Accounting Academics Multiple Challenges Issues-Driven Learning Offers A Way Forward

JH Hesketh 1
Accounting academics’ multiple challenges:
Issues-driven learning offers a way forward
JH Hesketh
Curriculum and Research consultant
Received: November 2010 SAJAR
Revised: June 2011 Vol 25 No. 1
Accepted: August 2011 2011
pp.1 to 34
Accounting academics in South Africa are under pressure from their stakeholders, particularly
the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) and the Department of Education
(DoE), to make urgent changes. Challenges include the need for increased research output and
for new teaching, learning and assessment techniques that require and enable students to develop
additional competencies beyond core technical knowledge, thereby improving graduate
attributes and student retention rates. Changes needed involve an educational focus and mind-
shift. The purpose of this article is to establish how issues-driven learning (IDL), as an example
of experiential or experience-based learning theory (ELT) can be implemented to meet the
challenges.
KEY WORDS
accounting education; South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA); competency
framework; professional and pervasive skills; experiential learning theory; issues-driven
learning; teaching and assessment techniques
Contact
heskethj@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
Accounting education in South Africa might well feel under siege faced as it is with
seemingly contradictory stakeholder demands for change. These come from SAICA,
other professional bodies and graduate employees and the DoE.
SAICA, in line with the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), has issued a
new Competency Framework Detailed Guidance for Academic Programmes1
(SAICA
2010a) which “identifies and describes the professional competencies (knowledge,
skills and attributes)” required by candidates2
entering the profession (SAICA, 2010a).
Assessing the additional competencies in professional examinations will involve new
assessment approaches and these will influence the way Accounting Schools teach and
assess their students in order to prepare them incrementally for professional
1
Hereafter referred to as the competency framework.
2
Candidates striving to be admitted into the profession through professional examinations will hereafter
be referred to as candidates.

2 SA Journal of Accounting Research Vol. 25 : No. 1 : 2011
examinations. The required competencies reflect closely the desired graduate attributes
put out worldwide in university missions, by other professional bodies (Irby, 2000;
Johnstone and Vignaendra, 2003; Kirkland, 2000), by prospective employers (Griesel
and Parker, 2009), confirming the relevance of SAICA’s (2010a) competency
framework also for educators of professional practitioners more broadly in
accountancy-related fields. The DoE (1997; 1998) targets very similar competencies for
development of required graduate attributes. Hence agreement amongst stakeholders on
what has been lacking and what is needed in students strengthens SAICA’s (2010a) call
for change. At the same time the DoE (2004; 2007) also requires academics to increase
their research outputs, improve student retention rates and ensure suitable scholarly
activity in honours programmes in order to meet funding-related criteria.
The scholarly, professional and student retention requirements involve a variety of
seemingly conflicting challenges. The honours research requirement might appear to
conflict with the need to develop prospective accountants and to address low student
retention rates. However, research requires students to gather, examine and interpret
information and ideas critically before using them to build logical arguments and these
academic capacities mirror the professional skills required by SAICA (2010a:26) and
prospective employers (Clinebell and Clinebell, 2008; Griesel and Parker, 2009). Hence
by considering the requirements through an educational lens coherence amongst the
requirements is revealed. An IDL lens illustrates consistency also with the student
retention requirement since research-related activities are a central element of IDL-
based curricula3
, designed to empower students as effective learners, and thereby
improve student retention rates significantly (Hesketh, 2003).
While coherence offers a more containable target than disparate requirements, it does
not in itself solve accounting academics’ problems. The purpose of this article is to
establish how IDL can be applied to meet the challenges posed by SAICA’s
competency framework to develop the required qualities, skills and depth of knowledge
beyond the core technical competencies and second, to improve student retention rates
and increase scholarly activity in students and staff as required by the DoE.
The article hence aims to introduce a helpful trans-disciplinary slant to debate around
demands facing accounting academics that draws on curriculum theory relevant to the
requirements, namely IDL as an example of ELT.
To this end the article first considers literature that establishes the need for teaching,
learning and assessment strategies associated with IDL to address current and imminent
stakeholder demands. Second, it argues that experiential learning theory (ELT) and
specifically IDL as an example of ELT provides a suitable theoretical framework for
educational practices that meet stakeholder requirements, and third, the article
demonstrates how IDL can be applied in practice to resolve the challenges posed by
SAICA and the DoE.
3
The term ‘curriculum’ refers in this article to the whole teaching, learning and assessment experience,
as it is used in education disciplines.

JH Hesketh 3
STAKEHOLDER REQUIREMENTS
This section draws on literature to demonstrate the additional competencies required of
students and hence the kinds of changes in accounting education urged by first SAICA,
and second the DoE.
Professional and employer requirements
The pervasive qualities and skills required of entry level South African chartered
accountants CA(SAs) as set out in the competency framework (SAICA, 2010a) reflect
the values and requirements of IFAC (2010) and are closely aligned with the graduate
attributes that other professional bodies and employers require internationally. Hence
SAICA’s requirements, and its new-style professional examinations from 2013, can be
contextualised within a widespread recognition of graduate shortcomings and the need
for new kinds of teaching, learning and assessment. It is important for accounting
academics to recognise that they are not alone in their educational challenges and that
SAICA’s (2010a) required competencies reflect wide and current thinking if they are to
commit themselves philosophically as well as technically to applying new teaching,
learning and assessment approaches. SAICA’s new requirements are considered first,
followed by employer requirements.
SAICA’s new requirements
Like other professional bodies SAICA has reflected iteratively on its qualification
model and revised its assessment policies and practices continuously. Many crucial
elements of the competency framework (SAICA, 2010a) can in fact be found in earlier
syllabuses. SAICA’s syllabus of 2005, for instance, was informed similarly by the
recognition that “characteristics essential to a profession” needed to be developed and
that professionals also need “to possess intellectual, analytical and advisory skills that
enable them to apply core knowledge” (SAICA, 2005:2), listing as desired outcomes
capabilities like critical thinking, effective communication, identifying, selecting and
integrating appropriate information, contextualising knowledge. The document also
specifically links such capabilities to the desired outcome of lifelong learning,
demonstrating strong similarities to the new competency framework (SAICA, 2010a).
However examiners’ comments (SAICA, 2009) illustrate some of the difficulties
CA(SA) candidates have had in developing the kind of skills that have been found
lacking, despite their inclusion in syllabuses. They include:
 Responses to [requirements for recommendations / interpretation] are generally
poor, either because candidates are unable to explain principles that they can apply
numerically or because they are reluctant to commit themselves to one course of
action. It is essential to make a recommendation when a question calls for it, and
to support it with reasons. Not only the direction of the recommendation (i.e. to do
or not to do something) is important, but particularly the quality of the arguments
– in other words, whether they are relevant to the actual case and whether the final
recommendation is consistent with those arguments. Unnecessary time is wasted
by stating all the alternatives.

