International Journal of Management Education 7(3) 35

An exploration of tertiary accounting students’ priorapproaches to learning accounting

Marann Byrne and Pauline Willis, Dublin City UniversityDOI:10.3794/ijme.73.240

Received: December 2007Revised: July 2008; October 2008Accepted: October 2008

IntroductionHigher education (HE) research has demonstrated that improved educational outcomes are achieved wheneducators are better able to understand the way in which students learn (De Lange & Mavondo, 2004). One ofthe most widely used frameworks for developing an insight into how students go about their learning is theapproaches to learning paradigm (Ramburuth & Mladenovic, 2004). Within the discipline of accounting, mostof this research has focused either on measuring students’ approaches to learning in HE, or on exploring therelationship of these approaches to academic performance. However, it is important to extend this avenue ofresearch to consider other variables that influence students’ learning approaches. One such variable, whichhas been highlighted in the HE literature, is students’ prior educational experiences (Biggs, 1985; Ramsden,2003; Bennett & Kottasz, 2006). Case and Gunstone (2003) pointed out that students’ choice of learningapproach in HE is shaped by their previous experience of successful learning approaches in other contexts.Further, Myhill and Brackley (2004) asserted that teachers must take account of and build on students’ priorknowledge and experiences in order to help students develop an understanding of the concepts being taught.Thus, if HE accounting academics are to be successful in creating an optimal climate for learning, they needto be aware of their students’ prior learning experiences. Emphasising the importance of this awareness,Shanahan and Meyer (2001) commented that research which facilitates a better understanding of howstudents learn will ultimately assist instructors by helping them to identify teaching strategies that willbenefit individual students.

A substantial number of students who select tertiary accounting programmes in Ireland have studiedaccounting in their final two years of second level education1. In the authors’ experience, there are someacademics who believe that the inclusion of accounting in the school curriculum is very worthwhile, whilethere are others who are strongly opposed to its inclusion. This latter group believe that students areencouraged in school to adopt a surface approach to the learning of the subject and consequently theydevelop a very poor understanding of accounting. Additionally, Beattie et al. (1997) commented that there isa widely held belief that the discipline of accounting attracts students whose inherent approach to learning issurface or strategic. Kember and Gow (1989) warned that these surface predispositions may be persistent.Indeed, it has been claimed that the failure of teaching interventions to encourage accounting students to

AbstractImproving the quality of learning is an ongoing concern for accounting educators. Studies on student learning in highereducation have shown that students’ prior experiences of learning a subject influence their subsequent approaches tolearning that subject, which in turn affects the quality of learning achieved. Thus, this study gathers evidence fromincoming tertiary accounting students on their prior approaches to learning accounting. Using the Approaches and StudySkills Inventory for Students (ASSIST), data were collected from 265 students immediately prior to the commencement oftheir accounting degree. The analysis shows that overall the students favoured a strategic approach and there is a highlysignificant difference in their scores on this scale compared to the scores on both the deep and surface scales. Thesurface approach was their least favoured with the scores on this scale being significantly lower than those on either ofthe other two scales. Surprisingly, the surface scores are considerably lower than those reported in other studies withaccounting students. Gender differences and the scores on each of the subscales are also explored. The paper concludesby discussing the implications of these findings for accounting educators and suggesting areas for future research.

Keywords: learning approaches; accounting in school; prior learning; Ireland

Marann Byrne is Associate Professor of Accounting at Dublin City University and is the director of the Centrefor Research on Student-Learning and Teaching (CReST). She is a Fellow of the Institute of CharteredAccountants in Ireland and a member of the Irish Taxation Institute. She has published in international andnational journals on accounting education.

Pauline Willis is the director of the Postgraduate Professional Diploma in Accounting at Dublin CityUniversity where she specialises in teaching income tax to postgraduate and undergraduate students. She isa Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland. She has published in the areas of studentlearning, perceptions of accounting and students’ experiences of accounting within the school curriculum.

International Journal of Management Education 7(3)36

adopt a deep approach to learning provides some empirical evidence of the existence of predispositions tolearning (Ramburuth & Mladenovic, 2004). To help shed some light on these issues, this study gathersevidence on university students’ prior experiences of learning accounting. Specifically, it measures incominguniversity accounting students’ prior approaches to learning accounting. In so doing, it provides evidence on akey aspect of students’ prior educational experiences, a factor which has been identified as an importantdeterminant of student success in HE. Dart et al. (1999) commented there has been little research on genderdifferences in approaches to learning at second level, consequently a further objective of this study was toexplore differences in approaches to learning across the genders.

The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: the first section describes the literature on approaches tolearning which provides the framework for the current study. The next section reviews prior studies exploringaccounting students’ approaches to learning and also considers gender differences at second level. The thirdsection provides an overview of accounting within the second level school curriculum and presents thefindings from previous studies in this area. This is followed by a description of the research instrument usedto measure students' approaches to learning and a report on the validation of the instrument. The sample andmethod of data collection are then discussed. Finally, the results and main findings are presented and thepaper concludes by considering the implications of the findings and identifying areas for further research.

Approaches to learningOver the last three decades the concept of approaches to learning has become a highly influential framingdevice for considering student learning in HE (Ramburuth & Mladenovic, 2004). Initially two contrastingapproaches to learning were identified: deep and surface. Students adopting a deep approach have anintrinsic interest in learning and they set out with the intention of understanding the material. They interactcritically with the arguments put forward, relate them to their prior knowledge and experiences, andevaluate the extent to which conclusions are justified by the evidence presented. In contrast, studentsemploying a surface approach fail to interact personally with the material or to seek understanding and areconstrained by the specific learning task. They rote learn the material in an unrelated manner with a minimalinvestment of time or effort. Subsequent research revealed a third approach to learning: strategic (Ramsden,1979, 1981). Students whose main motivation is the achievement of the highest possible marks use a strategicapproach. Such students will adopt either a deep or surface approach depending on what they perceive willproduce the best academic grades.

