FLIPPING THE CONTENT OF AN AUDITING COURSE:
EXAMPLES OF IN-CLASS ACTIVITIES
Denise Dickens
Associate Professor
East Carolina University
Rebecca G. Fay
Assistant Professor
East Carolina University
John T. Reisch*
Professor
East Carolina University
*Corresponding author
DRAFT: July 31, 2015
FLIPPING THE CONTENT OF AN AUDITING COURSE:
EXAMPLES OF IN-CLASSACTIVITIES
Abstract: The objective of this article is to give faculty confidence that the Flipped Classroom (FC) is both an effective and implementable pedagogy in an introductory auditing course. To this end, we provide an overview of the FC instructional methodology, propose anoutline of coursework based on actual implementation experience, discuss how a textbook-provided comprehensive audit case can be adapted to the FC setting, provide examples of two additional in-class activities for us in the FC, and suggest how common obstacles to the FC can be overcome.
FLIPPING THE CONTENT OF AN AUDITING COURSE:
EXAMPLES OF IN-CLASS ACTIVITIES
- INTRODUCTION
In this article, we provide an overview of the Flipped Classroom (FC) instructional methodology and why it is considered an effective pedagogy.We then discuss how methodology can be used in an introductory auditing course using both existing resources and activities created specifically for use in the FC setting. First, we explain how we adapted a textbook-provided comprehensive audit case for use in a FC environment. Second, we presenttwo additional activities specifically for use in the FC. Our examples, which cover key issues relating to audit quality and sampling, illustrate how instructors can use existing information to create material appropriate for use in theFC setting. We conclude the paper by discussing ways to overcome the challenges associated with adoptingthe FC methodology.
The Flipped Classroom
Many instructors have been teaching with good, or great,student outcomes and are happy with the conduct of their classes, and their satisfaction is supported by both student evaluations and peer teaching reviews. Yet, most instructors are also cognizant that some things could be done better. They want to put forth their best work but are also rational and intuitively weigh both the costs and benefits of attempting to enhancetheir performance. It is easy to see why an instructor might say something like, "Yes, I could do better here or there, but I’m unable to invest the time to make that change.” or “I am happy with the status quo. What if I attempt to improve things and have negative results instead?"
Motivational speaker Andy Stanley says that every leader (including instructors) should ask those around them (perhaps including students and other instructors) a basic question, “If you were me, what would you do differently?”Stanley understands that thequestion can be difficult to ask because people wrestle with the tension of “I know I need to hear it” but “I don’t want to hear it.”However, he argues theexercise in humility,ofadmitting “I am not there yet,” can make a big difference in how one does his or her job (Stanley, 2014).
When weasked thatquestion ofour current and former students, as well as peer professors, the overwhelming response was that we neededto have more hands-on learning in class and less rehashing of textbook material. This motivated us to implement the FC methodology in an auditing class.
As its name implies, the FC inverts the learning process. The traditional lecture is moved outside of the classroom and learning activities that were traditionally completed outside of class (i.e., homework)areinstead conducted in the classroom (Findlay-Thompson and Mombourquette, 2013). As a result, the FC can be described as a reversed teaching model, meaning that students first gain exposure to new material outside of class, often in the form of readings and lecture videos, and class time is subsequently spent working on the assimilation of that new knowledge through a variety of means such as problem solving, discussion, and debates. The concept of the FC is consistent with Bloom’s revised taxonomy (2001) in that students begin by performing lower levels of cognitive work (gaining knowledge and comprehension) outside of class and focus on higher forms of cognitive work (application, analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation) during class (Brame, 2014).
The origin of the FC is a point of debate, with some attributing it to two high school chemistry teachers from Colorado, Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams, who re-examined how they used class time (Tucker, 2012) while others believe it was inspired by work of Salman Khan who founded the Khan Academy, an online library of tutoring videos that cover a wide array of academic subject (Ash, 2012). Regardless of the FC’s genesis, it has been implemented successfully in a wide variety of classrooms for many years. Harvard physics professor, Eric Mazur, was an early adopter of a modified form of the FC that he termed “peer instruction” (PI).Like the FC, the PImodel requires students to first examine new materialand complete assignments, such as quizzes, prior to class. Class time is then used for active learning activities by applying the notion that one of the best methods of learning is to teach the material; if you can teach it, you have learned it. The intent is to create a more collaborative learning environment where students are focused on working through problems by teaching one another concepts under the guidance of instructor (Crouch and Mazur, 2001). Walvoord and Anderson (1998) also promoted a similar pedagogical model in which students gain first-exposure learning by examining a variety of material before class, and then focus on the process of learning by synthesizing, analyzing, and solving problems during class.