 A serious problem experienced throughout the examination was that candidates
were unable to apply their knowledge to the scenarios described in the questions
...
 Many candidates did not address what was required by the questions and, for
example, provided answers in the form of statements while calculations were
required or presented financial statements where a discussion of the appropriate
disclosure was required.
(SAICA, 2009).
The new competency framework project, initiated in 2007 in response to the fact that
candidates were not demonstrating adequately the required skills and qualities
appearing in their syllabuses (SAICA, 2009), has four key changes that demonstrate
new thinking.
First, ‘leadership’ has been specifically identified as a fundamental attribute of a
CA(SA) who “should have the full range of technical competencies of a professional
accountant and also those which will enable the development of leadership qualities”.
The competency framework hence “focuses on those pre-qualification competencies
which provide a foundation for the acquisition of leadership ability after entry to the
profession” with the objective of raising “technical competencies to a level applicable at
the strategic level” and ensuring that “technical disciplines be taught and assessed with
this objective in mind” (SAICA, 2010a:4-5).
Second, while the 2005 syllabus shows that “pervasive qualities and skills” set out as
requirements in the new competency framework (SAICA, 2010a: 19-30) are not by any
means new to SAICA’s thinking, their presentation and conceptualisation within a
competency framework rather than a “knowledge-based syllabus” ( SAICA, 2010a:3;
IFAC, 2010:19) represents a significant shift in focus in terms of teaching, learning and
assessment. The pervasive qualities and skills listed under “ethical behaviour and
professionalism ... personal attributes ... (and) professional skills” (SAICA, 2010a:19-
30) are to combine with specific competencies “to produce the technical excellence,
integrity, objectivity, and commitment to public interest for which the CA profession is
known (SAICA, 2010a:19). This conceptualisation of what is required in terms of
detailed competencies (SAICA, 2010a:25-30) calls for a heightened level of
accountability in educators and learners to begin preparing for professional
examinations from the start of undergraduate studies. It is explicitly stated that “the
knowledge base provides a foundation for the development of the competencies”
indicating that knowledge will be assessed in terms of the kind of understanding that
prohibits rote learning (SAICA, 2010a:11) and competencies will be demonstrated
“within (the) context of tasks” that depend on sound technical knowledge (Olivier and
Kleinhans, 2008:11).
The swing from knowledge-based to competency-based assessment reflects the shift
from assessing “whether a candidate has obtained the professional knowledge required
to perform the required tasks as a professional accountant” to assessing competence in
candidates with capacities to draw on competencies to perform realistic tasks “to a
defined standard, with reference to real working environments” (IFAC, 2010:19). The
swing also reflects IFAC’s requirement that its member bodies develop teaching and
assessment methods that are effective in developing and testing required competencies.

JH Hesketh 5
Third, while the new competency framework might not look significantly different from
previous syllabuses, the critical difference will become apparent when new-style
specimen questions and examinations are made public as guidelines for new approaches
to teaching, learning and assessment. It is not yet possible to provide a detailed analysis
of the changes since the development of specimens is currently work-in-progress but
from 2013 (for Part 1) the assessment questions and the shape of the examinations will
reflect the guidelines in terms of what is to be assessed and how it will be assessed
(SAICA workgroups, 2011). Beyond demonstrating appropriate application of
knowledge in questions that involve integration across and within competency areas, for
example, candidates will be rewarded for demonstrating specific professional skills. All
competencies are considered assessable in one form or another at some stage in the
education and training programme but the new focus for accounting academics is
clearly on developing and assessing those professional skills that are demonstrable in
examination forums.
A fourth change from past syllabuses is Dewey’s philosophical approach to education
that explicitly underpins the competency framework and which has also informed the
IDL approach. By grounding theory in practice, the Deweyan approach leads to students
learning to “think like business people” by requiring them to demonstrate “both
technical expertise and an understanding of the significance of the solutions arrived at”
and understandings of the “implications of new knowledge in relation to current
contexts” (SAICA, 2010a:8-9). It points to a shift in educational understanding that
recognises the need to move from traditional, teacher-centred, knowledge transmission
approaches and associated knowledge-based assessment (Hesketh, 2003) to approaches
like IDL. A principle-based curriculum, for example, emphasises conceptual principles
which can be applied in the future, as opposed to learning rules or training students
according to past experience.
Principle-based learning, like IDL, enables and requires students to develop a
conceptual basis for analysis; application of theoretical knowledge; exercising of
judgement; and understanding of the kind of information needed to reach a decision, the
implications of the decision and why an approach or calculation is appropriate, rather
than simply how it is conducted (Barth, 2008, 2011; Clinebell and Clinebell, 2008;
Watson, 2010). Hence the focus on principles or conceptual frameworks or theoretical
understandings, results in students being able to develop “their own approaches based
on their understanding of (the) principles” (Watson 2010:3), appropriate responses to
unknown future problems (Clinebell and Clinebell, 2008), and “knowledge that is more
enduring” (Watson, 2010:2).
Hence principle-based curricula are closely aligned with both IDL and SAICA’s
(2010a) requirements and their underpinning Deweyan interest in discovery-learning,
contextualising knowledge, developing the intellectual attitudes and approaches of
lifelong learners (Hesketh, 2003) and combining relevance to business practice with
academic rigour Clinebell and Clinebell (2008). Similarly aligned is the the ‘Part 2’
examination’s new focus on “strategic and managerial aspects of the accounting
disciplines” (SAICA, 2010b) rather than on technical competence alone. This further
highlights SAICA’s (2010a) shift in thinking and the importance of requiring students
to understand conceptual principles.
The four key change areas confirm Olivier and Kleinhans’ (2008) argument that new
teaching and learning approaches are needed but that nothing significant in the content

requires changing. The significance of the pervasive skills (SAICA, 2010a) lies in their
explicit link to new assessment approaches that will influence teaching, learning and
assessment practices in universities.
SAICA is not alone, however, in finding mismatches between competencies required
and competencies demonstrated in its candidates and it is important for South African
accounting academics to recognise the new demands in the context of those facing
IFAC and other accounting bodies. The Canadian Board of Evaluators, for example,
have reported very similar problems in their candidates (Chartered Accountants of
Canada, 2007). Professional bodies relating to law and medicine are also seeking to
address competencies found lacking in their graduates and academics in these
disciplines have indeed made considerable progress in developing curricula accordingly
along with supportive structural and policy changes (Irby, 2000; Johnstone and
Vignaendra, 2003; Kirkland, 2000).
Graduate attributes required by employers
Employer demands for graduates with attributes similar to professional competencies
identified by SAICA confirm the relevance of SAICA’s requirements for both CA(SA)
candidates and graduates from practitioner programmes ’s in accounting fields.
Mismatches, similar to those above, between graduate attributes achieved and those
sought by commerce, industry and society are evident in countries as varied as the
United States of America, the United Kingdom (UK), Australia and South Africa
(Fenton O’Creevy, Knight and Margolis, 2006; Griesel and Parker, 2009; Hilton 2008;
Louw, 2008; Naudé, 2008; Skinner, 2005; Wessels and Steenkamp, 2009). Griesel and
Parker, (2009:9) draw on Yorke to explain the notion of graduate attributes in terms of
‘employability’ which goes beyond demonstrating key skills. ‘Employability’ refers
also to capacities e.g. to apply a “mix of personal qualities and beliefs, understandings,
skilful practices and the ability to reflect productively on experience… in situations of
complexity and ambiguity”.
Again, as in the case of SAICA’s requirements, ideas on what is needed in our
graduates are not new and have been expressed widely over many years. What is
relatively new is a shift in focus to the notion of employability and to the kind of
teaching, learning and assessment required to develop it in students (D’Andrea,
Gosling, Scott and Tyeku, 2002; Griesel and Parker, 2009; Scott, Yeld and Hendry,
2007). Specifically, Griesel and Parker (2009: 24) argue for IDL-aligned approaches
that can result in “intellectually well-grounded individuals who are flexible and can
readily adapt to new demands and challenges”, linking these competencies to lifelong
learning and capacities to work effectively in rapidly changing environments.
Griesel and Parker (2009) echoed misalignments elsewhere when they found even
reading and writing skills to be lacking, with obvious implications for learning.
Inadequate knowledge and intellectual ability also has been found across disciplines.
The authors noted an inability in graduates to learn meaningfully and little evidence of
lifelong learning with the greatest gap being abilities to “choose appropriate information
to address problems” and to “plan and execute tasks independently”. There were
significant inadequacies in communication, in summarising key issues, in relating their
knowledge to the world of work and in demonstrating skills and understanding in the

