Approaches to Learning and Contemporary Accounting Education

Kathy Spencer, k.spencer@salford.ac.uk
 
Abstract 
This paper considers and summarises the literature on approaches to learning in accounting education. The three approaches cited by the literature are defined and factors which influence the learning approach adopted are discussed. The key question ‘Is the learning approach an inherent student characteristic or is it a response to outside factors?’ is asked. The effect of the learning approach on the learning outcome is considered and evidence that a deep approach is associated with higher quality learning outcomes is considered. As educators we may inadvertently reinforce surface approaches, encouraging students to tackle problems from a narrow and inadequate perspective. Suggestions are highlighted as to how accounting education can nurture something different, moving away from the learning of facts to a more holistic learning model. 
 
Introduction
The approach to learning of all students in higher education is of growing interest to educational researchers at a time when the promotion of deep learning becomes a great challenge in the face of high workloads, declining resources, decreasing staff/student ratios and increases in students from non-standard backgrounds. As educators we must share the responsibility of producing learners capable of responding to the fast changing social and working environment. This paper therefore comments and reviews the literature and considers the following points on the agenda of accounting education:
 
•	Factors which influence student learning approaches and why educational researchers believe that ‘deep is best’;
•	Student perceptions that learning accountancy is simply learning a set of rules and evidence that accounting students adopt a surface learning approach compared to other disciplines; 
•	How accounting educators may reinforce surface learning; 
•	Changing quantitative assessment structures which fail to reward a deep learning approach; 
•	Provision of a holistic educational experience, in an effective learning environment and a stimulating course of study that lays the basis for lifelong learning empowering students in self – development, enabling them to learn how to learn.
 
Background
A student’s ‘learning approach’ describes the main way in which students engage with learning matter and how temporal matters surrounding the task are organised. Whilst this is an area of debate and contestation, much of the literature describes three approaches, deep, surface and strategic (achieving).
 
Deep Approach
A deep approach is characterised by a student’s active engagement with the subject matter. The student will seek real meaning and be interested in the subject matter for its own sake. Deep learners have the ability to globally represent problems, relate new information to old, generate high quality inferences and exhibit integrated problem solving plans.
 
Surface Approach
A surface approach is characterised by memorisation of information and procedures. The student will tend toward accurate reproduction of facts and will be syllabus bound, often lacking interest in the subject. Surface learners lack the domain-specific knowledge, fail to self-question, spend minimum time representing problems and characterise problems by their superficial features, for example, computational requirements. They often fail to perceive the subject relevance and may be motivated by fear of failure.
 
Strategic (Achieving) Approach
Further research undertaken by Entwistle (1987) and Biggs (1987) extended the definitions of deep and surface categories to a third approach which is defined as a strategic or achieving approach. Their findings suggest that this approach is characterised by the students’ intention to excel in assessed work with the focus on effective organisation, time management and self-regulation in study.

Entwistle (1998) argues that the simple dichotomy between deep and surface learning at first sight may seem over-simplified and implausible. Although it has recently been criticised (Webb, 1997) it continues to have a strong influence on research into improving student learning (Gibbs, 1992). 

Factors Influencing the Learning Approach
There is a fundamental debate within the literature as to whether a learning approach is fixed or variable, for example, an inherent student characteristic or a response to outside factors known as situational factors.
 