One of the key findings to emerge from the approaches to learning literature is the contextual nature oflearning (Duff, 2003). A learning approach is influenced by an array of personal and contextual factorsincluding students’ prior educational experiences (Biggs, 1985; Ramsden, 2003). One aspect of theseexperiences identified as being influential in students’ subsequent approaches to learning a subject is theirprior approaches to learning that subject (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). In this regard, Prosser and Trigwellargued that students who previously used a surface approach to learning a subject are more likely to employthis approach in their subsequent studies. Similarly, Shanahan and Meyer (2001) asserted that one factoraffecting students’ success in HE is their preferential or habitual approach to learning on entry to university.In explaining the role that such predispositions play in learning, Ramsden (2003, p. 51) commented that:

Although it is abundantly clear that the same student uses different approaches on different occasions, itis also true that general tendencies to adopt particular approaches, related to the different demands ofcourses and previous educational experiences, do exist. Variability in approaches thus coexists withconsistency.

Accounting students’ approaches to learningAn extensive literature review failed to identify any studies which have explored second level accountingstudents’ approaches to learning. Research measuring tertiary accounting students’ approaches to learninghas failed to provide a consistent picture of their preferred approach. Several studies reported thataccounting students favour a surface approach to learning (Bowen et al., 1987; Chan et al., 1989; Eley, 1992;Booth et al., 1999). However, in a comparison of accounting students studying in Ireland and the UnitedStates, Byrne et al. (in press) found that both groups of students favour a strategic approach while otherstudies found that accounting students show no strong preference for any particular approach (Sharma, 1997;Byrne et al., 1999). It is possible that some of this variation in findings can be explained by differences instudents’ prior educational experiences.

An objective of this study was to explore gender differences in students’ prior approaches to learningaccounting. To date, there has been very little research on gender differences in learning approaches ofsecondary school students (Dart et al., 1999), and that which has been carried out has been outside thediscipline of accounting. Eklund-Myrskog and Wenestam (1999), in a study of Finnish secondary schoolstudents, reported that boys employed a surface strategy to a greater extent than girls, but displayed agreater level of achieving motivation. However, they found that girls used an achieving strategy to a larger

International Journal of Management Education 7(3) 37

extent than boys. Watkins and Hattie (1990) reported that Australian boys also tended to have lower scoreson the achieving strategy subscale. Dart et al. (1999) found that Australian male students were more surfacelearners than their female counterparts. Artlet et al. (2003) investigated the learning approaches of 15 yearolds in 26 countries and found that male students enjoy competitive learning situations. They are more likelyto believe that they can overcome difficult learning tasks, while female students think more about what theyneed to learn and put in more effort and persistence. They also noted that in some countries females usememorisation more than males. These studies show that the evidence on gender variation in school students’approaches to learning is fairly limited and mixed.

Leaving Certificate accountingIn Ireland, students undertake the Leaving Certificate (LC) Programme in their final two years of second leveleducation and on completion they are assessed by a common public examination. Their performance in thisexamination is the main basis for allocation of places in HE. The majority of LC students (over 75%) takeexaminations in seven subjects, typically mathematics, English, Irish and four other subjects (Byrne & Flood,2003). All subjects, except mathematics and Irish, are offered at two levels: higher and ordinary. The higherlevel papers are more demanding due to broader and more challenging syllabi. To allocate HE places,students’ grades are converted into a points score and a total for each student is derived using their six bestresults. Greater points are awarded to higher level papers than ordinary level. Consequently, students wishingto proceed to HE take as many of their subjects as possible at higher level. Table 1 shows the points awardedfor higher level papers. In the 2005 examinations, 8% of students scored 500 points or more out of a maximumof 600 (Central Applications Office, 2005) while the average score was 325 points (“Leaving Cert,” 2006).

Table 1: Grades and points for leaving certificate higher level papers

Accounting was first introduced as a separate LC subject in 1969. The syllabus was revised in 1995 and it wasfirst examined in 1997. The current syllabus has an emphasis on financial accounting but it also includes anumber of management accounting topics. Although many of the students who pursue specialist accountingcourses in HE study LC Accounting (LCA), there has been little published research into the subject. Two of theearly studies in this area focused on students’ views of the syllabus and assessment (Byrne and Willis, 1997,2001). The first of these studies looked at LCA prior to the 1995 revisions to the syllabus and examinationpapers. It identified serious issues concerning syllabus coverage, assessment and the predictability ofexamination papers. The second study concentrated on the revised syllabus and examination papers, andwhile it found improved syllabus coverage, there were still concerns relating to assessment and predictabilityof the examination papers. Other studies examined teachers’ views of LCA and possible reasons for thedecline in the popularity of the subject (Byrne & Willis, 2003a, 2003b). This research found that teachersbelieved they had insufficient time to cover the higher level course and they considered the standard of theexamination was too high. Another key issue highlighted by them was the difficulty of teaching combinedclasses of higher and ordinary level students. A study by Clarke and Hession (2004), carried out with a limitednumber of teachers, confirmed the finding of these studies. In a continuation of the research on students’views, Byrne and Willis (2004) used the Course Experience Questionnaire (Ramsden, 1991) to investigatetertiary accounting students’ overall perceptions of the quality of the LCA course (Byrne & Willis, 2004). Thisstudy found that the majority of these students had a positive perception of the course and that overall theyenjoyed it. In the students’ opinion the workload and assessment were appropriate, and the goals andstandards of the course were clear. In general, the students indicated that they were happy with the standardof teaching of the subject. However, the students believed the course was less successful in developinggeneric skills. Building on this research, and given the previous discussion on the relevance of previouseducational experiences on student learning, this study measured the approaches to learning adopted byincoming university students in their prior study of accounting.