JH Hesketh 7
work context. Hence the authors identified problem areas also targeted by SAICA
(2010a) that called for new, IDL-aligned approaches to teaching and learning.
South Africa is not facing this challenge alone hence the problem cannot be blamed
simplistically on factors like student under-preparedness or poor work ethic. American
business school graduates have also been criticised for lacking skills and attributes
required in business (Hilton, 2008), lacking creativity in applying content knowledge
and in capacities to apply critical analytical skills needed to cut to the essence of a
problem (Rubin and Dierdorff, 2008). This concern was widely shared as was the
inability to demonstrate global perspectives, ethical behaviour, systemic thinking and
‘soft’ skills that include team-building, communications and interpersonal skills,
negotiation and leadership, (Atwater, Kannan and Stephens, 2008; Beenen and Pinto,
2009; Birkinshaw, 2009; Navarro, 2008; Shareef, 2007; Zhu, 2009) again in line with
SAICA’s requirements and call for new kinds of learning opportunities.
Authors internationally argue similar points around curriculum shortcomings in terms
of requiring and enabling students to develop the desired graduate attributes, thereby
supporting the competency framework requirements and philosophy (SAICA, 2010a)
and the argument that IDL provides a means of addressing current educational
challenges (Atwater et al., 2008; Beenen and Pinto, 2009; Birkinshaw, 2009; Boud and
Feletti, 1998; Giacalone and Thompson, 2006; Grey, 2004; Hesketh, 2003; Jacobs,
2007; Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Learmonth, 2007; Liang and Wang, 2004; Naudé, 2008;
Oberholzer, 2007; Reynolds, 1999; Reynolds and Vince, 2004; Samuelson, 2006;
Shareef, 2007; Zhu, 2009; Wessels and Steenkamp, 2009). Echoing the arguments
above of Watson (2010) and Barth, 2008, 2011) the authors show particular concern
that students should develop proper understanding of business principles in order to
make good, conscious choices about why an action is taken and whether it suits specific
circumstances.
Graduates who have been required, for instance, to consider why certain accounting
practices are appropriate rather than learning only how to apply them are more likely to
make personal sense of their learning, adjusting their understanding accordingly and
relating it to their values. The above authors also argue that graduates with enquiring
minds and analytical skills are more likely to develop systemic understandings required
in business; awareness both of seemingly harmless mechanisms that allow
organisational corruption to take place and of their own value systems; and to
demonstrate willingness to change a mind-set. These are clearly important attributes in
an environment of accounting failures like Enron in the USA, Shell in the Netherlands
and UK, and Parmalat in Italy.
The thinking captured in this sub-section offers wide support for, and therefore adds
credence and weight to, the new competency framework’s requirements and its call for
approaches to teaching and learning that result in “the creation, analysis, evaluation and
synthesis of information and ideas; problem-solving and decision-making skills;
communication ... vital to the professional success of CAs” (SAICA, 2010a:25) and the
relevance of IDL as a means of addressing graduate shortcomings. The arguments also
underpin the DoE’s policies discussed below adding coherence to the multiple
challenges facing accounting academics.

DoE requirements
As was the case with SAICA’s development of the competency framework, recent DoE
policies and frameworks (DoE, 2004; 2007) did not so much represent new ideas for
higher education as new strategies to ensure their implementation and this sub-section
argues that IDL provides a means of meeting the DoE requirements.
It is not a new idea for instance that postgraduate students should conduct research, but
it is now a formal requirement; decent pass rates have always been sought and generally
linked to funding but are now linked to funding in new ways; research outputs have
always been expected from academic staff and these too are now more strongly
enforced; good teaching, learning and assessment practices have always been discussed
but there is now more recognition of their direct relationship with student retention and
pass rates if ‘standards’ are to be maintained or raised.
The new policies and frameworks (DoE, 2004; 2007) were intended to assure quality
and consistency and to increase scholarly activity generally and the challenges
associated with their implementation are currently being felt. Accounting schools which
had not yet done so were required to incorporate a research component in Accounting
Honours or the Certificate in the Theory of Accountancy (CTA). In addition, funding
formulae were linked to both the publishing of academic research and to student
throughput rates (DoE 2004), the latter reflecting the educational thinking and goals set
out in the 1997 White Paper (DoE, 1997:13-14). Some of the goals were: “to improve
the quality of teaching and learning throughout the system...” and “to produce graduates
with the skills and competencies that build the foundations for lifelong learning,
including, critical, analytical, problem-solving and communication skills, as well as the
ability to deal with change ...”.
Hence the DoE linked throughput rates to new approaches to teaching and learning and
the educational goals were not new but were conceived in terms of critical outcomes
(DoE, 1998) that demonstrate some important synergies with competencies required by
SAICA (2010a) and other stakeholders and indicate the suitability of IDL as a means of
meeting those learning outcomes. Difficulties in achieving educational goals and critical
outcomes have led to more recent legislation.
Through the Higher Education Qualifications Framework and Higher Education Act
101 of 1997, the DoE (2007:25), has called for bachelor honours degrees to
“consolidate and deepen the student’s expertise” in each discipline and to “develop
research capacity in the methodology and techniques of (the) discipline” and “a high
level of theoretical engagement and intellectual independence” and thereby lifelong
learning approaches. These requirements demonstrate direct synergies with those of the
stakeholders discussed above and similarly indicate the usefulness of IDL in developing
in students the required capacities. The renewed emphasis on research components at
honours level has implications for some accounting schools in terms of course
nomenclature but also in terms of the intellectual capacities required in research that
need to be developed incrementally from the start. Research involves identifying
information that is relevant to arguments and problematising knowledge in relation to
reality. The research process involves professional skills required in the workplace,
specified as: “gathers...analyses...evaluates information and ideas...verifies and validates
information...integrates ideas and information from various sources...draws

