an assessment of the cognitive demands (1985)

8/13/2019 An Assessment of the Cognitive Demands (1985)

1/15


2/15


3/15


4/15


5/15


6/15


7/15


8/15


9/15


10/15


11/15


12/15

26

reasoning ability because an individual must select from virtually thousandsof words with each choice. In this study, the position is taken that writtencommunication skills also operate on a continuum of reasoning ability andthat concrete-operationalists can effectively communicate in written form at asufficient level to successfully complete the CPA exam. Thus. the analysisassesses the specific accounting topic being presented, not the requirementthat the response required a level of communication different from thatrequired on the multiple choice section of the exam.

Table 2 displays the greater percentage of formal-operational questions onthe problem and essay portions of the exam. Practice I and II, Auditing, andBusiness Law each included significantly higher reasoning requirements onthe written versus the multiple choice portions. A large difference between

November and May exams was found in the level of formal-operationalreasoning required to answer the problems and essays. The Practice 1 and IIparts of the May 1983 exam required more formal-operational reasoning thantheir counterparts in the November 1982 exam. This is the opposite of theAuditing sections. The May 1983 exam required less formal-operationalreasoning for its auditing essay questions than the November 1982 exam. It isinteresting to note that the essays on the Theory portion of the exam testedpredominately memorization of concepts, not extensions of current conceptsto new or unusual situations which is normally covered in a graduate theory

course.Although there were some changes within individual sections from the

November 1982 to May 1983 exams, approximately 20 percent of the problemand essay questions on each exam required the use of formal-operationalreasoning. Therefore, it appears that a difference in reasoning abilities existsfor multiple choice versus problems and essays on the exam.

The major November/ May difference noted was the change in the reason-ing level required for the problems/ essays in Auditing and Practice I and II. Itis significant, however, to note that these changes do balance each other out

when considering all four parts of the exam as a whole. Therefore, whencounseling first-time takers on which exam to take, the students cognitivereasoning level should not be a critical variable affecting the timing-November versus May-of the sitting.

Implications for Teachers and Students in CPA Review Courses

It is important to recognize that any classroom learning experience isextremely complex. Instructors have a myriad of teaching styles and tech-niques available to them. Any group of students will include a wide range of

learning styles and levels of previous experiences, Different courses requiredifferent teaching strategies because of the differences in the objectives of thecourses. Yet, the art of teaching requires the professor to prepare a teachingprogram culminating in students understanding of the concepts covered inthe course. The focus of this study is specifically on the CPA exam review/preparation course.


13/15

27

Most CPA exam review/preparation courses include analysis of priorexams and predictions for the upcoming exam. In addition, students receiveample practice working both multiple choice and problem/essay questions.

Many instructors also cover the mechanics of the exam: when and where, theorder of the parts, how the exam is graded, and so on. It is not the purpose ofthis study to comment on those aspects of a CPA review/ preparation course.

The most direct implication of this study for participants in a CPA review/preparation program is the understanding of the varying reasoning levels ofthe cognitive learning model and the recognition that the majority of the CPAexam requires reasoning skills at the lower concrete-operational level. The keyto the cognitive learning model is the structuring of knowledge which theinstructor can aid by presenting schema and general models that students can

then fill in as additional material is presented. As to the CPA exam itself,students should be made aware that most of the concepts are tested at only theconcrete level, a level which can be prepared for prior to the exam with acomprehensive study program.

Within the cognitive learning model, the instructor of a CPA review/ prepa-ration course can aid students by providing a structure for the materialscovered during the course. Many accounting educators do include somediscussion of a general model in the introductory session(s) of the course.Knowledge of learning theories and the cognitive demands of the CPA exam,

however, point out the necessity for continual integration and reinforcementof the general model, utilization of algorithms, and use of mnemonics duringeach and every class period. Furthermore, the topics covered in each classperiod should be structured as subsets of a larger framework and the topicalstructure should be presented at the beginning of the class period so studentsunderstand how the discussions during that days class are related to thetopical structure. The point is that instructors must select both their overalland daily teaching strategies on the basis of student learning models and theobjectives of the CPA review/ preparation course. It is a question of degree,

not just partial application of some of the significant elements of the cognitivelearning models.

The instructor must carefully select which topics will be covered in class andthe extent of their coverage. Most importantly, knowledge of learning theor-ies shows that a teachers propensity to cover everything may be self-defeating. The selection should include consideration of the generalizability ofthe material to other situations as well as expected coverage on the exam. Theinstructor should select those areas that are most general and leave the manyminor items for the students individual review programs.