Measuring approaches to learningAs noted by Duff (2004), the two inventories most commonly used to measure students’ approaches tolearning are the Study Processes Questionnaire (SPQ) (Biggs, 1987) and various forms of Entwistle’s and his

Grade % range Higher levelpoints

Grade % range Higher levelpoints

A1 90 - 100 100 C3 55 - 59 60

A2 85 - 89 90 D1 50 - 54 55

B1 80 - 84 85 D2 45 - 49 50

B2 75 -79 80 D3 40 - 44 45

B3 70 - 74 75 E 25 - 39

C1 65 - 69 70 F 10 - 24

C2 60 - 64 65 No Grade 0 - 9

International Journal of Management Education 7(3)38

colleagues’ Approaches to Study Inventory (ASI). The most recent form of the ASI is the Approaches and StudySkills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) (1997). The SPQ is mainly used in Australasia and eastern Asia, while theASI is the instrument most frequently used in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Because of this, and the factthat the ASSIST had previously been used with Irish accounting students (Byrne et al., 1999, 2002, 2004), itwas the instrument chosen for this study. The ASSIST measures students’ approaches to learning on threedimensions or main scales: deep, strategic and surface apathetic. It contains 52 statements which areanswered by students using a 5-point Likert scale anchored by 1, disagree, and 5, agree. The statements arecombined into 13 subscales and then into the three main scales. As the instrument is more commonly usedwith students in HE, it was necessary to reword some of the questions to reflect the school context. A copy ofthe modified ASSIST is shown in Appendix A. Also, as the data were collected from students followingcompletion of their course, the statements were restated to the past tense. This mirrors the approach takenby Entwistle, one of the original developers of the ASI, who amended that instrument for use with secondarystudents (Entwistle & Kozeki, 1985). Similarly, Meyer (1995) and Kelly (2005) modified the ASI and the ASSISTrespectively to gather evidence on incoming university students’ prior approaches to learning science.

PopulationThe study was conducted with three cohorts of students who were entering a degree in accounting andfinance in Dublin City University in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004. The director of the programme distributedthe questionnaire, which included the ASSIST, during her first meeting with the students. This was prior tocommencement of lectures thereby ensuring that the students’ responses were not coloured by theirexperiences of HE. The purpose of the research was explained to the students and they were reassured thattheir responses would only be used for research purposes. The completed questionnaires were collected fromthe students during registration the following day. There was a potential population of 345 students. A totalof 306 students agreed to partake in the study, which resulted in a response rate of 89%. Given such a highresponse rate, it is unlikely that any non-response bias is present. Forty seven students had not studied LCAresulting in a final sample size of 259. Details of the respondents are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Population

When using an instrument in an environment which is different to that in which it was originally developed,Richardson (1994) recommended carrying out a factor analysis. While the ASSIST had previously been usedwith Irish university (Byrne et al., 1999, 2002, in press) and professional accounting students (Flood & Wilson,2008), this was the first time it was used to explore accounting students’ approaches to learning at secondlevel and hence a validation was undertaken. Factor analysis was carried out on the subscales using maximumlikelihood extraction. Factors with an eigenvalue greater than one were extracted. The extracted factormatrices were rotated to oblique simple structure using a direct oblimin rotation. The developers of theinstrument recognised that the related subscales, Interest in ideas, Achieving, Monitoring effectiveness andFear of failure vary in their relationships in different samples and thus their inclusion or exclusion in the mainscales should be considered (Scoring key for the ASSIST, 1997; Tait et al., 1998). In this instance, the analysisexcluding the related subscales provided the best interpretable factor pattern and explained 64% of thevariance. The final matrix together with the estimated levels of internal reliability for the scales andsubscales are shown in Table 3. The three resultant factors are clearly identifiable as Strategic, Deep andSurface Apathetic.

The Cronbach alpha values for the above scales range from .49 to .82 which are acceptable scores for scalesof this length and type (Tait et al., 1998; Entwistle et al., 2000) and are similar to the values reported inother studies which used the ASSIST (Tait et al., 1998; Byrne et al., 1999, 2004; Entwistle et al., 2000; Diseth,2001). For each scale, investigation of the inter-item correlations showed that a higher alpha value could notbe achieved through the omission of any variable, thereby providing further support for the reliability of thescales.

2002 2003 2004 Total

Male 37 63 39 139

Female 39 42 39 120

Total 76 105 78 259

Age 17.8 18.1 17.9 17.9

Average LC points 479.5 483.9 474.6 479.7

Average LCA points 86.0 86.3 82.6 85.1

Table 3: Factor pattern matrix and Cronbach alpha values of ASSISTLoadings less than .3 omitted

ResultsIndividual students’ responses to each of the statements were combined to form the 13 subscales. The threesubscales contained in each of the main scales were then combined to derive the scores for the main scales.In order to have a common range for both the main scales and the subscales, the main scales were divided bythe number of constituent subscales. This resulted in a minimum score of four and a maximum score of 20 foreach scale. The resulting scores of the main scales together with the standard deviations and median scoresare shown in Table 4 and those of the subscales in Table 62. The mean scores have no absolute meaning butcan be used for comparison between and within groups.

Table 4: Main scale measuresstatistic significant at p < .01

** differences between male & female significant at p < .01

Kruskal-Wallis3 tests show that there are highly significant differences in the mean scores for the threedistinct approaches across each of the groups (Table 4). Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were carried out toexamine the significance of the differences in students’ preferred approaches (Table 5).