Chauhan (2013) argues that the FC has many advantages over traditional teaching methods, including better learning outcomes. In a traditional lecture-style class, students are trying to record what is being taught immediately without actively reflecting on it. As one of our colleagues notes, a lecture effectively takes information out of the instructor's notes and places it into the students' notes[FRG1]. In a traditional lecture, many important points are missed, and those that are recorded are likely incomplete because students are so focused on writing down every word that they miss out on the content. Until students have a chance to apply learned concepts, in-depth learning will not take place. This conjuncture is supported by Manjinder (2012) who states "Years of research have proved that an individual's ownership of new knowledge comes through constructive, productive, creative activities, not through passive consumption of instructional tutorials or reading textbooks."
Chauhan also states that students develop better thinking skills in the FC environment. By actively applying the concepts they have learned to real-life problems, student learning goes beyond rote learning to the development of higher order thinking skills such as synthesis of information and the development of inferences. This argument is consistent with Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000, p.16) who assert that “To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must: a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application.”Brame (2014) argues that when students apply their new knowledge while obtaining immediate feedback from peers and the instructor during the active learning component of the FC, students learn to correct misunderstandings that they may have about the information and organize their new knowledge in a manner that makes it more accessible for future use.
FCs can also be viewed a means of appeasing policymakers, scholars, advocacy groups, and others, who want to see more evidence that students are truly learning in college. These constituents do not want to see professors pontificating and simply pumping out information and taking it on faith that students understand what the instructors are saying (Berrett,2012).
From a practical standpoint, changing to theFC enables instructors to address the issue of what they could do differently to improve their class. It involves some redesigning of courses, including a thoughtful evaluationofwhat is the best way to utilize face-to-face instruction time. It is time consuming, but it doesn't initially have to be a complete redesign. One instructor suggests that instructors looking to flip their classes must plan before diving into it. He recommendsstarting small, like focusing on just a week, a unit, or a lesson. The same instructor also states, "It's definitely a lot of work. And it takes trial and error" (Roscorla, 2012).Frydenberg (2012) suggests that instructors may find the inversion of the classroom difficult as they make the shift from being the "sage on the stage" in a traditional lecture, to becoming the "guide on the side" during the transition to an active learning classroom setting.
Planning and preparation can make or break theFC. Instructors should be cognizant of the need to avoid teaching what students have already learned (Kachka, 2012). To be effective, the out-of-class material needed for the FC must include all the resources students need to achieve the desired learning objectives, including relevant articles, textbook excerpts, online simulations, supplemental notes, and worksheets, as well as video tutorials that are snippets of lecture material emphasizing key points (Ash, 2012).Actual class time should be spent to briefly review content and checkfor understanding, but the primary purpose of class time is for the instructor to help students unpack the content that have been exposed prior to entering the classroom. Students work on problems, alone or in groups, allowing students to teach one anotherwhile the instructor circulates (Houston and Lin, 2011). Not only are students learning by working together on in-class assignments, but instructors can see where students are struggling and remedial support can then be provided to ensure the concepts are applied appropriately (Hoffman, 2014).
Students must also be prepared for the changes encountered in the FC. Students need to understand why the class has been inverted. Changesmust be framed in a manner that enables them to clearly see the potential of benefits of the FC. In addition to completing pre-class assignments, students should be expected to show that they have the necessary understanding to push the boundaries of a topic and that they have reflected on the relevant issues to get to the levels of detail or complexity that are not initially obvious. As Pereira (2012) notes, this approach to student understandinghelps students gain a more inquisitivemindset and helps builds a constant thirst for knowledge that is the foundation for life-long learning.In addition, the immersion of students into the hands-on activities that take place during class reduces the stress of students who are usually intimidated about asking questions of the professor.
Not everyone in academia supports the idea of theFC. Trends come and go in education, and some see the FC as the latest fad. Critics argue that flipping a class "is simply a high-tech version of an antiquated instructional method: the lecture." One critic statesthat "when you step back a little, what you're looking at is simply a time-shifting tool that is grounded in the same didactic, lecture-based philosophy. It's really a better version of a bad thing" (Ash, 2012).