Student or Situation
Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) argue that learning approaches can be viewed as relatively consistent individual differences. Across a range of everyday tasks and across departments most students show enough consistency to justify describing approaches as characteristic of individuals. However, Beattie et al. (1996) propose that the approach to learning is only partly a function of a student’s characteristics, since it can be modified by specific learning situations, such as the student’s perception of the relevance of the learning task, the attitudes and enthusiasm of the lecturer and the expected forms of assessment. Biggs (1978, 1979, and 1987) proposed a model in which the study process mediates between presage factors and product factors. Presage factors are those which exist before the student enters the learning situation and are identified as personal characteristics such as intelligence, personality, home background and cognitive style.  Product factors are identified in terms of academic performance defined either objectively (examination marks) or subjectively (satisfaction with whatever level of performance is attained). Eley (1992) agrees with this analysis and  reports that some variables affecting the learning approach are within the student, while some are within the learning environment. Study approaches thus seem to involve aspects of both the operation of relatively stable predispositions to act consistently across situations and the effects of demands perceived to have come from teaching procedures, assessment requirements and course contents. Some findings even suggest that students with a particular study approach predisposition may prefer, and thus might seek, courses with sympathetic teaching and assessment requirements (Entwistle and Tait, 1990).
Perception and Situational Factors
The literature claims that some students can adopt different study approaches dependant on the perceived situational demands residing within any given context (Ramsden, 1984 & 1988). Research  supports the contention that a student’s approach to learning is related to his/her conceptions of learning and perceptions of the teaching context and that ultimately, these approaches determine the quality of the learning outcome. Ramsden (1979 & 1981) demonstrated that study approach and orientation are related to the perceived learning environment. Interviews provided evidence that issues such as inappropriate assessment procedures and heavy workloads could have the unintended consequence of discouraging positive attitudes towards learning and encouraging surface approaches. Objective teaching was found to help with study approach. A genuine commitment to the subject and to student learning, on behalf of the lecturer enhanced positive attitudes to study and encouraged a deep approach. It was also clear that lecturers who taught badly could easily induce surface approaches. 
 
Other Influences
Entwistle (1987) found a clear correlation between approaches to learning and contrasting forms of motivation. Interest facilitates both deep and organised approaches whilst a fear of failure and narrow vocational concerns are associated with a surface approach. Fransson (1977) and Biggs (1987) both showed that a lack of interest in the material studied, or a failure to perceive relevance in it, were associated with a surface approach. Interest in the material was associated with a deep approach. Trigwell and Prosser (1991b) found correlations of surface approach with heavy workload and the use of tests. They concluded that it might be much easier for academics to induce a surface approach through teaching and assessment procedures than to cultivate a deep approach. 

The Relationship between Deep Learning and Learning Outcomes
Accounting students in higher education are expected to develop high quality learning outcomes (QAAHE, 2000). Recently such outcomes have been argued to include not only strong technical competencies but also a broad understanding of the discipline, critical thinking, ability to apply ideas and concepts to problems and the possession of high communication and other generic skills (Accounting Education Change Commission, 1992; Nelson, 1995; Paisley and Paisley, 1996; Eley, 1992). The accounting profession also expects its future members to demonstrate these qualities (IFAC, 1996). 
 
Evidence suggests that higher academic performance is associated with a deep approach to learning and lower performance with a surface approach (Svensson, 1977; Biggs, 1987 and 1993; Watkins and Hattie, 1981; Trigwell and Prosser, 1991; Eley, 1992; Gow et al., 1994; Booth et al., 1999; Davidson, 2001; Byrne et al., 2001). For example, Svensson (1977) found that students classified as having a deep approach passed a far greater proportion of their examinations than those who normally adopted a surface approach. Those adopting a deep study approach also seem to study for longer periods as the search for understanding made the work more interesting. The tedium of rote learning meant that those employing a surface approach spent less time studying. Eley (1992) reported that a surface approach to learning was negatively correlated with total percentage marks in a university subject while deep and achieving approaches were positively correlated with percentage marks. Watkins and Hattie (1981) examined the relationship with grade point average (GPA) and learning approach with concurrent results. Trigwell and Prosser’s 1991 study confirmed this relationship but also showed that positive correlations persist at the course level. They conclude that students who adopt the deep or relating (strategic) approach achieved higher quality learning outcomes. The study identifies a positive relationship between a deep approach and qualitative differences in learning outcomes. This may suggest that a deep approach is more closely related to higher quality rather than higher quantity learning outcomes at the course level.

Biggs (1993) builds on this research to argue that a deep approach is to be encouraged; as of the three approaches to learning only the deep is task focused or ‘natural’. Surface and achieving are institutional creations with sanctions and rewards shifting the focus from the task itself to ways of maximising the rewards and minimising the sanctions associated with successful or unsuccessful completion of the task.