Table 5: Differences in mean scores within group** significant at p < .01 * significant at p < .05

Both genders clearly favour a strategic approach and are least inclined to adopt a surface approach (Table 5).The high scores on the strategic scale are not surprising. Given the highly competitive nature of entry into HEin Ireland, and the importance of the results in the LC examinations, students are motivated to achieve ashigh a grade as possible. In addition, prior research has indicated that there is a tendency in LCA to teachwith a focus on the examination paper (Byrne & Willis, 2003a). Hence, the overall preference for thestrategic approach over either of the other approaches is not surprising.

In contrast, the extremely low score on the surface scale is unexpected and is much lower than thosereported in other studies with Irish third level and professional accounting students (Byrne et al., 1999, 2002;Flood & Wilson, 2008). The LCA examination papers are predictable and indeed prior research has shown

Full sample Males Females

Mean Std Dev Median Mean Std Dev Median Mean Std Dev Median

Strategic 15.15 2.85 15.33 14.54 2.82 15.00 15.82** 2.75 16.00

Deep 14.01 2.73 14.33 13.80 2.73 14.00 14.24 2.72 14.67

Surface 8.73 2.06 8.67 8.96 2.06 8.67 8.46 2.05 8.33

391.0** 188.4** 201.6**

International Journal of Management Education 7(3) 39

Factor

I II III Cronbach α

StrategicOrganised studyTime managementAlertness to assessment

.89

.85

.34

.82

.66

.76

.60

DeepSeeking meaningRelating ideasUse of evidence

.70

.71

.71

.79

.60

.60

.52

Surface ApatheticLack of purposeUnrelated memorisingSyllabus boundness

.35

.44

.75

.68

.61

.55

.49

Full sample Males Females

Differencein mean

P value Differencein mean

P value Differencein mean

P value

Strategic - Deep 1.14 .000** 0.74 .018* 1.58 .000**

Strategic - Surface 6.41 .000** 5.58 .000** 7.35 .000**

Deep - Surface 5.28 .000** 4.84 .000** 5.78 .000**

International Journal of Management Education 7(3)40

teachers and students mainly focus on past examination questions (Byrne & Willis, 2001, 2003a). Additionally,a study of university accounting students’ perceptions of LCA found that 20% of these students felt that theyhad insufficient time to develop a thorough understanding of the subject (Byrne & Willis, 2004). Thus, it washypothesised that the students’ scores on the surface scale would be relatively high. However, interestingly,the students did not perceive themselves as having engaged in rote learning, indeed the surface approachwas their least preferred approach.

While, as noted above, there is no difference in the approach preferred by the two genders, a Mann-Whitneytest revealed that female students are significantly more strategic than males (Table 4). To gain furtherinsights into this and the preferences of the students in general, their scores on the subscales, includingthose of the related subscales, were examined. The Cronbach alpha values for the related subscales rangefrom 0.54 to 0.74 indicating an acceptable level of internal reliability and hence these subscales weresuitable for inclusion in the subscale analysis. The scores for the full sample and genders are presented inTable 6.

Table 6: Mean scores of subscales** differences between male & female significant at p < .01* differences between male & female significant at p < .05

The scores for all of the subscales within the strategic scale and the related subscales of achieving andmonitoring effectiveness are within the top one third of potential scores, indicating very strong agreementwith the defining statements. Given the second level educational environment experienced by thesestudents, this was somewhat expected. There is considerable national and media interest in the LC, and theneed to be organised and to manage time well is emphasised in guidance columns in national newspapers andpublished study guides (e.g. McLoughlin, 2001; Getting it Right, 2005; “First chance saloon,” 2005; “Get set,”2005). Thus, it is no wonder that these students consider themselves to have very good time managementskills and to be organised in their study. Further, given that the allocation of places in HE is based on LCresults it is not surprising that the students are very aware of assessment demands. The achieving subscalehas the highest score of any of the subscales. This was anticipated as these students are all high achievers,illustrated by the fact that they obtained a B1 grade (80%-84%) in the LCA examination. This far exceeds theoverall average grade obtained by students taking LCA in 2003, which was a C3 (55%-59%) (Department ofEducation and Science, 2004). These students also consider themselves to be skilled at monitoring their owneffectiveness. The study skills guides available to LC students (e.g. McLoughlin, 2001; Getting it Right, 2005)emphasise the importance of checking work and planning answers. Obviously, this group of studentsconsidered that they followed this advice. The significant gender differences found show that females aremore organised in their study and better at managing their time. They also score higher than males on theachieving and monitoring effectiveness related subscales. This is contrary to the findings of Eklund-Myrskogand Wenestam (1999), who found that boys had a higher achieving motivation score than girls.

Within the deep scale there is a high score on the use of evidence subscale. It is encouraging to find that thestudents believe that they question the material and examine the details to see how it all fits together. Giventhe nature of the assessment of LCA, where topics are examined in a very fixed manner with little

Full sample Males Females

Mean Std Dev Median Mean Std Dev Median Mean Std Dev Median

Strategic

Organised studyingTime managementAlertness to assessmentRelated subscalesAchievingMonitoring effectiveness

14.7716.0114.64

16.8315.66

3.653.563.32

2.812.97

15.017.015.0

17.016.0

13.9815.2614.25

16.4015.08

3.573.653.40

2.823.02

14.016.015.0

17.015.5

15.67**16.87**15.08

17.32**16.31**

3.543.263.19

2.732.79

16.018.015.0

18.017.0

Deep

Seeking meaningRelating ideasUse of evidenceRelated subscaleInterest in ideas

13.9412.7515.21

13.65

3.373.572.99

3.38

14.013.016.0

14.0

13.7312.7814.84

13.24

3.503.533.01

3.39

14.013.015.0

14.0

14.1712.7115.63*

14.12*

3.203.632.92

3.32

14.013.016.0

14.0

Surface Apathetic

Lack of purposeUnrelated memorisingSyllabus-boundnessRelated subscaleFear of failure

