Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1804704
Strategies for Teaching Undergraduate Accounting to Non-Accounting Majors Mawdudur Rahman, Suffolk University Boston
Phone: 617 573 8372 Email: mrahman@suffolk.edu Gail Sergenian, Suffolk University
ABSTRACT: Professors teaching accounting to non-accounting majors often find it difficult to maintain students’ attention, encourage class participation, and achieve effective learning
outcomes. Based on theories of self-efficacy, we worked on improving students’ self-perceptions of skills and attitudes to help them improve their performance. In this paper we describe our successful strategies which motivate students , help them achieve higher learning outcomes, and result in positive instructor evaluations. The experience and survey analysis indicate that, ceteris paribus, an environment in which students can improve their self-perceptions of abilities and skills is positively related to participation, learning, and evaluation of faculty. The results of this experiment may be appropriate for other courses in other disciplines.
Background
Students in beginning accounting courses demonstrate a wide range of abilities and attitudes.
Compared with accounting majors, those with other business- and non-business majors are often less committed to grasping and mastering the subject’s concepts and content. They also often lack the vocabulary, experience and other skills to understand business material. A large number of students from all majors begin their first accounting courses with great trepidation, having heard about its difficulty. Some faculty report that it is not easy to get students motivated or involved; while others complain about poor performance. Student evaluations of these courses can be lower than for higher level courses more related to the major. For all of these reasons and more, beginning accounting courses are often considered a challenge to teach.
Yet there are faculty who are champions of these courses. The philosophy of many of these faculty is congruent with our proposal, that the key to success is providing an environment in which students can improve their feelings of self-efficacy by demonstrating concern for student learning. We believe that if a well prepared instructor can dissolve the traditional barriers of academic distance in the relationship between the teacher and the taught, miracles can happen.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy describes individuals’ perceptions of their skills and attitudes. These self- perceptions affect both effort and achievement (Salomon, 1984; Bandura and Cervone, 1983;
Brown and Inouye, 1978). Thus, a cyclical relationship exists between self-efficacy and performance. As individuals learn, they develop higher senses of efficacy; when they have a strong sense of efficacy, they exert more effort and achieve at higher levels (Schunk, 1984). In a recent empirical study, Yeo and Neal (2006) demonstrate that it is particularly in the early phases of skill acquisition that the effects of self-efficacy are strongest. They surmise, in agreement with Bandura and Locke (2003) that, in early stages of learning, those with higher levels of self- efficacy learn faster because they tend to set higher goals, persist in the face of difficulty, and use more effective strategies.
In a difficult undergraduate course like accounting, it stands to reason that faculty need to create an environment for students to maintain the perception that success is possible. Therefore, course
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1804704
processes must be selected that enable a stronger sense of self-efficacy. This can result in more effort being expended by students, which will bring higher levels of achievement.
Developing appropriate course processes
Carl Rodrigues (2004) outlined ten teaching and learning techniques. Recognizing these
techniques are important in developing a course process. Rodrigues states that no one course can (or should) incorporate all techniques. The choice of process depends on instructor style, student orientation and preparedness, and course level.
Focusing on the level of student activity, Carl Rodrigues categorized course processes as 1) active-like and 2) passive-like as follows:
Active-like teaching and learning techniques Case studies
Individual research projects Group projects
Classroom discussions
Passive-like teaching and learning techniques Lecture by instructors
Reading texts Guest speakers
Videos shown in class
Classroom presentation by students Computerized learning assignments
Bain (2004) concurs with Rodrigues (2004) that the best college teachers use different combinations of course processes to develop student learning. What is crucial is determining which processes are the most appropriate for the moment and purpose.
Measuring aspects of teaching
Research in the area of students rating of courses indicates that institutions use multiple items in teaching evaluations. Bill Cashin (1995) reviewed Centra (1993) and Braskamp and Orey (1994) and listed six commonly used items in student rating forms:
• Course organization and planning
• Clarity, communication skills
• Teacher student interaction, rapport
• Course difficulty, workload
• Grading and examinations
• Student self-rated learning level
Cashin (1995) concludes that student ratings tend to be statistically reliable, valid, and relatively free from bias or need for control, probably more so than any other data used for evaluation.
Nevertheless, student ratings are only one source of data.
Factors affecting accounting instructor evaluations
With regard to measuring association between student rating and learning Cashin (1995) concluded that
• Classes in which students give instructors higher rating tend to be classes where students perceive themselves as having learned more
• Age, teaching experience, gender, race, and research productivity, class size, and time of day have little or no relationship to students rating.
• Faculty rank, expressiveness, student motivation, expected grades, and course difficulty are positively related to higher rating.