Gow et al (1994) examined the approach to study of undergraduate students at Hong Kong Polytechnic. They found that use of the deep study approach and student enthusiasm declined from year one to year two of the course, indicating that use of meaningful approaches to study declined during the first year. However, through the second and the third year  the deep approach scores slowly rose. They conclude that the approach to study is known to effect student performance. A deep approach leads to performance of high structural complexity, which leads to high grades, if the assessment tests these abilities; a surface approach is effective for recalling unrelated detail but normally leads to unsatisfactory test performance (Biggs, 1987a).
 
Booth et al (1999) found that higher surface approach scores were found to be associated with less successful academic performance and also with lower self-rating of performance relative to peers. This finding gives grounds for concern when considered with the high average scores for this approach amongst accounting students and suggests they are adopting a learning approach unsuited to a high performance in the subject. 
  
Byrne et al (2001) examined the learning approaches of 95 first-year management accounting students at the University of Dublin and compared them to learning outcomes. The analysis revealed that for the full group the deep and strategic approaches are positively associated with high academic performance and the surface (instrumental) approach with poor academic performance. There was a significant positive relationship between the deep and strategic approach and the total assessment mark. Davidson (2001) considered the relationship between study approach and examination performance for 211 introductory financial accounting students in one semester at a Canadian university. The data collected showed a significant relationship between performance on complex examination questions and the use of a deep study approach. No significant relationships were found between a deep study approach and performance on questions that are less complex or the use of surface study approach and any examination results. The findings also showed that prior academic achievement as indicated by the cumulative grade point average and motivation for taking the course, as indicated by the students’ plans to seek an accountancy job, are the best predictors of examination performance. These findings imply that accounting educators should encourage students to develop and use a deep learning approach to become more proficient with complex material.

Conceptualising Accounting Students’ Approaches to Learning 
Accountants have in the past suffered from an image problem which they have substantially managed to dispel. However, to some extent the image of the accountant as a bean counter remains. Elbert Hubbard described the accountant as ‘a man past middle-age, spare wrinkled, intelligent, cold, passive and non-committal’. Luckily, this does not represent today’s reality of an accountant which may be more accurately described by Joseph R Dugan as:

a highly skilled technician - well-educated, complex, confident and intelligent, optimistic - who abhors detailed direction. He expects to be influenced, persuaded and enlightened. He wants to be confronted by choices and alternatives, demanding freedom to structure his work, select his alternatives, present his solutions and speak for himself.

However, does this accurately describe today’s accountants, or do accounting students prefer not to engage with subject matter and to simply memorise facts to be later reproduced in an examination?

Beattie et al (1996) speculate that the subject of accounting attracts a relatively higher proportion of students who adopt a surface approach to learning. Chan et al (1989) found that:

accountancy students tend to focus on the bare fundamentals and reproduce them through rote learning, rather than organise their time and follow-up suggested reading.

Also, there is a belief that accountancy students focus more on rote learning of facts and procedures, memorising large chunks of information (swot, pass and forget syndrome) rather than attempting to engage with the subject matter (Accountancy Educational Change Commission, 1990; Bauer et al, 1994).

Lucas (2001) speculates that a student’s preconception of the subject of accounting and the relevance of accounting in today’s society appears to predispose them to take a format (surface) approach to the learning of accounting. Students are either attracted to the logic and clarity of accounting or are repelled by preconceptions of numbers and boredom. 

Booth et al (1999) compared the learning approaches of accounting students from two Australian universities to previously reported data for non-accounting students. Evidence was found that accounting students tend to take a superficial approach to learning, characterised by rote memorisation. They found that Australian university accounting students had significantly higher surface approach scores and lower deep approach scores than documented norms for Australian arts, education and science university students. They speculated that the high surface approach scores for accounting students highlight the need to make changes in the teaching/learning environment in order to alter students’ apparent perception that studying accounting is simply learning a set of rules.