6.628.94

10.78

9.63

2.643.043.00

4.15

6.09.0

11.0

9.0

6.948.93

11.05

8.57

2.733.022.86

3.74

6.08.0

11.0

8.0

6.27*8.95

10.47*

10.85**

2.493.093.15

4.28

6.09.0

11.0

11.0

International Journal of Management Education 7(3) 41

integration, it is not surprising that the score on the relating ideas subscale is one of the lowest scores.Students are not required to integrate topics or explore new ideas on their own initiative. The score on theinterest in ideas subscale is in the midrange, indicating that the students are indifferent about the materialthey are studying. This may be indicative of a vocational aspect to their study. The reason some students maybe taking the course is due to its perceived benefits for their chosen career path rather than because theyhave an intrinsic interest in the subject. Two gender differences are identified within the deep subscales:females exhibit significantly higher scores on the use of evidence and interest in ideas subscales.As noted when discussing the scores on the main scales, it is encouraging to find that the scores for thesurface scale are remarkably low. Two of the subscales, lack of purpose and unrelated memorising, fall intothe lowest third of potential scores. Given that these students choose to pursue a third level qualification inaccounting, it was anticipated that they would have a low score on the lack of purpose subscale. Thestudents were very clear about why they are taking the course and they find it relevant and worthwhile. Thevery low score on unrelated memorising was unforeseen as prior research on the style and format of the LCAcourse and examination (Byrne & Willis, 2001, 2003a) indicted that students are encouraged to engage in rotelearning. However, the low score suggests that these students believed that they did not engage in thisbehaviour. Instead, they considered that the material made sense to them, they did not concentrate on justmemorising it and could judge what was important. This is consistent with earlier findings on students’perceptions of LCA where they considered memorisation was insufficient to do well (Byrne & Willis, 2004). Asthe LCA examination provides little reward for students who study beyond the strictly defined syllabus, a highscore on syllabus-boundness was predicted. Morgan and Kellegan (1998, p. 91) contended that:

Examination requirements exert a strong influence on what is covered in courses, with the result thatcurricula get narrowed and the knowledge and skills that are likely to be required to answer examinationquestions receive most attention.

Indeed, the practice of teachers and students omitting sections of the syllabus was highlighted in priorresearch (Byrne & Willis, 1997, 2001, 2003a; Clarke & Hession, 2004). However, the findings revealed theactual score for syllabus-boundness was lower than anticipated. To investigate this apparent anomaly, theanswers to the questions contained within the subscale were investigated (Appendix B). Two of the questionsrefer to students concentrating on covering what was necessary to pass. As discussed above, these are highachieving students and hence would have rejected the idea of just achieving a pass grade (40%-54%). Ratherthey would have covered what they considered necessary to achieve a high grade. This explains the low scoreon these two questions. The students’ answers to the remaining two questions were in line with expectationsand the prior research. The students focus their study towards the examination and like the syllabus to beclearly defined for them4. Given the importance of the result in the terminal examination for their futureplans and aspirations, a high score on the fear of failure scale might be anticipated. However, this was notthe case. The lower than expected score may be partly explained by the fact that these are high achieversand they completed the instrument after receiving their examination results. Interestingly, this subscaleshows the greatest difference between the genders, with females displaying a significantly higher fear offailure than males.

Implications and recommendationsAs these students had been very successful in their prior study of accounting, it is reasonable that they mayexpect the same approach to be equally successful in their HE studies. Therefore, it is important that HElecturers are aware of their students’ prior approaches and alert them to areas where changes may benecessary or desirable. To meet the objectives of HE, educators need to foster the adoption of a deepapproach to learning among their students. These students have studied accounting in an environment thatdid not require nor reward the integration of ideas. To enhance students’ skills in this area, third leveleducators should emphasise the integration of topics within their course and with other courses. Thestudents’ prior experience of formal assessment was of a terminal examination. The use of continuousassessment, possibly across modules, affords lecturers the opportunity to enhance students’ abilities tointegrate material. The students had a very strategic approach to learning and are focused on assessment andachievement. By introducing integrated material and assessing students’ skills in relating ideas, the studentswill hopefully be motivated to adopt a deep approach to learning.

The students consider they have excellent time management and study skills. Prior research on preparednessfor HE (Byrne & Flood, 2005) reported that incoming accounting students are confident of their ability toeffectively organise their own work and to manage their study activities. However, students developed theseskills in a learning environment that is highly structured. They are now moving into one that is far morereliant on self directed learning. Additionally, in many instances the students were living away from home forthe first time. Therefore, there is a danger that without the structure they are familiar with they will losethese skills. While not suggesting that third level educators embrace more directed learning, they shouldencourage their students to reflect on how they manage their time, plan their work and monitor theirprogress. These students were all high achievers and it is likely that they were in the top cohort of their class

International Journal of Management Education 7(3)42

in school. Additionally, these students reported a very low fear of failure. However, they are now moving toan environment where they cannot all be the best in the class. The realisation of this may well affect theirself-confidence and motivation. Further, they may experience a heightened fear of failure, especially early intheir studies, when they are unfamiliar with the assessment methodologies. Indeed, a prior study with firstyear university accounting students reported a mean score for fear of failure of 13.83 (Byrne et al., in press).Educators need to be conscious of this and attuned to the risk that students may become disillusioned withtheir studies.

The most encouraging finding of this study is the extremely low scores reported for the surface scale. Thiswould not appear to support those HE lecturers who oppose the inclusion of accounting in the LC Programmeon the grounds that the environment encourages students to adopt surface learning practices. Similarly, theargument that HE accounting courses attract students with a predisposition for a surface approach wouldappear to be unsubstantiated.

Gender differences on the strategic main scale and a number of the subscales were identified. It is importantthat educators are aware of these differences when interacting with their students particularly in a pastoralrole. Females display a heightened fear of failure and may need encouragement to assess their performanceon a more realistic basis. Males are not as effective at managing their time and organising their study andmay have greater difficulty adapting to the less directed study environment of university.