JH Hesketh 9
conclusions/forms opinions...” (SAICA, 2010a:25-27) and linked to lifelong learning,
demonstrating again the synergies amongst stakeholder demands and with IDL.
Linking state funding to student retention rates (DoE, 2004) which might on its own
threaten standards, also adds to incentives to academic departments to develop curricula
and teaching approaches like IDL that promotes effective learning, with the kind of
meaning-making that results in full understanding of the subject matter and hence
capacities to apply knowledge and recognise the implications of applying it one way or
another, or choosing one treatment over another in reality. There are thus clear
synergies amongst the DoE, the Accounting profession and employers in terms of the
kind of graduate competencies and attributes sought and the recognition that new ways
of teaching and learning are required.
Synergy can also be found between the need for new teaching approaches with the
DoE’s drive for research, linking funding allocations to academics’ research output
(DoE, 2004). However, most accounting schools worldwide have traditionally focused
more on developing aspirant accountants than on their own research. Hence the
requirement for scholarly activity, which is generally associated with research published
in suitably rated journals, offers serious challenges to accounting academics concerned
with issues of tenure and promotion. Clearly discipline-related research is an ideal in
terms of research feeding back into theoretical understandings and thereby enriching
teaching practices. However, additional research prospects lie in opportunities to
combine teaching and research interests by researching the effective educational
implementation of technical aspects of a course or by developing teaching practices
based on explicit educational theory and reflecting critically on them as practitioner-
researchers (Hesketh, 2003; Jarvis, 1999, 2004), with or without collaboration with
educational specialists. (Recommendations are given below for policy changes in
universities to encourage practitioner-research of this nature).
A Council for Higher Education (CHE) paper (Scott et al., 2007) supports this strategy.
The authors identified the need for developing new kinds of “teaching expertise...based
on systematic knowledge of teaching and learning processes in higher education
acquired through literature, reflection and research” (Scott et al., 2007:61). They found
that academics relied largely on their ‘craft knowledge’ of education, some more
successfully than others, for developing their courses, when the ‘craft knowledge’ was
associated with “excellence in the discipline, and personal charisma” and indeed
‘excellence in teaching’ awards, rather than the kind of ‘teaching expertise’ defined
above (Scott et al., 2007:61). The ‘craft knowledge’ with its common-sense approach to
teaching and assessment has been found inadequate in directing academics towards rich
alternatives for addressing the challenges facing higher education. Theoretical or
systematic educational understandings could have informed, for example, the
development of teaching and assessment practices that specifically required and enabled
students to learn in ways that led to mastery of the knowledge and competencies
required of them. What was needed was academics’ recognition that new kinds of
learning and therefore new kinds of teaching and assessment were needed in order to
meet the required learning outcomes of current stakeholders.
The notion of accounting educators considering and developing their curricula and
specifically their teaching and assessment approaches in light of appropriate educational
theory brings a rich opportunity for collaborative trans-disciplinary work between
discipline specialists and higher education specialists. Given appropriate incentives and

rewards, accounting academics could thereby gain access to educational theoretical
frameworks like ELT or IDL in which to locate their practices and from which to reflect
critically on them and undertake practitioner-research. Teaching and learning principles
could then be used to guide curriculum development processes, allowing academics to
implement optimal approaches as best they could in less than optimal circumstances
(like large classes, staff shortages and unsuitable teaching venues). At the same time the
reflective processes would allow discipline specialists to use their practices to push the
boundaries of educational theory (Hesketh, 2003) in relation to their contexts. New
interests in curriculum and learning theory would hence expand research opportunities
to incorporate trans-disciplinary collaborative work and help academics to implement
curricula based on educational theories.
Hence approaches like IDL could provide a means of meeting DoE demands, namely
developing research skills in students, giving academics an additional research
opportunity and thereby the possibility of increased research output, and improving
student retention.
ELT AND IDL: A THEORETICAL RESPONSE TO STAKEHOLDER
REQUIREMENTS
This section argues that ELT provides a suitable broad theoretical framework for
addressing the stakeholder requirements discussed above and accommodates a variety
of approaches, including IDL. It is intended that by making explicit the principles
underpinning ELT readers will consider ELT in relation to their own practices and
contexts and make decisions about its suitability to their purposes and the applicability
of IDL as an example of ELT.
Drawing on the work of Barth (2011), Hesketh (2003), Scott et al. (2007), van Esche
(1998) and Watson (2010) it is strongly indicated that ‘traditional’ teaching practices in
accounting schools have been widely based on the assumption that content-driven or
knowledge-based syllabuses make sense whereas they are now to be competency-based
(IFAC, 2010; SAICA, 2010a). At the same time teaching approaches have been
informed generally and implicitly by the theory that teacher-centred education is an
effective means of enabling learning, knowledge is effectively transmitted through
lectures, and concepts and facts ‘covered’ in the lecture can be considered learned and
understood. Rote learning has often resulted from this approach with more emphasis on
the ‘how’ than the ‘why’ and on the whole academics have taken little responsibility for
enabling students to develop the depth of understanding and competencies now
explicitly identified as stakeholder requirements. At the same time the literature of the
previous section has shown that the ‘traditional’ approach has proved unsuccessful in
terms of developing the required understandings, competencies and the kind of attitudes
and approaches to learning associated with lifelong learners.
ELT provides a broad framework for educational theories and approaches that require
students to come to grips with and make personal sense of knowledge, thereby
enhancing knowledge retention and active participation in learning processes. Set tasks
require students to grapple with issues emerging from realistic scenarios or case studies
to reach decisions or form justified opinions, usually in small-group learning contexts
within tutorials of preferably not more than 30 students. ELT aims to enable students
inter alia to: understand the underlying principles of what they are learning and thereby
to develop full understanding; apply knowledge to different situations; identify

JH Hesketh 11
knowledge relevant to a situation; know why a certain treatment or calculation is
appropriate as well as how it is conducted. ELT hence provides a suitable theoretical
framework for curricula that require learners to develop the competencies identified
above.
ELT accommodates approaches and theories like adult, lifelong, student-centred,
discovery, problem-based, case-based and issues-driven learning. Central to the theory
are questions about ‘exactly how people learn what they learn through experience and
from experience’ (Gregory, 2002:94) and how to promote criticality, meaningful
understanding that impacts on the way people see the world, consciousness-raising and
personal development.
Jarvis (2004:104) drawing on Miller and Boud (1996) defines experiential learning as
“the process by which individuals, as whole persons, are consciously aware of a
situation and make sense, or try to make sense of what they perceive, and then seek to
transform it and integrate the outcomes into their own biography”.
In other words experience is the basis and catalyst for learning where learners are
confronted with real or realistic complex scenarios or case studies including, for
instance, a real or simulated stock-count or genuine documentation that can help in
making the transition from student to trainee, and give a degree of ‘experience’ on
which students can draw in making sense of new knowledge. The scenarios present
students with experiences to which they cannot respond automatically but which they
can transform into “knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, emotions, beliefs and senses”
(Jarvis, Holford and Griffin, 1998:46). The situations are always accessible yet
challenging to students and preferably involve both reason and emotion as the two in
combination enhance learning, meaning-making and memory. ELT recognises that
when learning starts with experience students are intrinsically motivated and when tasks
require active reflection on new knowledge in relation to experience, the learning is real
(Dewey, 1916, 1938; Kolb, 1984; Kolb and Kolb, 2005).
Given the stakeholder requirements discussed above, ELT thus offers a highly suitable
theoretical framework for developing teaching, learning and assessment practices that
can address the stakeholder requirements.
IDL: A development from ELT
This sub-section explains why IDL was developed from the broad ELT framework as
an appropriate vehicle for meeting stakeholder requirements. Principles underpinning
the approach are made explicit so that readers can judge for themselves the principles’
applicability to their purpose, practice and context. It also invites readers to consider
whether or how they might implement IDL differently from ways discussed below.
Hence the focus here is on how IDL, as an example of and development from ELT is
suited to meeting stakeholder requirements while the next section demonstrates how
IDL can be applied for this purpose. The process of developing IDL-based practices has
involved and continues to involve ongoing critical reflection on practice in relation to
learning theory and iterative course improvement (Goodier, 2005; Hesketh, 2003).
Hence theory influences practice but at the same time practice informs theory in the
process of iteratively improving an approach to teaching, learning and assessment in

