Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained

1

Chapter 2

WHY CHANGE?

“Nothing ventured, nothing gained.”

A Proverb

Innovative teaching methods in accounting courses should be considered within the larger context of teaching in higher education. Issues of quality and accountability have fueled a general movement for educational reform, including a more enlightened view of the research and teaching imbalance in the faculty reward structure (Boyer, 1990). Discouragingly, the Boyer Commission’s (2002) second report found that “many faculty do not yet give teaching a high priority despite administrative efforts. They cited several reasons: “insufficient time, greater interest in research . . ., the perception that the promotion and tenure process does not really value undergraduate teaching, and, quite simply, not knowing what to do” (p. 24).Boyer’s work laid the foundation for the Carnegie-sponsored Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) movement ( which recognizes research and publications that focus on classroom applications.

On the positive side, Barkley, Cross, & Major (2005) remind faculty of the need to pay attention to what students are learning: “At a time when students and parents consider a college education a necessity . . . legislators, accrediting agencies, the American public, and educators themselves are raising questions about what students are learning in college—and they are asking for evidence” (p. xi). These changing expectations about the need for effective undergraduate education are reinforced by broader societal needs, including the increased use of technology and the short half-life of knowledge in most discipline areas. Lifelong learning—including interpersonal and team building skills—is a virtual necessity for all members of the workforce today. The nature of the workforce and the diverse student populations that feed it also call for new innovations in the classroom.

FACTORS AFFECTING TEACHING

The Changing Workplace

A new emphasis on cooperation and teamwork pervades the business sector. The old metaphors of the lone gunman blazing away at enemies or the solitary tycoon—even in the Bill Gates era—rising to the top of the entrepreneurial heap have been replaced by the new metaphors of interdependence and cooperation. Many of the leading corporations are moving toward the use of facilitative management practices involving cooperation and teamwork. Covey (1989) notes that “cooperation in the workplace is as important to free enterprise as competition in the marketplace” (p. 230). Many factors have fueled this redirection: the increasing turbulence and complexity of the international scene, fastpaced technological change, open markets accompanied by intense competition, and recessionary trends necessitating quality products at competitive prices.

The emphasis on teamwork in business and industry parallels the emphasis on cooperative learning in schools, colleges, and continuing education. Students at` all levels who are learning skills in interpersonal communication, conflict resolution, group problem solving, and group decision making are being prepared to function in the contemporary business world. Strong arguments can be made for the fact that accounting instructors who neglect these aspects of undergraduate education are doing their students and the profession a disservice.

1

CHAPTER 2 Why Change?1

The Changing Student Populations

Most faculty are aware of the federal Census Bureau’s documentation of the growing “minority” (if that term still has relevance) student population in the United States. Accounting faculty on most campuses are already seeing an influx of women and minority students, many of whom have different educational needs and different approaches to learning than those of traditional students. An increasing number of students are parttimers balancing academic demands with vocational commitments. Ryan (1993) reports that from 1960 to 1990 college enrollments climbed from 3.6 million students to 12.8 million; over five million were part-time: “By 1988 mature students accounted for over 40 percent of all enrolled students, and the proportion of minority students had risen to 18 percent. The proportion of women grew from 37 percent of the undergraduate population in 1960 to 54 percent in 1988” (p. 13).

With the need to serve this diverse population, Gaff (1992) emphasizes that, “Pedagogical ‘business-as-usual’ in any pedagogical program—listening to lectures, reading a pre-digested textbook, memorization, and multiple- choice tests—will not allow students to learn what even the most fervently argued courses have to teach” (p. 35). The secret to successful teaching—in accounting as in other disciplines—is a broad, flexible, well-adapted teaching repertoire.

With this new influx of diverse students, learning cannot occur effectively through traditional delivery methods with “authority figures” lecturing to passive adults. In fact, as Giezkowski (1992) points out, the large influx of adult students into colleges and universities—because they are focused and pragmatic and bring with them a wealth of life experiences—has often revitalized the learning environment. Faculty are challenged to juggle the conflicting expectations these students bring.

Much has been written about the “Millennial” generation, students born after 1982. McGuire & Williams characterize them as having a consumer mentality, ubiquitous computer access, and an intolerance for nonengaging pedagogical techniques (p. 186). Furthermore, they are focused on being credentialed with little interest in obtaining a broad-based liberal arts education. Thus, they are concerned with careers and earning a good living. ). Bauerlein (2006) regards them as disengaged from the liberal arts curriculum and focused instead on “a blooming, buzzing confusion of adolescent stimuli” such as “TV shows, blogs, hand-helds, wireless” (p. B8). Sweeny, R. T., quoted in Carlson, S. (October 7, 2005) focuses on the rigidity of the Millennials: “. . . ‘They want to learn, but they want to learn only what they have to learn, and they want to learn it in a style that is best for them. . . . Often they prefer to learn by doing’” p. A36. Strauss Howe (2005) offer a stern warning that faculty have to change in order to face these realities:

