which can be studied further. Sin amd McGuigan (2012) was also limited to theoretical aspects to identify validity of assessment strategies. The study provided how assessment, feedback and cooperative learning can be used to make framework for assessment, however no alternate strategies have been identified, and neither are any strategies for quantifying improvement in the performance of the system after implementing these strategies are outlined. The study however provides scope to learn more on how further development can be achieved in accounting education through sharing of the framework with peers. Freeman and Hancock (2011) only considered the process of double blind external peer review to assess academic performance, however did not consider other forms of peer review process. This also provides an opportunity for further studies into this aspect. Madsen (2015) performed a comparative evaluation of the quality of education. The study used statistical data from 1970’s to 2000’s from selective sources. However, the absence of analysis the quality of education in other subjects caused the data to be represented out of context to factors which might have been affecting other educational systems. Also the competition between different business degree program can also be studied in further researches.

Comparative Table:

References:

Freeman, M. and Hancock, P., 2011. A brave new world: Australian learning outcomes in accounting education. Accounting Education, 20(3), pp.265-273.

Madsen, P.E., 2014. Has the quality of accounting education declined?. The Accounting Review, 90(3), pp.1115-1147.

Raghavan, K. and Thomas, E.R., 2014. Instability, innovation and accounting education. Journal of Accounting and Finance, 14(2), p.76.

Sin, S. and McGuigan, N., 2013. Fit for purpose: A framework for developing and assessing complex graduate attributes in a changing higher education environment. Accounting Education, 22(6), pp.522-543.