light of stakeholder requirements. In this way the IDL concept has been developed
within the framework of ELT in response to the need to find a more critical framework
for implementing ELT principles than is generally demonstrated in the literature, most
often round problem-based learning (Hesketh, 2003).
IDL is distinct from both issues-based learning and problem-based learning, as widely
interpreted (Hesketh, 2003), in that it is neither directed towards pre-conceived
solutions nor set within a particular set of issues or assumptions. Instead IDL involves
a number of inter-related and mutually reinforcing educational methods which
distinguish it from widespread practice and which promote required professional skills
like “examin(ing) and interpret(ing) information and ideas critically (SAICA, 2008:22-
23). Dictionary definitions of ‘issue’ include: ‘the point in question’ and ‘an important
topic of discussion’. IDL centrally involves both of these understandings. There is a
primary focus on grasping an issue as ‘the point in question’ or principal concept(s)
underlying any topic being studied and, through the sense-making process, developing
full understanding of the principle and how and why it is applied. There is also a focus
on contextualizing business knowledge in the ‘issues of the day’.
IDL has been applied through lectures, tutorials and assessment practices and resulted
in students engaging meaningfully with ideas and text, thinking independently and
engaging in thoughtful discussion around issues (Goodier, 2005; Goodier and
Parkinson, 2005; Hesketh, 2003; Skinner, 2009). The approach has been found effective
in enabling students from a range of backgrounds to achieve good marks and pass rates
at various levels and to develop competencies and attributes sought by accounting
education stakeholders. It has been argued before that much of what has been learned is
transferrable to other contexts with core similarities (Hesketh, 2004) and doctoral
findings (Hesketh, 2003) have indeed been confirmed, strengthened and expanded
through ongoing research and experience around IDL-based projects (Goodier, 2005;
Skinner, 2009).
The critical interest and the resultant development of the IDL approach echoes Drinan’s
(1998) argument that progressive educators implementing ELT principles are not
necessarily interpreting the approach fully nor achieving its full potential. Drinan argues
(1998:333) that academics who are applying experience-based learning principles are
generally aiming to
“creat(e) active interdependent and independent learners; holistic, divergent, creative
thinkers; people who can solve problems or improve situations; better communicators;
people who are able to entice the best from others; people who are aware of their own
talents and who are confident in using them”.
However Drinan also maintains that this is not being widely achieved. His argument
resonates with the aims of IDL, and the competencies SAICA (2010a)4
, the DoE (1997,
4
For instance, SAICA identifies the need for problem-solvers and decision-makers who seek “to
understand, identify and analyse the nature and context of a problem or issue, and to understand the
factors contributing to the problem, before drawing conclusions or considering potential solutions or
courses of action”; and a person who “considers and combines ideas and information from a variety of
sources to create a design, formulate a plan, arrive at a solution..., obtain a broader understanding of an
issue...” (SAICA, 2010a:27); collaboratively develops potential solutions to address root causes of
problems... “exercises professional judgement by selecting or recommending a course of action or by
providing advice that is likely to contribute the most to achieving the stated goals...analyses and

JH Hesketh 13
1998, 2007) and other stakeholders seek, when he maintains that educators need to
embrace ‘higher purposes’. These include “generating the desire and ability to think
deeply and holistically” and encouraging a search beyond one’s own preconceptions, so
becoming ultimately innovative and positively critical with respect to self and one’s
profession and society” (Drinan, 1998:334-335).
IDL is highly suited to SAICA and other stakeholders’ requirements. It works precisely
as SAICA’s (2010) competency framework requires accounting education to work. It
works from within existing syllabuses but involves an increased emphasis on
contextualization, the interrelatedness of knowledge areas and the origins, underpinning
principles and implications of practice, thereby promoting knowledge elaboration
(Coles, 1998). The development of these competencies occurs in the context of course
content and hence enhances the mastery of that knowledge. IDL is well suited to
learning accounting because of its essentially context-bound nature, with underpinning
theory easily grounded in current business practice and links easily made to business
issues-of-the-day. Students at any level have some personal experience of business, and
by linking new knowledge to prior experience and to current issues (and by setting tasks
that require students to familiarise themselves with current issues) the knowledge
becomes more accessible and more interesting than if it were de-contextualised.
By locating a new topic within the context in which it is applied, and requiring students
to reach a decision about a related issue, students can grasp the topic’s significance and
its broader implications, and hence understand it fully. At the same time students
develop the higher order technical competencies needed to reach and defend their
decision. Thus, by requiring both technical expertise and understanding of the
significance of their decisions in assessment tasks, students are introduced from the start
to business discourses, the way business people think and competencies required by
SAICA and other stakeholders.
The IDL approach is also suited for curricula from first-year undergraduate to post-
graduate levels of study though clearly the depth and range of conceptual knowledge on
which the issues draw differs according to the level. At the start of their studies, for
instance, the issues require students to make links to practical knowledge of business
and its environment whereas more senior students might be challenged by issues
specifically relevant to auditing principles and practices. At whatever level, the issue is
selected for its capacity to “live fruitfully and creatively in subsequent experiences”
(Kolb and Kolb, 2005, quoting Dewey 1938:28) and to catalyse interest, independent
thought, debate and ongoing reflection.
Issues are contextualised within realistic, topical scenarios which are relevant both to
students’ experience and their academic learning. The issues hence provide meaningful,
‘authentic’ (Jarvis, 1992; 2004) learning experiences, as close to primary experiences as
possible (Jarvis, 2004), given the limitations of secondary experience which is further
removed and requires mediation. Challenging, interesting tasks then provide
disjunctures (Jarvis, 2004) or what Mezirow called ‘disorientating dilemmas’ (Jarvis et
al., 1998) that make students stop and think before they can make sense of new
concepts in relation to past experience or other knowledge areas. Being required to
synthesises the comments of all parties to develop a complete and insightful understanding of the issues
at hand” (SAICA, 2010a:28); “negotiates and reconciles differing views to find acceptable
compromises leading to agreement” (SAICA, 2010a:29).