[I]f Millennials perceive professors as being so stuck in the last century on matters of ideology, attitude, and technology that they can no longer teach the knowledge and skills necessary for financial successes—then colleges should watch out. Many will see their admissions pools shrink, their acceptance yields decline, and their dropout rates rise—perhaps sharply. (p. B24)

As emphasized earlier, versatility is the key. Successful teaching depends on “the flexibility of a college instructor’s teaching repertoire and his or her readiness to draw on a range of teaching styles for a variety of ends” (Adams, 1992, p. 15). Varied learning approaches are critically important, Cross (1991) argues, because of what we know of learning:

What do students already know, and how can new learning be framed to make meaningful connections? The more teachers can develop analogies and metaphors to relate to the backgrounds of students, the more likely new knowledge will become integrated into the schemata or knowledge structure that represents the student’s understanding. (p. 28)

Furthermore, we need to convince our students that we are providing them with valuable workforce skills when we teach them to work effectively and efficiently in groups. Barkley, Cross, & Major (2005) remind us that “Many employers consider willingness and readiness to engage in productive teamwork a requirement for success. For some companies and professions, it is a prerequisite for employment” (p. xi).

Cooperative learning, by allowing time for reflection, rehearsal, and peer teaching, can stimulate all students. And, on the positive side, the “Millennials” have also been characterized as team-oriented. Howe and Strauss (2000) state: “From Barney and soccer to school uniforms and a new classroom emphasis on group learning, Millennials are developing strong team instincts and tight peer bonds” (p. 44). Sweeny, R. T., quoted in Carlson, S. (October 7, 2005), adds, “’In grade school they were pushed to collaboration’ which explains the popularity of group student in college today . . . . ‘The collaboration . . . is both in-person and virtual’” p. A36.

The Changing Teaching Paradigm

As Kuhn (1962) emphasized, breakthroughs in science tend to follow altered ways of thinking or viewing the world. Paradigms frame the way individuals and societies perceive and understand the universe. There is considerable evidence, as several researchers point out (Johnson, Johnson, Smith, 1991; Boehm, 1992) that a paradigm shift is occurring in teaching. The shift results in a new emphasis on delivery and the role of teaching. As Boehm states, “We are beginning to understand that how we teach is central; it is, in fact, the second content of every course” (p. 37).

A number of recent publications have reinforced the need for more attention to teaching. Barr Tagg (1995) published an article in Change Magazine that ignited numerous campus discussions. It was followed by Tagg’s (2003) book, The Learning Paradigm College. The American Association of Colleges and Universities (2002) released an important monograph,Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College that also sparked campus symposia and discussions. A recent book by Maryellen Weimer (2002) on learner-centered teaching and the subsequent success of the Teaching Professor Conference, now in its third year, have spurred efforts to support teaching on campuses.

As Holtfreter& Holtfreter point out, accounting education is also engaged in a so-called “paradigm shift”: “The AICPA, in their Core Competency Framework for Entry into the Accounting Profession, ‘supported a paradigm shift from a content-driven to a skills-based curriculum. The framework identifies core, functional, personal and broad business perspective competencies that are universally applicable to a diverse and growing array of accounting career options. Personal competencies relate to the attitudes and behaviors of individuals preparing to enter the accounting profession. Developing these personal competencies will enhance the way professional relationships are handled and facilitate individual learning and personal improvement.’” (2002).

The research on learning has enormous implications for faculty. Two areas are of particular interest, the international research on deep versus surface learning and the convergent research presented in Bransford, Brown, Cocking’s (2002) work, How People Learn. The research on deep/surface learning began in the 1970s in Sweden, Great Britain, and Australia (Marton, Hounsell, & Entwistle, 1984, 1997). Basically, the research suggests that students take either a deep or surface approach to learning and that approach can be affected by a teacher’s assignments and expectations. Four key components—totally consistent with cooperative learning practices—characterize a deep, rather than a surface approach to learning. Rhem (1995, p. 4) summarizes them as follows:

Motivational context: We learn best what we feel a need to know. Intrinsic motivation remains inextricably bound to some level of choice and control. Courses that remove these take away the sense of ownership and kill one of the strongest elements in lasting learning.

Learner activity: Deep learning and “doing” travel together. Doing in itself isn’t enough. Faculty must connect activity to the abstract conceptions that make sense of it, but passive mental postures lead to superficial learning.

Interaction with others: As Noel Entwistle put it in a recent email message, “The teacher is not the only source of instruction or inspiration.” Peers working as groups enjoin dimensions of learning that lectures and readings by themselves cannot touch.

A well-structured knowledge base: This doesn’t just mean presenting new material in an organized way. It also means engaging and reshaping the concepts students bring with them when they register. Deep approaches and learning for understanding are integrative processes. The more fully new concepts can be connected with students’ prior experience and existing knowledge, the more it is they will be impatient with inert facts and eager to achieve their own synthesis.

Deep learning and cooperative learning mesh perfectly when teachers capitalize on the underlying theories by—among other things—assigning motivating homework assignments that get students involved with the knowledge base. Students often become motivated when the material is relevant to their own lives and learning. When students can place content knowledge in a personal context, they are more likely to retain the information and be able to retrieve it (the “self-referral” effect). This research is the basis for Jensen’s (2000,) advice to teachers that they help students “discover their own connections rather than imposing [their] own” and encouraging “learners to use their own words with regard to new learning” (p. 282).