Gow et al (1994) sampled 793 students in degree level courses in accountancy and other academic departments at Hong Kong Polytechnic. They reported that student enthusiasm and the use of a deep approach to study declined from first year to the second year. In a prior study which compared accounting students to students from other disciplines, they found that scores for the achieving and deep approaches declined from the first year to the second year of the course, indicating that enthusiasm and use of meaningful approaches to study declined as the students progressed through their first year. Eley (1992) found that Australian university accounting students exhibit higher scores for a surface approach and lower scores for a deep approach to learning than biochemistry, chemistry and English literature students.

In a study of Irish accounting students Byrne et al (2001) attempted to identify if a relationship exists between accounting students’ approach to learning and their learning outcomes. The Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) was used to measure the approaches to learning adopted by first year management accounting students. Students’ learning outcomes were represented by their performance in the various assessment components of that module.  The analysis reveals that for the full group of ninety-five students tested, the deep and strategic approaches are positively associated with high academic performance and the instrumental (surface) approach is identified with poor performance.
 
Does Accounting Education Reinforce Surface Learning?
Historically, accounting education has been dominated by the objective of training students to know facts, and has encouraged students to perceive and tackle problems from a narrow and inadequate perspective. Accounting educators have become increasingly concerned about the inability of existing accounting programs to adequately prepare students for the complex and technologically sophisticated business environment. In 1986, The Bedford Committee in the USA reported ‘Professional accounting education which has remained substantially the same over the past 50 years is generally inadequate’. The Australian Report of the Review of the Accounting Discipline in Higher Education (Commonwealth of Australia, 1990) describes accounting education as being in a state of ‘chronic neglect’ and ‘in great need of support and revitalisation’ (Tippet, 1992). The Accounting Education Change Committee was established in 1990 in the USA, but despite the issues being acknowledged change has been slow. 
 
Accounting Educators
Accounting teachers themselves can exhibit learning preferences that are not consistent with deep learning approaches. (Cherry and Reckers, 1985; Brown and Guilding, 1993; Wolk and Nikolai, 1997; Wolk et al., 1997). There may be a strong additional barrier on the part of the teachers to the use of educational strategies such as case studies (Cheery and Reckers, 1985; Libby, 1991) to engender deep approaches to learning. Entwistle and Tait (1990) found that students who adopt deep approaches say that they prefer teaching that provides an intellectual challenge and encourages them to explore their own ideas. In contrast, students relying on a surface approach look for teaching which simplifies the material for them and examination questions which can be answered directly from lecture notes. Entwistle (1997) suggests that teaching based mainly on information transmission may well push students towards surface approaches, but some of the students will actively prefer such teaching, particularly when they have no choice about taking the course, or view it as incidental to their main interests. These findings suggest the need for more versatile approaches to teaching which accommodate the needs and preferences of various groups of students. Adler et al, (2000) speculate that teachers are not sufficiently reflective about their teaching practices, and give very little thought to how students might improve the process of learning. They argue that educators must begin to look at the processes through which learning occurs. Continual refinements to these learning processes and the search for new ways of enhancing the learning environment will require educators to go outside their individual perceptions of the learning experience.

The Learning Environment
Gow et al (1994) suggested that student learning approach has an intimate relationship with the learning environment. They suggested that if the approach adopted is related to the teaching context, changes in this context would be mirrored in alterations to the approach. Excessive workloads may influence the learning approach adopted. Accountancy students commented that they did not get enough time to think and study because of the number of lectures they were required to attend. The students’ comments seemed to reflect a ‘swot, pass and forget’ syndrome. It seems that faced with large quantities of knowledge, students tend to abandon the search for meaning and resort to memorising procedures for answering problems in order to pass examinations. Some students appear to be more concerned with getting a complete set of perfect notes and being told the areas they should revise for the exams rather than engaging with the subject material. Factors such as inadequate resources for teaching, large class sizes, a high staff/student ratio, passive and didactic teaching preferences of lecturers and inadequate staff development and incentives, are all factors that encourage students to take a surface approach to their study.
 
