Cognitive apprenticeship in accounting education A study focus on preparing students for the profession Nona Muldoon  Jenn...
Research problem <ul><li>Accounting education literature </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Traditional’ L&T approaches do not prepar...
Research problem <ul><li>Accounting education literature </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Traditional’ L&T approaches do not prepar...
Research design <ul><li>Design-based research methodology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Purpose is to explore how a particular the...
Context for research <ul><li>ACCT19064 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multimodal delivery </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Course Coordin...
Theory which informed ACCT19064 design <ul><li>Cognitive apprenticeship </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A model of learning based on...
Cognitive Apprenticeship explained <ul><li>“ Cognitive apprenticeship methods try to enculturate students into authentic p...
Cognitive Apprenticeship Model: Three stages <ul><li>Situated modeling  – model strategies/make tacit knowledge explicit <...
Model for ACCT19064, T1, 2008 Process Expertise Workshops – 1 hr Tutorials – 1 hr Lectures – 2 hrs
Team teaching <ul><li>From directive to collaborative approaches </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Orientation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul>...
Learning design: Modeling strategies Strategy Purpose Attendance/access rate Face to face lectures Provide  access to expe...
 
Learning design: coaching/scaffolding Strategy Purpose Attendance/access rate Face to face tutorials Provide  formative fe...
Audit Team 6 Audit Team 10 N = 5 N = 6 Posts = 392 Posts = 7 Weeks = 1-13 Used tools outside Bb, e.g. MSN
Discussion board interaction Discussion Board Posts Team  1 Team  2 Team  3 Team  4 Team  5 Team  6 Team  7 Team  9 Team  ...
Discussion board interaction This does not represent true numbers Tools outside CQU online environments  were utilised hea...
Discussion board interaction Entire course site access T1 2007 – 187,689 – 630 students T1 2008 – 232,106 – 322 students D...
Learning design: fading Strategy Purpose Attendance/access rate Workshops Enable  independent group-based engagements face...
 
Authentic assessment <ul><li>Examples </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment Item 2a –  Audit Working Papers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>G...
Results: Final grades T1 2008 Less than 3% failure rate Campus AF NS DE RO F SE P C D HD Grand Total BDG     1         1 5...
Results: Final grades T1 2008 Less than 3% failure rate The greatest part of the experience for me was feeling like we wer...
Results: First cycle evaluation <ul><li>Modeling – Qs35-37 </li></ul>Q35 Q36 Q37 Frequency Cumulative % Frequency Cumulati...
Results: First cycle evaluation <ul><li>Modeling – Qs35-37 </li></ul>I found this a most interesting and beneficial experi...
Results: First cycle evaluation <ul><li>Scaffolding and guidance – Qs23-25 </li></ul>I found this course far superior to o...
Results: First cycle evaluation <ul><li>Fading – Qs15-17 </li></ul><ul><li>Show the outline, 2. give the due date, 3. make...
Results: First cycle evaluation <ul><li>Active learning engagement – Qs19-21 </li></ul>In my view the course encouraged ac...
Challenges with team-based approaches <ul><li>Group allocations - currently different approaches for different cohorts </l...
Overcoming team-based challenges <ul><li>Personal journal keeping (graded) </li></ul><ul><li>Progress report </li></ul><ul...
Representative overall feedback <ul><li>ACCT19064 student response to the question:  What do you  like  most about the cou...
Emerging model of learning Preparing students for the   profession and beyond Reflective Practice Fading Modeling Scaffold...
Conclusion <ul><li>Final report to T&L Funding Committee </li></ul><ul><li>2 conference papers by end 2008 </li></ul><ul><...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Cognitive Apprenticeship in Accounting Education

1,979

Published on

This presentation reports the preliminary results of the first implementation of the redesigned course, ACCT19064 Auditing and Professional Practice. The implementation was carried out in Term 1 2008 involving 630 students studying in FLEX mode and at regional and international campuses at CQUniversity Australia. Initial findings on the strengths and weaknesses of integrating the cognitive apprenticeship model in accounting education will be discussed. Results suggest that this model of learning has made significant positive impacts to the quality of student learning experience, and also highlighted certain challenges in facilitating this particular approach to learning and teaching. Overall, there is evidence to suggest that our attempts to increase the value placed on teaching and quality of student learning outcomes have yielded encouraging results for both the student cohorts and teaching staff.