Especially relevant to our study, Cashin finds that students give higher instructor ratings where they perceive themselves as having learned more.
Rahman et.al. (1988), after surveying course evaluations for xxxxxx students, concluded that the extent to which an accounting instructor is fair, well-prepared, and able to make an accounting class interesting, relevant, and enjoyable is positively related to the level of student evaluations of that teacher.
From the above research reports we have identified two areas and variables emphasized in relation to higher instructor evaluations: 1) course process, and 2) instructor style. Below we discuss a specific professor’s selection of a course process, his instructor style and student acceptance level, as determined by the opinion survey.
Course processes
Selecting course processes in accordance with his perception of instructor style, student orientation and preparedness, and course level, one of the professors who taught these classes used a combination of the following:
a. Lecture
b. Class discussion
c. Classroom problem solving d. PowerPoint slides
e. Bb (Blackboard Learning System) used for 1. Grading
2. Syllabus
3. Announcements 4. Course Materials 5. Homework f. Text Book
g. Teams for homework and class problems h. Attendance
i. Bonus points
j. Emphasis on class participation k. Emphasis on attendance on time l. Share pizza and candy
Every process chosen was selected in a way that enhanced the professor’s efforts to increase student feelings of self-efficacy. At the conclusion of the semester, but before grades were made available to students, the professor conducted an anonymous survey.1 The survey is available
1 Please send an email for the survey URL and instructions to mrahman@suffolk.edu
online to anyone who wants to use the survey for his/her own course and/or participate in a future study.
Question one of the survey was: How have the following course processes helped your learning?
Three things need to be noted here: 1) because these students have little time to invest at home, want to learn more from the class, and need to feel at the end of the class that they can perform, there was an emphasis in class on problem solving; 2) because students want timely feedback on their performance, grades were displayed on Blackboard as quickly as possible and bonus points were given for class participation; and 3) students were concerned about the level of their grades.
We observed that bonus points improved class attendance and student participation and helped create a healthy atmosphere of competition among the class teams. Students solved problems in class in teams and the instructor moved around the class during problem solving sessions to assist students. As a result, students completed sessions understanding how to solve these problems.
In the past faculty often lectured and solved problems in front of students. Here the professor made an extra effort to have students solve the problems themselves, with continuous feedback offered in a friendly manner.
Table 1
Student Perceptions of Processes’ Contribution to Learning2
Mean Std. Dev. % of
4 and 5 Responses
a. Lecture 3.87 1.1472 70.9
b. Discussions 4.32 0.7478 83.9
c. Classroom problem solving 4.45 0.6239 93.5
d. Use of PowerPoint slides 3.87 1.1178 61.3.
e. Blackboard for course materials 4.35 0.9146 87.1
f. Blackboard for grading 4.52 0.7244 93.5
g. Blackboard for homework
submission 3.77 1.2304 67.7
h. Quizzes 4.32 0.7478 90.3
i. Teamwork 4.39 0.8823 87.1
j. Homework 3.81 1.0139 67.7
k. Taking attendance 3.58 1.2590 58.1
l. Bonus points for answering 4.32 1.1940 80.6
questions during class
Table 1 demonstrates that the processes deemed to have contributed the most to learning are the use of Blackboard for grading (mean 4.52), Classroom problem solving (mean 4.45), Teamwork (mean 4.39), Blackboard for course materials (mean 4.35), and, with equal means of 4.32, Discussions, Quizzes, and Bonus points for answering questions during class.
2 Based on a five point scale
The results indicate that students felt they benefited from having course materials and feedback readily available and, most important, to our theory, from practice in solving problems.
Question two of the survey asked “How did the professor contribute to your learning?”
Table 2
Student Perceptions of Professor’s Contribution to Learning
Mean Std. Dev. % of
4 and 5 Responses
Professor was friendly 4.94 0.2497 100.0
Professor was tough 2.94 1.2093 25.8
Professor was funny 7.68 0.5993 93.5
Professor’s knowledge of subject matter 4.90 0.3005 100.0
Professor’s use of technology 4.68 0.4752 100.0
Professor’s concern for students 4.81 0.4016 100.0
Professor was demanding 3.55 0.9252 51.6
Professor’s grading policy 4.42 0.6204 93.5
Table 2 demonstrates that three variables were perceived as most important to student learning, 1) professor was friendly ( mean 4.95, mode 5 ( 93.55%)), Professor’s concern for the Students (mean 4.82, mode 5 (80.65%)), and Professor’s knowledge of the subject matter (mean 4.90, mode 5 (90.32%)).
We conclude from this section that students perceive themselves as learning more from a friendly professor who shows concerns for students and knows his/her subject.