One Right Answer Syndrome
Many students are attracted to accounting because it is seen as an exact mathematical activity, where there is a right answer to be found. Students are often lead to believe that problems possess one right answer where everything else is wrong. Indeed challenging this belief may cause discomfort at the thought of a less certain environment. Kelly et al, (1999) argue that problems brought into the classroom have historically been compartmentalised and simplified, not allowing students to appreciate the complexities of society. They resemble exercises rather than problems, as problems have many different solutions that can be looked at from many different angles. Although it is very difficult to create such a truly complex environment in the classroom, students must learn that there is seldom one correct answer. Furthermore students are not encouraged to consider that real problems are often just as difficult to identify as the answers are to discover. 
  
Nurturing Something Different
Learning to Learn
What are accountancy educators trying to achieve in today’s universities and how does this align with societal needs? A repeated theme throughout much of the contemporary management education debate is the need to move away from the learning of facts to learning how to learn. This involves students acquiring skills and strategies to learn effectively throughout their lives and becoming independent learners who appreciate the totality of relationships in society. Kelly et al (1999) state that although no single model or unified theory of learning exists, the importance of active learning, the construction of knowledge, co-operation, teamwork and learning through problem solving is gaining recognition. As the Accounting Education Change Committee suggests:

Accounting programs should prepare students to become professional accountants, not to be professional accountants at the time of entry into the profession… Therefore pre entry education should lay the base on which lifelong learning can be built.

A ‘good’ university education should be possible irrespective of the main subject of the students’ interest (Kelly et al, 1999). Sundem and Williams (1992) suggest a list of required educational elements, identified by the Accounting Education Change Commission:
 
•	Learning to learn;
•	Avoiding the one right answer syndrome;
•	Communication and interpersonal skills;
•	Active versus passive learning;
•	Technology;
•	The importance of subject matter integration.

The Learning Context
Ramsden, (1992) suggests that the learning environment consists of:

•	Assessment methods;
•	Curriculum-teaching methods;
•	The atmosphere of the institution.

These are factors that lecturers have some control over. Thus, if accounting educators can influence and shape the learning environment then they can influence the student learning experience and encourage a deep approach to study. Sharma (1997) found that the structure of the course and lectures; the enthusiasm of the lecturers and tutors; generation of a personal learning context; provision of student feedback; and the provision of direction to students are crucial elements effecting student learning. Again, individual lecturers usually have freedom in the way they deliver their individual course units and therefore control, to some extent, the factors described by Sharma. In a large scale study of British universities, Ramsden (1991) found that students in departments which were seen as providing ‘good teaching’, sufficient ‘freedom in learning’ (choice of courses, assignments and ways of working,) and reasonable workloads, were more likely to adopt deep approaches in their studying than those in departments which were evaluated in the opposite ways. 

Eley (1992) speculated that changing the way in which courses are taught can influence the ways in which students study. Some lecturers may be reluctant to change the way they deliver programmes, however, they have a responsibility to ensure that the learning environment is as effective as it can be for student learning, not just simply a forum for information transmission. The status quo must be challenged and the learning environment should be in a process of continual refinement to create the best atmosphere possible. Changes should be made to the learning environment that encourage students to adopt deep learning approaches. 
 
The Effect of Assessment on Learning Approach
Ramsden (1988) argued that perhaps the most significant single influence on students’ learning is their perception of assessment. Research shows that assessment is possibly the most important of all the contextual variables that affect learning approach as students may adapt their learning approach to suit the assessment structure (Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983; Kember and Gow, 1990).  Thomson and Falchikov (1998) interviewed students from first, second and third year courses at Napier University, Edinburgh. The importance of assessment in the learning process was clearly illustrated in the interviews. Students eloquently describe the way they feel that assessments are shaping their learning. Some students talked about assessments being conducted in a superficial way and having to be ‘suffered’ in order to get through the course (although they stated that this was not the way they preferred to work). Thomson and Falchikov (1998) argue that a surface approach of cramming seems to be associated with the large number of assessments that are often required of students. 
 