Published in: Economy & Finance, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,979
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Cognitive Apprenticeship in Accounting Education

    1. 1. Cognitive apprenticeship in accounting education A study focus on preparing students for the profession Nona Muldoon Jennifer Kofoed
    2. 2. Research problem <ul><li>Accounting education literature </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Traditional’ L&T approaches do not prepare graduates for the profession </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Predominantly focused on the coverage of content with limited time given to knowledge application. ( Albrech & Sach, 2001; Carr & Mathews, 2002 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Experiences in ACCT19064 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Model of learning at CQUniversity follows traditional delivery modes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimal student engagement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High failure rate </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Research problem <ul><li>Accounting education literature </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Traditional’ L&T approaches do not prepare graduates for the profession </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Predominantly focused on the coverage of content with limited time given to knowledge application. ( Albrech & Sach, 2001; Carr & Mathews, 2002 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Experiences in ACCT19064 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Traditional delivery modes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimal student engagement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High failure rate </li></ul></ul>Research question: What L&T approaches can be integrated into ‘traditional’ delivery modes that enable meaningful engagement, and help prepare students for the profession?
    4. 4. Research design <ul><li>Design-based research methodology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Purpose is to explore how a particular theory of learning plays out in practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Follows an iterative cycle of design, implementation, evaluation & modification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employs mixed methods : quantitative and qualitative enquiry </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple roles for researchers </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Context for research <ul><li>ACCT19064 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multimodal delivery </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Course Coordinator = Jenny Kofoed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lecturers = 5 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tutors = 6 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Mentor” = 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students = 322 </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Theory which informed ACCT19064 design <ul><li>Cognitive apprenticeship </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A model of learning based on situated learning theory </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subscribes to the social constructivist perspectives </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Cognitive Apprenticeship explained <ul><li>“ Cognitive apprenticeship methods try to enculturate students into authentic practices through activity and social interaction in a way similar to that evident in craft apprenticeship.” </li></ul><ul><li>Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989, p. 39 </li></ul>“ Profession with generally acknowledged cognitive content, such as law, medicine, architecture and business, have… traditionally been learned through apprenticeship.” (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989, p. 39)
    8. 8. Cognitive Apprenticeship Model: Three stages <ul><li>Situated modeling – model strategies/make tacit knowledge explicit </li></ul><ul><li>Scaffolding/coaching – teachers and others support students’ attempts at doing authentic tasks </li></ul><ul><li>Fading – empower students to continue independently </li></ul>
    9. 9. Model for ACCT19064, T1, 2008 Process Expertise Workshops – 1 hr Tutorials – 1 hr Lectures – 2 hrs