interrogate, integrate and internalise knowledge thus enables students to understand the
underlying principles and to help them, first, to see what they still need to know and,
second, to ask questions that will help fill those gaps in a quest for full understanding.
Organising learning around issues hence incorporates Vygotsky’s notion (Jarvis 2004;
Moll, 1990) of working within students’ ‘zone of proximal development’ to challenge
them, with support, to reach beyond what can be learned effortlessly to achieve the
desired level of knowledge and understanding. Support or ‘scaffolding’ includes a
supportive learning environment; well-designed, incrementally challenging tasks;
appropriate resources like interesting, relevant and informative readings; and formative
assessment through which students’ levels of understandings and competencies, or lack
thereof, are demonstrated and addressed where necessary throughout the educational
process. Formative assessment has been found to support rapid development in students
from a range of backgrounds and at different levels, including first year students for
whom English is an additional language and those whose poor schooling left them
under-prepared (Goodier, 2005; Hesketh, 2003).
Assessment strategies associated with IDL are also highly suited to ensuring students
develop the required competencies. The ongoing critique and development of IDL
assessment practices demonstrates its crucial place in the curriculum. The way in which
students are assessed makes explicit what knowledge and competencies are valued in
the various courses, the discipline and the profession. In this way assessment drives
how and what students learn and the depth of understanding they strive to gain.
Appropriate learning is rewarded through ongoing feedback from the start of each
course.
If, for instance, assessment is couched in terms of students advising a client, even at a
basic level, students will develop the technical knowledge and competencies needed to
support their advice. Students are therefore faced with realistic, complex dilemmas and
tasks in homework and tutorial questions, tests and examinations that require them, for
example, to prioritise risk management over reward or social responsibility over
shareholder satisfaction; or to advise ‘clients’ on appropriate accounting treatment. In
order to argue soundly and to debate the issues in the process of reaching a decision,
students need to understand fully the technical knowledge i.e. the principles behind it,
and its significance and implications in reality. Hence IDL assessment requires students
to acquire the competencies in a grounded and meaningful way as required by SAICA
(2010a). It also holds promise for improving student retention rates and promoting
attitudes and approaches associated with research and lifelong learning.
IDL: how it can be applied to meet stakeholder requirements
Having established its suitability theoretically for the purpose of meeting stakeholder
requirements this sub-section demonstrates how IDL can be applied to meet the
challenges posed by SAICA’s competency framework, the DoE and other stakeholders,
providing a means of:
 enabling students to develop the knowledge, skills and qualities that have generally
been found lacking;
 developing research skills in undergraduate students to enhance learning and to
equip them for honours research projects;

JH Hesketh 15
 providing learning opportunities for underprepared students that would improve
pass rates;
 offering additional research opportunities for accounting academics who are
interested in developing research-led teaching practices suited to stakeholder
demands.
Because there are logistical obstacles to implementing IDL, recommendations are then
made for changes in university policies, cultures and structures that are obstructive to
IDL’s implementation and hence to meeting stakeholder requirements.
The IDL model (Figure 1) below, developed from earlier models (Hesketh, 2003; In
Press) illustrates how IDL enables students to develop the required competencies and
attributes through three mutually supportive aims: academic, intellectual and personal
growth. Each growth strand is considered separately, somewhat artificially, for purposes
of clarifying the links to IDL principles, making explicit how each aspect of the
approach can be implemented in practice.
Academic growth
Aligned to the aim to promote knowledge and competence associated with academic
growth is the DoE (1997; 2004; 2007) demand for helping students make the transition
from reproductive learning and to become lifelong learners, improved pass rates and
research skills. There are also direct links to stakeholder interests in skills like effective
communication, self-directedness, time-management, logical organisation of tasks,
meta-cognition, argument-building, problem-solving, knowledge gathering and
application (SAICA, 2010a: 24-28).
The academic focus involves teaching, learning and assessment techniques that help and
require students to develop the knowledge and competencies needed at their stage of
study. Clearly, the sooner curricula require and offer opportunities to develop
appropriate approaches to knowledge and learning, the sooner students can start
developing them. Hence students challenged with small research tasks from the start of
undergraduate studies will meet the DoE’s honours research requirement relatively
seamlessly. In order to develop academic competencies IDL selects issues and designs
learning processes, tasks and assessment strategies that require and enable students to
build arguments, solve problems, apply knowledge, draw abstractions and make
generalisations to other situations, as reflected in Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle.
Self-reflective processes, through e-journals for example, require students to consider
shortcomings in their learning styles and knowledge bases so that they can remedy the
situation, thereby developing meta-cognitive capacities. The e-journals involve students
in regular email dialogues with their tutors, where writing exercises include
commenting critically on lecture material; current news events; and their own academic
progress.

Figure 1: How issues-driven learning has enabled students to develop required
knowledge, competencies and attributes
PROBLEM-POSING CATALYST
Demanding but Scaffolded Tasks
Social, Environmental & Ethical Issues
Learning Community
Learner-Centred Environment
ISSUES-DRIVEN LEARNING
Real or Realistic Complex Issues
Relevant to New Conceptual Knowledge – Related to Practical Prior Knowledge
INTELLECTUAL ATTITUDE TO KNOWLEDGE & LEARNING
Meaningful Understandings
Independent Thought, Problem-posing, Owning Knowledge
Knowledge elaboration
Critical awareness
Implications for environmental
& social responsibility
Autonomous thought
Defending viewpoints
Constructing knowledge
Sense-making
Problem-posing
Uncertainty of knowledge
ACADEMIC GROWTH PERSONAL GROWTH
INTELLECTUAL
GROWTH
Self-directedness
Knowledge application
Metacognition
Knowledge, Skills, Approaches,
Problem-solving,
Argument-building
Group work
Assertiveness
Self-concept
Risk-taking
Meaning-negotiation
Emotional intelligence
CRITICALLY REFLECTIVE
LIFELONG LEARNER
EFFECTIVE DECISION-MAKER
‘HIGHER SKILLS’
CRITICALITY
WITH MORALITY
KNOWLEDGE &
COMPETENCE
PERSONAL
CONFIDENCE