Booth et al (1999) speculate that the nature and form of assessment in accounting subjects results in a perception that generally a surface approach is appropriate for the study of accounting. They argue that unless assessment items are consistently and explicitly designed to both encourage and reward a deep approach to learning, it is likely that many students will continue to pursue a surface approach. Educators can plan assessments to shape student learning, for example if teachers are looking for a deep approach, they would include tasks that require a level of critical analysis and synthesis rather than rewarding memorisation. A holistic approach requires that educators communicate with each other so that students’ assessment experience is organised at course level and not at subject level. A study by Mladenovic (1998) suggests that the promotion of a deep approach to learning is only achieved by aligning all aspects of the learning environment. When the curriculum and teaching methods are aligned and assessment is not aligned only limited success is achieved.
 
Within the consultative model of teaching suggested by Bonk and Smith (1999) the assessment of student understanding is an ongoing and informal process, not relegated to some designated time slot or common exam experience. Instead the model is concerned with assessing students’ comprehension, problem- solving processes, learning assumptions, and misconceptions throughout the semester, and is driven by the philosophical belief that students actively construct knowledge while teachers facilitate this process (Jonassen, 1991). The consultative approach places less emphasis on factually based examinations and objective assessment. Assignments might include class role-plays of a debate between shareholders, creditors and employees. It should approximate to a real world or authentic environment and should include thinking skill criteria. They argue that if effective group interaction occurs, it exposes students to a wealth of ideas far beyond the text and the instructor.

Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to comment on literature concerning students’ approaches to learning and how findings interact with what educators are trying to achieve particularly with respect to accounting education. By considering various factors and related issues and providing a clear and critical summary of the literature this paper seeks to contribute to the quality debate which surrounds teaching and learning in this area.
 
The literature suggests that a surface approach is associated with a less successful academic performance and a deep approach is associated with greater examination success, and, more interest and enthusiasm for the subject. The findings suggest that accounting educators should encourage a deep approach in students so that they may become more proficient with complex material.
 
In general, where the learning approach of accounting students has been compared to that of students in other disciplines, accounting students show higher surface approach scores and lower deep scores. This is of particular relevance to accounting educators as it provides some empirical evidence of widely expressed concerns that students adopt a predominantly surface approach in accounting. It highlights the need to make changes in the teaching and learning environment in order to alter students apparent perceptions that studying accounting is simply rote learning a set of rules.
 
It has been shown that students adapt their learning approach to suit the perceived context of a subject area, particularly the assessment structure (Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983; Kember and Gow, 1990). It could be that despite the intention of accounting educators to reward depth of understanding the nature of assessment items reinforces the perception that a surface approach is all that is needed to study accountancy. Non –reflective teaching practices, teaching preferences not consistent with deep learning, excessive workloads and one right answer scenarios may all reinforce surface learning in accounting students.

Historically some accounting graduates have been happy to accept a passive role in knowledge transfer. They have up to date knowledge at the time of entering the accounting profession but have not developed educationally as ‘whole’ people. Accounting students need holistic educational environments so they can contribute to society and cope with the fast changing business world.  This could involve encouraging active learning with ‘true to life’ case studies and group work, designing assessment items that encourage deep learning and ensuring that work overload does not take place.

The key is to provide the opportunity for students to learn that change is inevitable and to undertake critical reflection on ongoing procedures and practices. The university experience must be such that the student develops into somebody capable of independent learning who is interested in and capable of meeting challenges in a non-programmed manner. Learning to learn involves the student acquiring skills and strategies that allow them to learn effectively throughout their lives, i.e. a shift from knowledge based educational approaches to process based educational approaches, fostering independent enquiry and intellectual independence. Kelly et al, 1999 believe that in our fast changing society we must produce graduates who have learned how to learn and who are capable of continuously adapting themselves to help in the ongoing development of society.