    10. 10. Team teaching <ul><li>From directive to collaborative approaches </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Orientation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Team meetings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resources for teachers site (locked) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discussion forum </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Scaffolding for teachers, e.g. snapshot of L&T activities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Input for redesign T2 2008 implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consultative process for CP development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Positive overall feedback from teaching team </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Learning design: Modeling strategies Strategy Purpose Attendance/access rate Face to face lectures Provide access to expert knowledge/model processes Part of 80% minimum attendance requirement eLectures Provide multiple access to expert knowledge - audiovisual narratives 2007 – 3974 2008 – 798 Machinima 1, e.g. Michelle’s dilemma in the audit of Crebel Model authentic problems / model strategies for addressing problems Machinima 1 - viewed 2,011 times Study Guide Provide multiple access to expert knowledge - textual narratives/ model processes Print – distributed to all Digitised – 1,398 hits (module based access)
    12. 13. Learning design: coaching/scaffolding Strategy Purpose Attendance/access rate Face to face tutorials Provide formative feedback on individual tasks and discussion forum Part of 80% minimum attendance requirement Announcements Provide guidance on course expectations and time on tasks 1-2 scaffolding/ guidelines posts per week Group space Provide reciprocal learning opportunities, and guidance and feedback from “Audit Manager” 1,315 – Blackboard only for Flex students 5 per week for individual 3-5 teams per week Machinima 2.1, e.g. Jenny & Michelle providing orientation to the Sealant audit Jenny the “Audit Partner” & Michelle, the “Audit Senior” provide guidance on Sealant audit engagement Machinima 2.1 – accessed/viewed 954 times Study Guide Provide textual guidance for students ’ self-directed engagements Module-based – 1,398 Entire SG - 215
    13. 14. Audit Team 6 Audit Team 10 N = 5 N = 6 Posts = 392 Posts = 7 Weeks = 1-13 Used tools outside Bb, e.g. MSN
    14. 15. Discussion board interaction Discussion Board Posts Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4 Team 5 Team 6 Team 7 Team 9 Team 10 Teaching team 56                   Audit Partner 166                   Audit Manager 2                   Flex students 1,315 127 98 111 110 173 392 138 159 7
    15. 16. Discussion board interaction This does not represent true numbers Tools outside CQU online environments were utilised heavily by a number of teams Discussion Board Posts Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4 Team 5 Team 6 Team 7 Team 9 Team 10 Teaching team 56                   Audit Partner 166                   Audit Manager 2                   Flex students 1,315 127 98 111 110 173 392 138 159 7
    16. 17. Discussion board interaction Entire course site access T1 2007 – 187,689 – 630 students T1 2008 – 232,106 – 322 students Discussion Board Posts Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4 Team 5 Team 6 Team 7 Team 9 Team 10 Teaching team 56                   Audit Partner 166                   Audit Manager 2                   Flex students 1,315 127 98 111 110 173 392 138 159 7
    17. 18. Learning design: fading Strategy Purpose Attendance/access rate Workshops Enable independent group-based engagements face to face to work on authentic dilemmas and ill structured problems Part of 80% minimum attendance requirement Group space Enable independent group-based engagements online to work on authentic dilemmas and ill structured problems Group discussion board postings, file sharing, email, chat – tba Personal Journal Enable self monitoring and document learning experience/ professional development Journal posts – 1,242 Unique posts – 254 *Some used manual journal Sealant Machinima 2.2 & 2.3 Enable self-directed engagements for individuals and groups Machinima 2.2 - 1,098 hits Machinima 2.3 – 1,068 hits Assessment tasks Test abilities toward achieving independence Exam queries T1 2007 Exam queries T1 2008 
    18. 20. Authentic assessment <ul><li>Examples </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment Item 2a – Audit Working Papers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group task </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Progressive outputs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Weeks 4 to 9 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Assessment Item 2b – Performance Review Summary , supported by journal entries </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Individual task </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Progressive engagement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Weeks 4 to 9 </li></ul></ul>