Bransford, Brown, & Cocking’s (2000) work, How Students Learn discusses three fundamental learning principles, which are amply illustrated and applied in a later work, How Students Learn: History, Mathematics and Science in the Classroom(Donovan & Bransford, 2005).The first two principles are fairly well-known and accepted by teachers in higher education: (1) Because we must build on what students already bring to our courses, discovering what they know and don’t know, including uncovering preconceptions and misconceptions, is critically important. The work of Angelo Cross (1993) and Angelo (1994) on classroom assessment techniques (CATs) dovetails nicely with this learning principle. (2) Students need deep foundational knowledge that rests on conceptual frameworks that facilitate retrieval and application. For most faculty, deep knowledge is a given. (3) Less understood is the third principle, metacognition, thinking about thinking. Students must know where they are headed and monitor their progress toward learning objectives. Well-thought-out cooperative approaches can deliberately address all three of these three key learning principles.

Accounting faculty looking for research-based literature can return to Astin’s (1993) comprehensive study of the impact of college on undergraduate students. In the concluding chapter, “Implications for Educational Theory and Practice,” he makes a number of important points. He finds, for example, that “the student’s peer group is the single most potent source of influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years” (p. 398); faculty are the second most influential factors on student outcomes. Furthermore, general education curricular structure makes very little difference for most of the 22 outcomes he studied. He concludes: “In short, it appears that how students approach general education (and how the faculty actually deliver the curriculum) is far more important than the formal curricular content and structure” (p. 425). His research findings suggest that institutions should “put more emphasis on pedagogy and other features of the delivery system, as well as on the broader interpersonal and institutional context in which learning takes place” (p. 427).

Because of the effects of the peer group, Astin endorses the use of cooperative learning as an instructional method:

Under what we have come to call cooperative learning methods, where students work together in small groups, students basically teach each other, and our pedagogical resources are multiplied. Classroom research has consistently shown that cooperative learning approaches produce outcomes that are superior to those obtained through traditional competitive approaches, and it may well be that our findings concerning the power of the peer group offer a possible explanation: cooperative learning may be more potent than traditional methods of pedagogy because it motivates students to become more active and more involved participants in the learning process. This greater involvement could come in at least two different ways. First, students may be motivated to expend more effort if they know their work is going to be scrutinized by peers; and second, students may learn course material in greater depth if they are involved in helping teach it to fellow students. (p. 427)

Astin’s work has enormous implications for all disciplines and suggests that faculty and chairs committed to genuine teaching improvement should rethink their curriculum delivery methods.

The Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC) was well aware of these pedagogical needs. This awareness permeated all sections of the AECC’s Position Statement No. 1, “Objectives of Education for Accountants,” including the appendix on “learning to learn.” This emphasis on lifelong learning introduced these crucial paragraphs on instructional methods:

Students must be active participants in the learning process, not passive recipients of information. They should identify and solve unstructured problems that require use of multiple information sources. Learning by doing should be emphasized. Working in groups should be encouraged. Creative use of technology is essential.

Accounting classes should not focus only on accounting knowledge. Teaching methods that expand and reinforce basic communication, intellectual, and interpersonal skills should be used.

Some accounting faculty are just now learning that cooperative learning enhances current teaching practices and enables faculty to fulfill virtually all of the AECC principles advocated above.

Despite these positive results, however, some cautious faculty have been unwilling or unable to consider these significant changes.

Resistances to Change

Any change involves risk-taking, and accounting faculty must be both convinced and confident that the cooperative learning activities they introduce are worthwhile. Their conviction and confidence will go a long way toward convincing students of the value and efficacy of the new approaches.

Because of the risks involved, however, it is easier for instructors—no matter what their discipline—to maintain the status quo, which in most cases means a lecture-centered, faculty-directed classroom. Ekroth (1990) has identified six barriers to faculty change, which have been amplified by Bonwell Eison (1991, pp. 53–59). One of these barriers is what Ekroth calls “the stability of the situation”: on a mundane level, physical settings, seating arrangements, and time schedules rarely vary; more significantly, institutional procedures, the reward system, and the “socialization” that occurs within disciplines— accountants teach as they were taught—argue against innovation. Students, too, reinforce expectations about traditional behaviors: faculty (who transmit the knowledge) lecture, and students (who are empty vessels) listen. Finkel (2000) states bluntly: “Our natural, unexamined model for teaching is Telling” (p. 2). Departures from these traditional roles cause anxiety: “Will this work? What if students rebel? How will my colleagues or chair react?” Thus, if “tried and true” lectures are comfortable for faculty and students, then these faculty have a seemingly—and legitimate—vested interest in maintaining a pedagogical approach that research clearly shows is less effective than cooperative small groups. Also, many instructors feel comfortable relying on lecturing because they take seriously their expert role or because they enjoy being the center of attention.