From the extant literature and our experience in this course we have developed a model of the relationship between faculty style, learning and student ratings of faculty.
Friendly Professor - Concerned for Student
Learning
Instructor’s Attitude, Learning Outcome and Instructor Evaluation Influence- Interaction Model
Moderated by Self-Efficacy
Figure 1. Learning Outcome and Instructor Evaluation Model
We presented this model to the participants of the American Accounting Association’s annual meeting to determine their agreement with the model. Twenty-two people responded to the survey. All of them agreed that the model would work. The average teaching experience of the responded was 17.36 years. 12 were full professors and10 were assistant professors in
accounting. Contrary to previous research findings, these responses indicate that experience and ranks of professors may work as moderating variables in the proposed learning and rating model.
We asked these professors to describe a professor who was friendly and concerned with student learning. The 20 participants used the following words and phrases:
1. Coaching 2. Approachable 3. Open door policy 4. Available
5. Mentoring
6. Not putting students down
7. Using email to communicate frequently 8. Making students feel important
9. Reasonable workload
Environment Enhancing Students’ Self-Efficacy
Higher Instructor Evaluations Higher Learning
Outcome
10. Eye contact
11. Being punctual about coming and going 12. Setting clear expectations about attendance 13. Body language
14. Letting student know you care about their learning 15. Walking around the class
16. Coming to class a few minutes early 17. Personalizing
We examined the relationships between instructor evaluation and learning level from the evaluations of four professors who taught the course during the same semesters. It supports Cashin’s (1995) hypothesis and our model that instructors’ evaluations depend on the learning level.
Fall and Spring 2005-2006 -Managerial Accounting Course Evaluation
Instructor evaluation and level of learning
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
a b c d
Professors
s c or e 5 = m a x
3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6
Ins. Eval Level of lrng
(r = 0.71, P < .05 )
The instructor success in this course is summarized below with regard to three factors that seem to be important to participation, learning, and evaluations.
A. Improve attendance by being a friendly professor, raising grade expectations, and assigning bonus points for class participation.
Patron and Bisping (2006) showed that attendance and students performance are positively related. In an introductory business course they observed that everything else being constant ceteris paribus, class attendance has a positive and significant effect on examination performance
after correcting for students natural ability and past performance (Patron and Bisping (2006) Journal of Academy Business Education Vo;7. Spring 2006)
B. Classroom problem solving is important
Improve students’ self-efficacy, learning and your rating by having students solve problems in class.
C. Raise students’ grade expectations
Raise students’ grade expectations by emphasizing discussions, using Blackboard for grading and homework – (i.e., real-time communication), attendance, bonus points, being a friendly professor.
Conclusions
In this paper, we proposed ways in which faculty can motivate students, help them achieve higher learning outcomes, and obtain positive instructor evaluations. We based our strategies on theories of self-efficacy, which aver that improvements in self-perceptions of abilities and skills will result in better performance. Thus, we created friendly classroom environments that
enhanced students’ learning how to solve problems while getting continuous, non-threatening feedback on their performance.
Earlier research indicated that students who learn more evaluate faculty higher. We extended that literature by demonstrating the specific course aspects of a professor’s teaching style and
methods that students felt contributed to their learning.
We feel that our results may have application to courses in other disciplines that are traditionally viewed as challenging to teach. We encourage application of our approach to other courses.
While our results seem to indicate that improvements in self-efficacy was critical to the learning process, we would like to see an extension of this study by evaluating student perceptions of ability and skills at the beginning and end of the semester.
References
Bain, K. What the best college teachers do. (2004). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bandura, A., and Cervone. (1983). Self-evaluation and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivation of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 1017-1028.
Bandura, A., and E. Locke. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 87-89.
Brown, I., and D. Inouye. (1984). Learned help-lessons through modeling: The role of perceived similarity in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 900-908.
Cashin, W.E. (1995). Student rating of teaching: The research revisited. IDEA Paper No. 32, Manhattan, KS: Center for Faculty Evaluation and development, Division of Continuing Education, Kansas State University, http://iead.ksu.edu
Rahman, M., Canlar, M., and D. Lambert. (1988). Factors affecting accounting instructor evaluation: A test of two paradigms. Accounting Educators’ Journal, Fall, 1988, pp134- 148.
Rodrigues. C. (2004). The importance level of ten teaching/learning techniques as rated by university business students and instructors. Journal of Management Development. 23 (2): 169-182.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions, Journal of Educational Psychology 76: 647-658.
Yeo, G., and A. Neal. (2006). An examination of the relationship between self-efficacy and performance levels of analysis and levels of specificity. Journal of Applied Psychology.
91: 1088-1101.