    19. 21. Results: Final grades T1 2008 Less than 3% failure rate Campus AF NS DE RO F SE P C D HD Grand Total BDG     1         1 5 3 10 BNE 1   2       4 7 2   16 FLEX 3 2     1   9 15 12 5 47 GDC     2   1     3     6 MEL   4 4   2 2 35 28 3   78 MKY               6 3 2 11 NZDS             2       2 ROK             8 3 2   13 SYD   1 4 1 5 1 54 60 12 1 139 Grand Total 4 7 13 1 9 3 112 123 39 11 322
    20. 22. Results: Final grades T1 2008 Less than 3% failure rate The greatest part of the experience for me was feeling like we were a real audit team, learning together and conducting the audit together. Campus AF NS DE RO F SE P C D HD Grand Total BDG     1         1 5 3 10 BNE 1   2       4 7 2   16 FLEX 3 2     1   9 15 12 5 47 GDC     2   1     3     6 MEL   4 4   2 2 35 28 3   78 MKY               6 3 2 11 NZDS             2       2 ROK             8 3 2   13 SYD   1 4 1 5 1 54 60 12 1 139 Grand Total 4 7 13 1 9 3 112 123 39 11 322
    21. 23. Results: First cycle evaluation <ul><li>Modeling – Qs35-37 </li></ul>Q35 Q36 Q37 Frequency Cumulative % Frequency Cumulative % Frequency Cumulative % Strongly Agree 18 40.9 14 29.2 11 19.3 Agree 18 81.8 22 75.0 30 71.9 Neither 4 90.9 10 95.8 12 93.0 Disagree 1 93.2 0 95.8 1 94.7 Strongly Disagree 3 100 2 100 3 100 Total 44 48 57
    22. 24. Results: First cycle evaluation <ul><li>Modeling – Qs35-37 </li></ul>I found this a most interesting and beneficial experience, it is amazing how two people can interpret the same information in very different ways. Q35 Q36 Q37 Frequency Cumulative % Frequency Cumulative % Frequency Cumulative % Strongly Agree 18 40.9 14 29.2 11 19.3 Agree 18 81.8 22 75.0 30 71.9 Neither 4 90.9 10 95.8 12 93.0 Disagree 1 93.2 0 95.8 1 94.7 Strongly Disagree 3 100 2 100 3 100 Total 44 48 57
    23. 25. Results: First cycle evaluation <ul><li>Scaffolding and guidance – Qs23-25 </li></ul>I found this course far superior to others I have undertaken in terms of prompt lecturer feedback and am satisfied with the communication responses. Q23 Q24 Q25 Frequency Cumulative % Frequency Cumulative % Frequency Cumulative % Strongly Agree 14 24.6 24 39.3 18 29.5 Agree 26 70.2 28 85.2 32 82.0 Neither 14 94.7 7 96.7 7 93.4 Disagree 0 94.7 2 100 1 95.1 Strongly Disagree 3 100 0 3 100 Total 57 61 61
    24. 26. Results: First cycle evaluation <ul><li>Fading – Qs15-17 </li></ul><ul><li>Show the outline, 2. give the due date, 3. make a reminder </li></ul><ul><li>I feel this is a personal responsibility whereby you cannot do more than remind students </li></ul>Q15 Q16 Q17 Frequency Cumulative % Frequency Cumulative % Frequency Cumulative % Strongly Agree 20 29.0 22 31.4 15 21.4 Agree 40 87.0 41 90.0 41 80.0 Neither 6 95.7 7 100 9 92.9 Disagree 3 100 0 3 97.1 Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 100 Total 69 70 70
    25. 27. Results: First cycle evaluation <ul><li>Active learning engagement – Qs19-21 </li></ul>In my view the course encouraged active engagement with the learning and teaching process to a very high degree. Q19 Q20 Q21 Frequency Cumulative % Frequency Cumulative % Frequency Cumulative % Strongly Agree 23 34.3 19 29.7 20 31.3 Agree 33 83.6 31 78.1 33 82.8 Neither 8 95.5 10 93.8 5 90.6 Disagree 0 95.5 2 96.9 2 93.8 Strongly Disagree 3 100 2 100 4 100 Total 67 64 64
    26. 28. Challenges with team-based approaches <ul><li>Group allocations - currently different approaches for different cohorts </li></ul><ul><li>Fear of inequity re grade distribution </li></ul><ul><li>General perceptions and attitude to group work </li></ul><ul><li>Inactive members </li></ul>
    27. 29. Overcoming team-based challenges <ul><li>Personal journal keeping (graded) </li></ul><ul><li>Progress report </li></ul><ul><li>Self and peer review </li></ul><ul><li>Self and peer performance assessment – allocation of $1000 reward to each member </li></ul><ul><li>Performance review (graded) </li></ul><ul><li>Adjustment of individual marks for team-based assessment </li></ul>
    28. 30. Representative overall feedback <ul><li>ACCT19064 student response to the question: What do you like most about the course? </li></ul><ul><li>“ The relevance of the course to real life which prepares one for employment situations. The learning of tools each week to complete the task step by step . The high expectations provide a challenge ” </li></ul>The term apprenticeship helps to emphasize the centrality of activity which enables learners to use knowledge as tools to solve problems.
    29. 31. Emerging model of learning Preparing students for the profession and beyond Reflective Practice Fading Modeling Scaffolding/Coaching Dependence Independence Novice Expert Developing Professional
    30. 32. Conclusion <ul><li>Final report to T&L Funding Committee </li></ul><ul><li>2 conference papers by end 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>1 target journal </li></ul><ul><li>Seek external funding to continue work on the learning model, e.g. AFAANZ/CPA </li></ul>Questions?

    ×