JH Hesketh 17
Tutors’ responses probe for further understanding, clarification, and more careful
expression and defence of opinions. In this way e-journals provide a safe environment
for students to immerse themselves in the discourse of the discipline, practising relevant
writing skills while exploring issues and making personal sense of new knowledge.
Where the time-consuming nature of the exercise becomes an issue ‘journal buddies’
selected from more senior students are trained to encourage their protegés’ academic
development, with normal moderation procedures implemented. An on-line learning
system is also used to promote reflection and written communication amongst peers
through structured tasks with tutors overseeing these activities (Goodier, 2005).
Tasks in IDL, on-line or not, also require students to be self-directed, to develop
collaborative and co-operative skills through group work, and to practise presenting and
documenting information effectively in written and graphic form as required by SAICA
(2010a) and the DoE (1997).
Academic reading, writing and English language skills are a particular focus in first
year in terms of introducing students to the wider discourses of management studies,
since appropriate use of language is best learned in the context of course material where
“the content is intimately bound up with how to read write and speak about a discipline”
(Goodier and Parkinson, 2005:66). Students generally, and underprepared students
particularly, can be overwhelmed by academic reading demands and writing tasks like
summarising, analysis, synthesis and report-writing (Hesketh, 2003). However, students
can learn surprisingly quickly and well from regular, short, authentic writing exercises
resembling the “real activities that members of the discourse community engage in”
(Goodier and Parkinson, 2005:67). Examples include writing short analyses or
summaries of scenarios in preparation for discussion, or writing about how learning
relates to current news events in e-journals.
Consistent formative assessment gives regular feedback on academic progress. Central
to this process are regular, short ‘concept tests’ that test understanding of “important
main concepts, to synthesise these concisely and to relate them to existing knowledge”
making explicit the kind of conceptual understandings required and motivating in
students serious attempts to make sense of what they are learning, in relation to the big
picture (Goodier, 2005:8). Assessment of writing tasks involves focus on content,
argument structure, use of language and referencing with capacities to assess
formatively clearly dependent on tutor quality and commitment. There are therefore
implications for tutor recruitment, development and monitoring, ongoing tutorial
development processes, and of course the funding needed to ensure that there are
sufficient tutors who are properly paid for their important role in learning and
assessment processes. Where large classes appear prohibitive to formative assessment,
ways need to be found to assess in ways that drive effective learning. For example,
marks might be awarded for all or part of students’ work and students need not know
when their work will be selected for assessment or when they are called on to present
their solutions orally.
Small-group learning in tutorials, and sometimes in lectures, is organised around
carefully designed tasks, to promote the gathering and development of information and
ideas, analysis of situations in order to makes sense of them and to reach solutions or
identify appropriate treatments through collaborative teamwork. The outcome is then
presented orally to the class, defended and debated. Hence students develop required

competencies and acquire knowledge through meaning-making processes that mark
effective students, from their first year.
Clearly the extent to which students develop in these directions varies considerably but
it is interesting to see how rapidly students adapt their approaches and develop their
knowledge and skills in ways that are rewarded through assessment practices (Goodier
and Parkinson, 2005; Hesketh, 2003).
An IDL-based course has been offered to first-year Bachelor of Commerce students
from a range of socio-economic backgrounds and schooling at a South African
university over the past 14 years. The course has been developed in response to ongoing
evaluation and regular student course evaluations (Goodier, 2005; Hesketh, 2003) have
contributed to the evaluative process. Student responses have been consistently very
positive overall and the following comments are representative of the majority of
students’ opinions relevant to IDL’s academic growth strand (Goodier, 2005; Hesketh,
2003):
 It gave me a chance to put my skills into practice and see how they fit in a real
world situation.
 Develops fluency in communication.
 I learned self-discipline.
 I became independent.
 I wasn’t aware of my circular arguments but now I am thanks to the weekly analysis
tests.
 Forces me to write concise and structured pieces.
 I’ve learnt to form my own opinions on issues and argue my point, rather than
sitting back and being quiet.
 Has improved my writing skills as most of the course involves rigorous writing.
 ...[it] requires a vast quantity of talking and thinking on your feet. This is good as it
prepares you for the real world.
 [The tasks were] very good exercises. Made me think critically, argue certain points
in my head. Mini papers – helped analyse the faults that were made during the
tests...
 [The research project] seemed difficult at the beginning but was manageable.
 [E-journals] were time-consuming and always took me longer than the allocated
time, but they helped me greatly in ensuring I was up to speed with current news.
 [The tutorials represented] great debates. Discussions, learning!!!

JH Hesketh 19
 [Developing a business proposal was] very good for a future business person; was
challenging but fun at the same time. It should never be taken out of the course.
 ...[it]was an interesting, fun and informative course that has taught me skills that
will last me a lifetime.
Hence students have experienced IDL as a means of developing ‘academic’ skills
closely aligned to professional skills and personal attributes set out in the competency
framework (SAICA, 2010a: 25-29).
Personal growth
The focus on personal growth reflects DoE requirements for helping students make the
transition from poor schooling and socio-economic environments (DoE, 1997) and
related lack of self-confidence, and hence improving pass rates (DoE, 2004). It is also
aligned with SAICA’s requirement that a person “treats others respectfully, courteously
and equitably; shows empathy by understanding why others have a particular
perspective on an issue; resolves conflict and differences of opinion by focusing on
issues, not personalities”; and “defers to others when more experience or greater
expertise” is needed (SAICA, 2010a:23).
Underpinning IDL is a learner-centred environment with a ‘whole-person’ learning
approach and relatively democratic teaching styles (Griffin, 2002; Hesketh, 2003;
Jarvis, 2004). This kind of teaching draws on students’ past experiences, values their
perspectives on issues and promotes respect for different viewpoints, while requiring
logical argument. Students’ perspectives are contributed through interactive, knowledge
constructing, collaborative processes organised around issues that need to be resolved or
decisions on specific situations reached. These small-group learning experiences
involve developing competencies like “seek(ing) and shar(ing) information, facts and
opinions through written and oral discussion” (SAICA, 2010a:25) since students often
need to work together to negotiate meaning and make sense of a scenario before they
can complete tasks. The learning process requires students to accommodate diverse
perspectives, to experience compromise and to understand something of the
responsibility of a decision-maker whose solutions can affect real lives. Hence the tasks
provide opportunities for students to develop emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1996) in
the form of self-worth, emotional well-being, assertiveness, self-awareness and other-
centredness, attributes required by employers and SAICA, as noted above.
Competencies like these are developed in an environment of trust and mutual respect
associated with a functional learning community. Students feel ‘safe’ enough to
brainstorm freely and to take risks in exploring their own and their peers’ thinking, in
relation to prior understandings, values, beliefs and new knowledge. Unsettling as it is
initially for students to engage in this kind of learning and to experience knowledge as
uncertain and contestable, it is personally empowering for them to see the relevance of
their own experience and the value of their views, marking an important milestone in
their learning biographies. (Hesketh, 2003).
Ways have to be found to engage shy or less participative students in the sense-making
processes. One way is to ensure all group members have specific responsibilities, and
know that they may be called on to present their group’s solution to the rest of the class.