References
Accounting Education Change Commission (1990) Objectives of Education for Accountants position statement number one.
Issues in Accounting Education 5 (2), 307-12.
Accounting Education Change Commission (1992) The First Course in Accounting, 
Position Statement No. Two, Bainbridge, WA: AECC.
Adler, R.W., Milne, M.J. and Stringer, C.P. (2000) Identifying and overcoming obstacles to learner centred approaches in tertiary accounting education: a field study and survey of accounting educators perceptions. Accounting Education 9 (2), 113-134.
Bauer, L., Locke, J and O’Grady, W. (1994) Introducing accounting education change: a case of first year accounting, Working Paper. Department of Accounting,
Massey University.
Beattie, V., Collins, B. and McInnes, B. (1997) Deep and Surface learning: a simple or simplistic dichotomy? Accounting Education: An International Journal 6(1), 1-12. 
Biggs, J. (1978) Individual and group differences in study processes,
British Journal of Educational Psychology 48, 266-79. 
Biggs, J. (1979) Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes, Higher Education 8, 381-94. 
Biggs, J. (1987a) Student Approaches to Learning and Studying, Hawthorn,
Victoria: Australian Council for Educational research. 
Biggs, J. (1987b) Study Process Questionnaire Manual, Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational research. 
Biggs, J. (1993) What do inventories of students learning process really measure? A theoretical review and clarification, British Journal of Educational Psychology 63, 
3-19.
Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Biggs, J.B. and Moore, P.J. (1993) The process of learning (third ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. 
Bonk, C.J. and Smith, G.S. (1999) Alternative instructional strategies for creative and critical thinking in the accounting curriculum. Journal of Accounting Education 16(2), 261-93. 
Booth, P., Luckett, P. and Mladenovic, R. (1999) The quality of learning in accounting education: the impact of approaches to learning on academic performance.
Accounting Education 8, pp.277-300. 
Boyce, G., Williams, S., Kelly, A. and Yee, H. (2001) Fostering deep and elaborative learning and generic (soft) skill development: the strategic use of case studies in accounting education. Accounting Education 10 (1), 37-60. 
Brown, R.B. and Guilding, C. (1993) Knowledge and the academic accountant: an empirical study. Journal of Accounting Education 11 (1), 1-13. 
Byrne, M., Flood, B. and Willis, P. (2001) The relationship between learning approaches and learning outcomes: a study of Irish accounting students.
Accounting Education 11 (1), 27-42. 
Chan, D., Leung, R., Gow, L. and Hu, S. (1989) Approaches to learning of Accountancy students some additional evidence. Proceedings of the ASAIHL seminar on University Education in the 1990’s, Kuala Lumpar. 
Cherry, A. and Reckers, P.M.J. (1985) A study of the need to change in intermediate accounting courses and textbooks. Issues in Accounting Education, 131-39.
 Davidson, R.A. (2002) Relationship of study approach and exam performance.
Journal of Accounting Education 20 (1), 29-44. 
Davis, S.W. and Sherman, R.S. (1996) the accounting education change commission: A critical perspective, Critical perspectives on accounting, 7, 159-189. 
Eley, M.G. (1992) differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education 23: 231-254. 
Entwistle, N.J. (1987). A model of the teaching learning process. In J.T.E. Richardson, M.W. Eyesenck and D. Warren Piper (eds.), Student learning research in education and cognitive psychology, London: S.R.H.E./ Open University Press. 
Entwistle, N.J. (1997a) Contrasting perspectives on learning. In F. Marton, D.J. Hounsell and N.J. Entwistle, (eds.), The experience of learning. (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. 
 Entwistle, N.J. (1987b) Reconstituting approaches to learning: A response to Webb. Higher Education 33. 213-218. 
 Entwistle, N.J. (1998a) Approaches to learning and forms of understanding. In B. Dart and G. Boulton-Lewis (eds.), Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Melbourne: Australian Council for educational research. 
 Entwistle, N.J. (1998b) supporting students’ frameworks for conceptual understanding: Knowledge objects and their implications. In C.Rust (ed.). Improving student learning: improving students as learners. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, Oxford Centre for staff and student development. 