Terms introduced in class should be placed in an accounting context inorder to increase the probability of reaching the studentslong-term memory.Mnemonics may be supplied for those terms or groups of terms that studentsmust know. By providing a structure, the instructor can ensure that studentsobtain the maximum benefit from the knowledge they memorize. Problem-solving algorithms must be stressed. The students must have the necessary


14/15

28

tools to approach novel situations they may face on the exam. The instructorshould derive a general problem-solving paradigm to approach problemsrather than focus on specific solution techniques for specific problem types.

Student performance evaluation procedures, such as course exams andquizzes, should include many selections at the concrete operational level.Many students will not be able to operate at the formal operational level,andmay become discouraged by lower performance when the CPA exam itself ispredominantly at the concrete operational level.

Students must be made aware of the many questions on the exam requiringmemorization of facts, formats, or concepts. Although many instructors areaware that some memorization is an important part of the exam preparation,the results of the cognitive demand classification surprisingly shows that

approximately two-thirds of the questions and problems may be answeredfrom memorization. The instructor can assist students in their memorizationefforts by providing lists of terms or concepts the students should know uponcompletion of their review of each of the main topics covered in class. Theselists will also help the students relate the individual terms to the structurepresented by the instructor.

Students should also be informed of the higer-level of reasoning requiredfor the problems and essays and in some of the Auditing multiple choice.Students should be encouraged to think through the entire solution, consider-

ing alternative approaches as well as parallel approaches to a problem. Theinstructor should provide a general model for providing answers to essays andproblems. The student may then modify this general model for specificapplications.

onclusions

The analysis of two recent CPA exams evidences the high percentage ofexam questions requiring concrete-operational reasoning skills. This findingsuggests two approaches for instructors of CPA review/ preparation courses.First, the instructor must help exam candidates identify the patterns in theunits of information covered in the class. The students will then fill in thepieces of the patterns during their individual study programs. Second, spe-cific concepts should be presented within a structured framework so studentswill be able to assimilate the concepts. It is more important for an instructor toprovide the structure than it is to go as fast as possible to cover as much aspossible. We now know that this cover everything teaching approach is noteffective for consolidating the units of information into the students long-term memory. It is each instructors wish that his, her students perform wellon the CPA exam. A consideration of the cognitive demands of the exam andknowledge of the students learning approaches should aid in a higher level ofachievement for the students.


15/15

29

REFEREN ES

Amertcan lnstttute of Certtfted Pubhc Accountants. Certtfied Public Accountants Exam. Board

of Examtners. (AICPA. New Yorh. N Y ). November 1982. and May 1983Amermc. H and Robtn J Enns.Levels of Cogmttve Complexttyand the Design of Accountmg

Currtculum. The Auo unr ing Reweld . Vol LIV. No. 1 (January, 1979): 133-145.Bentz. Wtlliam F..Ustng Learntng Theory to Teach Accountmg More Effictently.tn Acrounr-

,ng Edu~~orron. Prohlemsand Prospecrs . edtted by J D. Edwards, (American AccountmgAssoctatton. Sarasota. FL.. 1974): 2 13-220.

Davts. James R.. Teac ,h tng Srra tegws for rhe Col lege Classroom, (Westvtew Press, Boulder, CO.,1976).

Harvey, J D. Hunt. and H. Schroeder. Conceprua l Svsrems and Personal i r , Organzzar lon .

(Wtley Publ.. New York. N.Y., 1961).Hergenthan. B. R.. An Inr roduct lon IO Th~orres o /Learnrng . (Prentrce-Hall. Englewood Chffs,

N.J . 1976).Lenttlhon. Robert W and Anthony T Krzystofik. Professional Examination Preparatton in

AACSB Accredtted and Member Schools. Issues rn Account rng Educafron . 1983. (Amer-tcan Accountmg Assoctation. Sarasota, FL.. 1983). 3849

Mtller. G A., The Magtcal Number Seven. Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits On Our Capacityfor Processtng Information, f s~rhologrca l Revrew. (March, 1956): 81-97.

Reilly. R. R., and E. L. Lewts, Educat ronal Psycholog ?: Appl ica t ions For Classroom Learnmgand fnsr rucr ion . (Macmtllan Publishtng. New York. N.Y., 1983).

Renner. J W.. D Stafford, A. Lawson, J. McKinnon. F. Frtot. and D. Kellog, Research.Tearhrng . and LParnrng \c ,r th he Aug er Model , (Umversity of Oklahoma Press, Norman,OK.. 1976)

Shute, George E.. Acco unrrn g Studenrs and Absr racr Reasomngs : An Explora tory Study.(Amertcan Accountmg Association. Sarasota, FL., 1979).

an assessment of the cognitive demands (1985)

Documents