In interpreting the above findings it is important to remember that this study measured students’ perceptionsof their approaches to learning, which may differ from their actual approaches. If students’ perceptions aredifferent from reality, an even greater challenge for accounting academics exists. The task then becomes oneof not just encouraging students to adopt a deep approach to learning but to do this with students whobelieve they did not previously engage in inappropriate learning strategies. Despite the low scores reportedhere for unrelated memorising, it is likely that the students did engage in rote learning. The repetitive andpredictive nature of the assessment at second level enables students to achieve high grades throughrepetition and memorisation. Students need to realise from the outset that assessments in HE are unlikely tofollow the same repetitive pattern. Thus, to succeed they need to develop a deep understanding of keyconcepts, so that they develop the ability to apply accounting principles to unseen problems.

While the focus of this paper is on providing HE lecturers with a greater understanding of their students’ priorapproaches to learning, it is also of relevance to second level teachers and educational policy makers.Teachers are to be commended for creating a learning environment where students experience such a lowlevel of fear of failure. However, as highlighted, the students are very alert to assessment demands and theLCA examiner should be encouraged to assess students’ abilities to relate ideas and seek understandingthereby stimulating students to adopt a deeper approach. The introduction of an element of continuousassessment and a move away from the highly repetitive and predictable examination questions would alsofacilitate teachers in fostering a deep approach to learning.

Limitations and directions for future researchAs with all research this study suffers from a number of limitations. As the data was gathered from studentsin one university, this restricts the generalisability of the findings. However, as the students reflect a goodgeographical representation of Irish school leavers, there is no reason to expect that these students’ priorapproaches to studying accounting are different to those of students entering any other Irish HE institution.Nonetheless, extending the study to students entering other institutions would provide further externalvalidity of the results.

The ASSIST is a self report measure and hence is open to the criticism that individual students may havedeliberately answered the questions in the way they thought reflected well on them or that the researchersdesired, rather than responding honestly. However, the ASSIST affords researchers the opportunity to collectdata from a large sample which dilutes the impact of this behaviour by individual students.

As the identity of incoming HE students is not known until a few weeks prior to the commencement of theacademic year it was necessary to gather the data retrospectively. Thus, it is possible that some students’recollection of their approach to learning LCA may have been affected by the passage of time. Furthermore,students’ knowledge of their LCA results may also have influenced some of their responses.

Respondents construed the wording of two items in the syllabus-boundness subscale differently thanexpected. Thus, care must be taken when interpreting the results for this subscale.

Despite these limitations, this pioneering study provides useful insights on tertiary students’ prior approachesto learning accounting. Additionally, some of these limitations offer opportunities for further research.Specifically, qualitative research would be useful in probing more deeply into the actual as well as the

International Journal of Management Education 7(3) 43

perceived learning strategies adopted by students in their study of LCA. Additionally, gathering evidence onwhether these students have a good understanding of key accounting concepts at the outset of their HEstudies would provide useful insights as to whether these students had sought understanding in their study ofLCA.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank the two anonymous referees and the participants at the BAA SIG AccountingEducation Annual Conference 2006 for their helpful comments on this paper.

Endnotes1 Second level education in Ireland refers to full time studies generally undertaken between the ages of 12and 182 Kruskal-Wallis tests showed no differences on the mean scores on the deep ( = 3.44, p = .179), strategic ( = 4.95, p = .084) and surface ( = .98, p =.613) scales or the subscales by year of intake into theprogramme, therefore all three cohorts were combined for the purpose of the analysis.3 As tests revealed that the distribution of the variables were not normal non-parametric tests were usedthroughout the study.4 The inconsistency in the direction of the students’ answers to these two pairs of questions may explain whythis subscale has the lowest alpha value.

ReferencesApproaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) (1997). Scotland: Centre for Research on Learning and

Instruction, University of Edinburgh.Artlet, C., Baumert, J., Julius-McElvany, N., & Peschar, J. (2003). Learners for life: Student approaches to learning. Results

from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD Publishing.Beattie, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning: A simple or simplistic dichotomy? Accounting

Education, 6, 1-12. doi:10.1080/096392897331587Bennett, R., & Kottasz, R. (2006). Widening participation and student expectations of higher education. International

Journal of Management Education, 5(2), 47-65. doi:10.3794/ijme.52.150Biggs, J. B. (1985). The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 185-212.Biggs, J. B. (1987). Study process questionnaire manual. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational

Research.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, 8, 277-300. doi:10.1080/096392899330801Bowen, J. A., Masters, G., & Ramsden, P. (1987). Influence of assessment demands on first year university students’

approaches to learning. In A. H. Miller & G. Sachse-Akerlind (Eds.), The learner in higher education: A forgotten species?(pp. 397-407). Sydney, Australia: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.

Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2003). Defining the present and shaping the future: The changing nature of accounting education inIreland. Journal of Accounting Education, 21, 197-213. doi:10.1016/S0748-5751(03)00025-3

Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2005). A study of accounting students’ motives, expectations and preparedness for higher education.Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29, 111-124. doi:10.1080/03098770500103176

Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (1999). Approaches to learning: Irish students of accounting. Irish Accounting Review, 6(2),1-29.

Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2002). The relationship between learning approaches and learning outcomes: A study ofIrish accounting students. Accounting Education, 11, 27-42. doi:10.1080/09639280210153254

Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2004). Validation of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) usingaccounting students in the USA and Ireland: A research note. Accounting Education, 13, 449-459.

Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (in press). An inter-institutional exploration of the learning approaches of students studyingaccounting. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.