Herreid and Schiller (2013), while supporting the idea of FCs to enhance learning, argue that two main problems must be overcome when converting a class from a lecture-based to an active learning-based classroom: student resistance and instructor preparedness. Because the FC requires students to first do work at home rather than having the subject matter exposed initially in class, they may come to class unprepared to participate in the active learning phase of the material. Greater onus is placed on the student in the FC.
To mitigate this concern, students must be aware of consequences for failure to adhere to classroom policies. Adequate student preparedness is not a new problem. As long as there have been out-of-class assignments, there have been students who fail to do the work. Thus, while student resistance to the FC is a valid concern, the failure of some students to complete pre-class assignments should not be the reason to avoiding flipping the class. Moreover, students that overcome their reliance on traditional classroom teaching will learn to accept the responsibility for self-learning that comes with theFC, making them more prepared for the work-world they will encounter after college (Kachka, 2012).
The second problem to overcome in developing a FC is preparation by the instructor. The out-of-class student readings and videos tutorials must be relevant and carefully tailored to prepare and subsequently engage students to perform in-class activities. Lack of material for use in the FC, especially in-class learning activities for some disciplines, is a valid concern. While some FCs focus on traditional homework assignmentsduring class, activities that require more critical thinkingskills including discussions, debates, cases, and other applications of material optimize the student learning. In auditing, comprehensive cases that simulate the conduct of an audit may not be suitable for a single concept. It is this second problem that the in-class exercises we present below help resolve.
There is limited quantitative assessment on the effectiveness of the FC. Findlay-Thompson and Mombourquette (2013) report the findings of a few studies, including their own. First, they cite Alvarez (2012) who reported on high school students with the goal of reducing failure rates for core classes. He argued that theFC offers students more time to prepare for class which translates to lower failure rates. Failure rates declined significantly in flipped math, science, and social studies classes. Second, they report on Strayer (2012) who used the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) to assess the perceptions of the learning environment in his university-level introductory statistics class. Using seven scale items (personalization, innovation, student cohesion, task orientation, cooperation, individualization, and equity), Strayer found students in the FC preferred an environment with greater innovation and cooperation, but there was no evidence of a difference in preferences for the other scales relative to a traditional lecture-based class. The third study they cite is Ferreri and O'Connor (2013) who report on the redesign of a large pharmacy course. Their results indicate that students in the FC reported a preference for working in teams and achieved significantly better academic grades than students in the traditional classroom setting.
In their own experience, Findlay-Thompson and Mombourquette (2013) describe use of the FC in a Business Administration class. After completing the semester, students were interviewed with open-ended questions on their experience in thenew academic setting. The students' overall opinion of the FC was mixed. Students reported that the workload in the FC was heavier because homework outside of the classroom is generally an option whereas pre-class preparation was mandatory (i.e., students had to watch instructional videos before class and they were quizzed at the start of the class). Although some of the interviewed students believed they had earned better grades because of the FC, a comparison of the average grades between the FC and traditional lecture format found no difference. Although grades between the two classes were not different, the in-class activities in the FC were designed to promote deeper learning of the course materials with the students doing more hands-on research and taking over more responsibility for the learning process. As a result, although it was not measured, long-term retention of the information may be different between the two classes.
Simply put, there is no one best method for teaching. TheFC is only part of the pedagogy toolbox that educatorscan use to enhance student learning.
- FLIPPING AN INTRODUCTORY AUDITING CLASS
In this section, we explain the genesis of flipping an auditing course at one large public university and the major differences in the structure and content between our flipped and traditional classes. The consideration of FC methodology was encouraged by the dean of our college, who is continuously seeking new ways to enhance student learning. After hearing positive feedback about FCs, he funded a pilot study askingfor volunteers from the faculty who were willing to develop FCs. To encourage participation, small one-time stipends were given to a few faculty for flipping selected classes. The dean was abundantly clear that if theFC didn't work, it could revert to the traditional format. While he encouraged faculty members to strive for improvement, he recognized that not all changes result in positive outcomes; he did not want faculty to flip classes just for the sake of change.
The auditing course was not part of the pilot study of FC. Instead, the authors had the opportunity to observe a flipped managerial accounting class throughout the pilot study, recognized how it could be beneficial forstudents, and decided to flip an auditing class the following semester. The modification to the auditing class was done without a stipend; the class was changed because the instructors believed that flipping the class would enable students to gain a better understanding of auditing concepts by applying them in class. In addition, it was decided that the amount of flipped material could be limited initially, for practical purposes, and expanded in future semesters as desired.