Entwistle, N.J. (1998c) Improving teaching through research on student learning. In J.F.Forest (ed.) University teaching: International perspectives. New York: Garland. Entwistle, N.J. and Ramsden, P. (1983) Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm. 
Entwistle, N.J.and Tait, H. (1990) Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education 19: 169-194. 
Fox, D. (1983) Personal theories of teaching. Studies in Higher Education 8: 151-163. 
Fransson, A. (1977) On qualitative differences in learning, IV- Effect of motivation and test anxiety on process and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology 47: 244-257. 
Gibbs, G. (1992) Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol Technical and Educational Services Ltd. 
Gow, L and Kember, D. (1990) “Does Higher Education promote independent learning?” Higher Education 19, 307-32. 
Gow, L and Kember, D. and Cooper, B. (1994) The teaching context and approaches to study of accountancy students, Issues in Accounting Education 9 (1), 118-130. 
Gunstone, R. F. and White, R.T. (1981) Understanding gravity. Science Education 65, 291- 299. 
Hounsell.D, McCulloch, M. and Scott, M. (1996) The ASSHE Inventory (Centre for teaching, learning, assessment, University of Edinburgh and Napier University, Edinburgh in association with UCOSDA, Sheffield) 
International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) (1996) Prequalification education, assessment of professional competence and experience requirements of professional accountants.  International Education Guideline No 9, Washington, DC: IFCA Education Committee, IFAC.
 Jonassen, D.H. (1991) Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development 39 (3),
5-14 
Laurillard, D. (1984) Learning from problem solving in: F.Marton, D. Hounsell and N.Entwisle (eds.) The Experience of Learning. (Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press). 
Libby, P.A. (1991) Barriers to using case studies in accounting classes.
Issues in Accounting Education 6 (2), 193-213. 
Lucas, U. (2001) Deep and surface approaches to learning within introductory accounting: a phenomenographic study. Accounting Education: An International Journal 10 (2), 161-84.
 Meyer, J.H.F., Parsons, P., and Dunne, T.T. (1990) Individual study orchestrations and their associations with learning outcome. Higher Education, 20, 67-89. 
Nelson, I. (1995) What’s new about accounting education change? A historical perspective on the change movement, Accounting Horizons 9 (1), 62-75. 
Paisley, C. and Paisley, N. (1996) A wolf in sheep’s clothing? Teaching by objectives in accounting in higher education, Accounting Education: An International Journal 5 (1), 43-60.  
Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding Teaching and Learning Buckingham the Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University press. 
Quality assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAAHE) (2000) Subject Benchmark Standard For Accounting. Gloucester: QAAHE. 
Ramsden, P. (1979) Student Learning and Perceptions of the academic environment.
Higher Education 8, 411-27. 
Ramsden, P. (1981) Unpublished thesis: A study of the relationship between student learning and its academic context, The British Library, Lancaster, UK. 
Ramsden, P. (1984) The Context of Learning. In Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N. (eds.) The Experience of Learning, 144-164. Edinburgh; Scottish Academic Press. 
Ramsden, P. (ed) (1988) Improving Learning: New perspectives, London: Kogan Page.
Ramsden, P. (1992) Learning to teach in Higher Education. London: Routeledge. 
Sharma, D. (1997) Accounting students learning conceptions, approaches to learning and influence of the learning teaching context on approaches to learning.
Accounting Education: An International Journal, 6, 125-146.
Sundem, G.L., Williams, D.Z. and Chironna, J.F. (1990) The Revolution in accounting education. Management Accounting December 49-53 
Svensson, L. (1984) Skill in learning. In Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and Entwisle, N. (eds.), The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. 
Svensson, L (1977) On qualitative differences in learning:III- study skill and learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology 47, (1977), 233-243. 
Thomas, P.R., and Bain, J.D. (1984) Contextual dependence of learning approaches: the effects of assessments. Human Learning, 3, 227-240. 
 Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (1991a) Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning outcomes.
Higher Education 22 (3), 251-66. 
Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (1991b) Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology 61, 265-75.