Byrne, M., & Willis, P. (1997). An analysis of accounting at second level. Irish Accounting Review, 4(1), 1-26.Byrne, M., & Willis, P. (2001). The revised second level accounting syllabus – a new beginning or old habits retained? Irish

Accounting Review, 8(2), 1-22.Byrne, M., & Willis, P. (2003a). Second level accounting: The view from the blackboard. Irish Accounting Review, 10(2), 1-12.Byrne, M., & Willis, P. (2003b). Decline in the number of students taking leaving certificate accounting: Teachers’

perspectives. The Irish Journal of Education, 34, 3-14.Byrne, M., & Willis, P. (2004). Leaving certificate accounting: Measuring students’ perceptions with the course experience

questionnaire. Irish Educational Studies, 23, 49-64.Case, J., & Gunstone, R. (2003). Approaches to learning in a second year chemical engineering course. International Journal

of Science Education, 25, 801-819. doi:10.1080/09500690305033Central Applications Office (2005). Leaving certificate results nominal points score without reference to eligibility.

Retrieved September 22, 2006, from http://websr3.cao.ie/index.php?page=pointsChan, D., Leung, R., Gow, L. & Hu, S. (1989, December). Approaches to learning of accountancy students: Some additional

evidence. Proceedings of the ASAIHL Seminar on University Education in the 1990s, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur, 186-193.

Clarke, P., & Hession A. (2004). An examination of the leaving certificate accounting syllabus. Irish Journal of Management,25(2), 139-154.

Dart, B., Burnett, B., Boulron-Lweis, G., Campbell, J., Smith, D., & McCrindle, A. (1999). Classroom learning environmentsand students’ approaches to learning. Learning Environments Research, 2, 137-156. doi:10.1023/A:1009966107233

De Lange, P., & Mavondo, F. (2004). Gender and motivational differences in approaches to learning by a cohort of openlearning students. Accounting Education, 13, 431-448.

International Journal of Management Education 7(3)44

Department of Education and Science (2004). Statistical Report 2002/2003. Dublin, Ireland: Stationery Office.Diseth, A. (2001). Validation of a Norwegian version of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST): An

application of structural equation modelling. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 381-394.doi:10.1080/00313830120096789

Duff, A. (2003). Quality of learning on an MBA programme: The impact of approaches to learning on academic performance.Educational Psychology, 23, 123-139. doi:10.1080/01443410303230

Duff, A. (2004). Understanding academic performance and progression of first-year accounting and business economicsundergraduates: The role of approaches to learning and prior academic achievement. Accounting Education, 13, 409-430.

Eklund-Myrskog, G., & Wenestam, C. (1999). Students’ approaches to learning in Finnish general upper secondary school.Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43, 5-18. doi:10.1080/0031383990430101

Eley, M.G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23, 231-254.doi:10.1007/BF00145015

Entwistle, N., & Kozeki, B. (1985). Relationships between school motivation, approaches to studying and attainment amongBritish and Hungarian adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55(2), 124-137.

Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrastinggroups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 33-48.

First chance saloon (2005, May 24). The Irish Times, p. 13. Flood, B., & Wilson, R. (2008). An exploration of the learning approaches of prospective professional accountants in Ireland.

Accounting Forum, 32, 225-239. doi:10.1016/j.accfor.2008.01.001Get set for the leaving. (2005, May 17). The Irish Times, p. 13. Getting it Right (2005, April 20). Accounting. [Radio broadcast]. Retrieved December 16, 2005,from

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/story/1045461.html Kelly, O. (2005). The development, implementation and evaluation of alternative approaches to teaching and learning in the

chemistry laboratory. Unpublished PhD thesis, Dublin City University, Ireland. Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1989). A model of student approaches to learning encompassing ways to influence and change

approaches. Instructional Science, 18, 263-288. doi:10.1007/BF00118014Leaving Cert students getting better CAO points (2006, June 5). The Irish Times, p. 1.McLoughlin, M. (2001). Less stress more success: Accounting revision for leaving certificate higher level. Dublin, Ireland: Gill

and McMillan. Meyer, J. H. F. (1995). Gender-group differences in the learning behaviour of entering first-year university students. Higher

Education, 29, 201-215. doi:10.1007/BF01383839Morgan, M., & Kellegan, T. (1998). External examinations in the Irish educational system. In Education Commission of the

Conference of Religious of Ireland (Ed.), Inequality in Education (pp. 82-100). Dublin, Ireland: CORI.Myhill, D., & Brackley, M. (2004). Making connections: Teachers’ use of children’s prior knowledge in whole class discourse.

British Journal of Educational Studies, 52, 263-275. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2004.00267.xProsser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham,

England: SRHE and Open University Press.Ramburuth, P., & Mladenovic, R. (2004). Exploring the relationship between students’ orientations to learning, the structure

of students’ learning outcomes and subsequent academic performance. Accounting Education, 13, 507-527.Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education, 8, 411-427.

doi:10.1007/BF01680529Ramsden, P. (1981). A study of the relationship between student learning and its academic context. Unpublished PhD thesis,

University of Lancaster, England. British Thesis Index No. DX42179/82AX.Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire.

Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129-150. doi:10.1080/03075079112331382944Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Richardson, J. T. E. (1994). Using questionnaires to evaluate student learning. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learning

through assessment and evaluation (pp. 499-515). Oxford, England: The Oxford Centre for Staff and LearningDevelopment.

Scoring key for the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) (1997). Scotland: Centre for Research onLearning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh.

Shanahan, M., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2001). A student learning inventory for economics based on students’ experience of learning:A preliminary study. Journal of Economic Education, 32, 259-267. doi:10.2307/1183383

Sharma, D. (1997). Accounting students' learning conceptions, approaches to learning, and the influence of the learning-teaching context on approaches to learning. Accounting Education, 6, 125-146. doi:10.1080/096392897331532

Tait, H., Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A reconceptualisation of the approaches to studying inventory. In C. Rust(Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving students as learners (pp. 262-271). Oxford, England: The Oxford Centre forStaff and Learning Development.

Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1990). Individual and contextual differences in the approaches to learning of Australian secondaryschool students. Educational Psychology, 10, 333-343. doi:10.1080/0144341900100404

International Journal of Management Education 7(3) 45

Appendix A - Modified ASSIST Questionnaire

The next part of the questionnaire asks you to indicate your relative agreement or disagreement withcomments about studying. Please work through the comments, giving your immediate response. In decidingyour answers, think in terms of leaving certificate accounting. It is important that you answer all questions:please check that you have.

Please try not to use 3(unsure) unless you really have to.

Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree somewhat somewhat

1. I managed to find conditions for studying which allowed me to get on with my work easily 5 4 3 2 1

2. When working on a question, I kept in mind how best to impress the examiner 5 4 3 2 1

3. Often I found myself wondering whether the school work I was doing was really worthwhile 5 4 3 2 1

4. I usually set out to understand for myself the meaning of what we had to learn 5 4 3 2 1

5. I organised my study time carefully to make the best use of it 5 4 3 2 16. I found I had to concentrate on just memorising a good deal of

what I had to learn 5 4 3 2 17. I went over the work I’d done carefully to check the reasoning

and that it made sense 5 4 3 2 18. Often I felt I was drowning in the sheer amount of material

we had to cope with 5 4 3 2 19. I looked at the material carefully and tried to reach my own

conclusion about what I was studying 5 4 3 2 110. It was important to me to feel that I was doing as well as I

really could in the subject 5 4 3 2 111. I tried to relate the ideas I came across to those in other topics

or subjects whenever possible 5 4 3 2 112. I tended to cover very little beyond what was actually required

to pass 5 4 3 2 113. Regularly I found myself thinking about ideas from classes when

I was doing other things 5 4 3 2 114. I think I was quite systematic and organised when it came to

revising for the exam 5 4 3 2 115. I looked carefully at teachers’ comments on my questions and

exams to see how to do better next time 5 4 3 2 116. There was not much of the subject that I found interesting

or relevant 5 4 3 2 117. When I read the textbook, I tried to find out for myself exactly

what the material meant 5 4 3 2 118. I was pretty good at getting down to work whenever I needed to 5 4 3 2 119. Much of what I was studying made little sense: it was like

unrelated bits and pieces 5 4 3 2 120. I thought about what I wanted to get out of the subject to keep

my studying well focused 5 4 3 2 121. When I was working on a new topic, I tried to see in my own

mind how all the ideas fitted together 5 4 3 2 122. I often worried about whether I would ever be able to cope with

the work properly 5 4 3 2 123. Often I found myself questioning things I heard in class or read

in the textbook 5 4 3 2 124. I felt that I was getting on well, and that helped me put more

effort into the subject 5 4 3 2 125. I concentrated on learning just those bits of information I had

to know to pass 5 4 3 2 126. I found that studying the subject could be quite exciting at times 5 4 3 2 127. I was good at doing some of the additional work suggested by the

teacher 5 4 3 2 128. When studying I kept the examiners in mind and what they were

likely to be looking for 5 4 3 2 129. When I look back I sometimes wonder why I ever decided to

take the subject 5 4 3 2 130. When I was studying, I stopped from time to time to reflect on

what I was trying to learn from it 5 4 3 2 131. I worked steadily through the year rather than leave it all until

the last minute 5 4 3 2 1

Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree somewhat somewhat

32. I was not really sure what was important so I tried to memorise all that I could 5 4 3 2 1

33. Ideas in class or in the textbook often set me off on long chains of thought of my own 5 4 3 2 1

34. Before starting work on an exam question, I thought first how best to tackle it 5 4 3 2 1

35. I often seemed to panic if I got behind with my work 5 4 3 2 136. When I studied, I examined the details carefully to see how they

fitted together 5 4 3 2 137. I put a lot of effort into studying because I was determined to do

well 5 4 3 2 138. I geared my studying closely to just what seemed to be required

for the exam 5 4 3 2 139. Some of the topics I came across in the subject I found really

gripping 5 4 3 2 140. I usually planned out my week’s work in advance, either on paper

or in my head 5 4 3 2 141. I kept an eye open for what the teacher seemed to think was

important and concentrated on that 5 4 3 2 142. I was not really interested in the subject, but I had to take it for

other reasons 5 4 3 2 143. Before tackling a question or assignment, I first tried to work out

what lay behind it 5 4 3 2 144. I generally made good use of my study time 5 4 3 2 145. I often had trouble in making sense of the things I had to

remember 5 4 3 2 146. I liked to play around with ideas of my own even if they didn’t get

me very far 5 4 3 2 147. When I finished a question, I checked it through to see if it really

met the requirements 5 4 3 2 148. Often I lay awake worrying about the work I thought I wasn’t able

to do 5 4 3 2 149. It was important for me to be able to follow the logic, or to see the

reason behind things 5 4 3 2 150. I didn’t find it at all difficult to motivate myself 5 4 3 2 151. I liked to be told precisely what to do to answer questions 5 4 3 2 152. I sometimes got ‘hooked’ on topics and felt I would like to keep on

studying them 5 4 3 2 1

© 1997 Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh

Appendix B - Syllabus-boundness subscale

* difference between male & female significant at the 5 % level

International Journal of Management Education 7(3)46

Full sample Males Females

I tended to cover very little beyond what was actually required to pass 1.67 1.76 1.55*

I concentrated on learning just those bits of information I had to know to pass 1.78 1.82 1.73

I geared my studying closely to just what seemed to be required for the exam 3.62 3.67 3.56

I liked to be told precisely what to do to answer questions 3.74 3.80 3.67