(Creative assessment strategies like spot checks or peer assessment can be used to hold
students accountable to their tasks).
In student evaluations of the first-year IDL-based course mentioned above, comments
relating to personal growth and the learner-centred environment representative of the
majority of students’ opinions (Goodier, 2005; Hesketh, 2003) include:
 It helped me deal with the culture shock and to settle into university life.
 With our different backgrounds and ideas we knew different things and helped each
other.
 I think we are an unbeatable family.
 My classmates were like reference books.
 Your spirit as a researcher and learner is raised.
 The course enabled one to speak in small groups as we used to make presentation in
our tutorial groups. I wasn’t able to do such a thing before.
 The fact that the class discussions are informal made me feel comfortable enough to
voice my opinions.
 ...at first I was classifying my ideas as inferior but because of the great need to
contribute, I got myself used to collaborating and co-operating with others.
 ...I can now collaborate with people of a different race without fear of being
discriminated [against]. This has boosted my confidence.
 Before I used to take things at face value and look at issues from my own
perspective, but now I’ve learned to look at all sides....
Students’ voices thus indicate that IDL implemented even at first-year level helped
them develop skills, personal attributes and life-long learning attitudes required by
stakeholders including those set out by SAICA (2010a: 22-24).
Intellectual growth
The model illustrates how intellectual growth is the central strand to developing the
intellectual attitudes to knowledge and learning associated with critically reflective
students, lifelong learners and effective decision-makers, with the higher order skills
(Drinan, 1997) and advanced knowledge base (Ryan, 1997) required by stakeholders.
Crucial as it is, however, the intellectual strand clearly relies on academic and personal
growth and the underpinning learner-centred environment. Intellectual growth is
aligned closely with the requirement that a student “examines and interprets information
and ideas critically...identifies the purpose of the analysis and the information and/or
ideas and material to be considered ... identifies information that needs to be verified ...
evaluates information and ideas ... forms an opinion or reaches a conclusion that the
information does or does not fulfil the purpose of the evaluation... considers and

JH Hesketh 21
combines ideas and information from a variety of sources to ... arrive at a solution to a
problem, obtain a broader understanding of an issue ... draws conclusions / forms
opinions ... solves problems and makes decisions... identifies and diagnoses problems
and/or issues ... seeks to understand, identify and analyse the nature and context of a
problem or issue and to understand the factors contributing to the problem, before
drawing conclusions or considering potential solutions or courses of action” (SAICA,
2010a:26-27).
Critical reflection occurs when students at any level are confronted with controversial,
topical, relevant, accessible issues that are accompanied by appropriate teaching,
learning and assessment strategies. These strategies require students to think, applying
knowledge, identifying and gathering information needed for forming opinions, making
decisions or reaching conclusions, examining assumptions underpinning suggested
knowledge, strategies or treatments and posing questions in order to identify incorrect
accounting treatments – preferably in interactive learning processes.
While students often feel threatened initially by the requirement to develop new, more
intellectual ways of knowing, tasks are structured to enable them to make the shift.
Unresolved issues lacking consensual decisions live on in students’ minds, compelling
further thought in the quest for resolution (Wassermann, 1993), demonstrating students’
engagement with subject matter and sense-making processes as they make links
between issues and knowledge areas. An IDL approach gives the lecturer – or facilitator
of learning – opportunities also to relate new issues and questions to previous ones and
indeed to role-model critically reflective approaches, independent thought and
willingness to accept, and indeed enjoy the cut and thrust of developing different,
logical arguments. Role-modelling questioning, critical approaches to knowledge and
learning enhances course coherence and integrity and hence the notion of a critical
community of learners.
The reflective IDL processes involve students in making sense of a situation and related
knowledge (Hesketh, In Press; Schwandt, 2005) through both independent and
collaborative learning processes. Tasks include independent research, independent
analyses of scenarios in preparation for collaborative meaning-making processes;
preparation for and participation in class debates; and interactive analysis and decision-
making in small groups.
Complex, realistic issues and related tasks enable students to experience knowledge as
uncertain, contestable, value-laden and open to diverse interpretation or judgment.
Tasks require students to problematise knowledge, testing it in new situations in light of
their own understanding and, if necessary, to modify their thinking accordingly (Kolb,
1984; Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Slonimsky and Shalem, 2006). Students need to argue
points while reaching decisions about the scenario confronting them, thereby taking
ownership of knowledge, developing deep (rather than superficial) understandings of
new concepts (Marton and Säljö, 1976, Entwistle, 1987, 1992). Lecturers and tutors
from a range of courses commented on how first-year students exposed to the IDL
approach engaged far more actively with learning in their classes than other students
and said that the quality of their questions demonstrated a far greater depth of
understanding as did their marks (Hesketh, 2003). This is reminiscent of Barth’s (2011)
argument that students should be asking “why, why, why?”

The capacity to think independently is closely associated with abilities to deeply process
and elaborate knowledge (Coles, 1998; Drinan, 1998; Slonimsky and Shalem, 2006),
requiring students to accommodate ideas and information within their personal
conceptual frameworks to make sense of knowledge in relation to real situations.
Knowledge elaboration also requires learners to make the connections between different
areas and forms of knowledge as occurs in reality, and to see how theory links with
practice (Coles, 1998). Elaboration processes hence involve sense-making and increase
students’ capacities to recall conceptual knowledge at a later stage and to think
creatively and autonomously (Drinan, 1998). Students need critical, curious attitudes
associated with discovery learning (Dewey, 1916, 1938) in order to make sense of new
knowledge and to make it their own. To understand deeply and in relation to reality,
students need to come to grips, for instance, with why a certain treatment or approach is
appropriate to a situation and not just how to implement it. While it is required that a
candidate “identifies the purpose of the computation(s) and whether a precise
calculation, an estimate, a forecast, or a projection is required” and “identifies the
purpose of gathering information” (SAICA, 2010a:26) it has been seen above that these
competencies were reported lacking in the Canadian and South African
evaluators’/examiners’ reports (Chartered Accountants of Canada, 2007; SAICA,
2009).
Represented in the IDL model is the relation between criticality, ethics and social
awareness, or a moral orientation, as a necessary condition and disposition for
‘integrated critical thinking’ (Mason, 2000). This notion is supported by Naudé’s (2008)
argument for integrating ethics into courses in order for students to take ethics seriously
and recognise ethical matters to be integral to their field of study. Naudé (2008) argues
that intellectual skills are developed through tasks round ethics-related issues that
require students to think analytically and critically and to judge soundly. This argument
links to the need for students to develop sceptical attitudes and intellectual responses to
situations, if they are to be prepared for decision-making in uncertain, ever-changing
business contexts of the future. Students should therefore be assessed, inter alia, for
abilities to take into account the wider implications of their solutions within the broad
business environment. Hence, the intellectual growth strand of the IDL model links also
to SAICA’s (2010a:20) requirement that a student “identifies ethical dilemmas” and
“makes appropriate ethical judgements”. Clearly the moral or ethical behaviour of a
student cannot be assessed in professional examinations but awareness of ethical issues
can.
Requiring students to develop more intellectual attitudes to knowledge and approaches
to learning is also core to equipping students for lifelong learning, not only in the sense
of being interested in continuously attending new courses but, very importantly, in the
curiosity and interest in learning that they display throughout their lives.
Responses representative of the majority of students’ voices relating to their intellectual
growth through the above-mentioned IDL-based course (Goodier, 2005; Hesketh, 2003)
include:
 Hearing different views helped us come to terms with our own points of view.
 To draw conclusions one just needs reasoning; I learned to use logic and back up my
ideas, to formulate my own opinion.

JH Hesketh 23
 We have to decide by ourselves.
 It’s important as I don’t merely want to go with others’ opinions.
 The topics covered were usually controversial and thus there was almost always
conflict of opinion – this led to interesting and exciting discussions in class.
 I think [the value of the IDL approach] is that it forces students to start thinking
about current issues, morality, the environment, etc...it encourages students to
interact, discuss and air their views...the raising of awareness about world issues is
its strongest feature.
 [It] made me very aware of certain business environments and introduced me to how
business is done and that although success and money is the main goal, it is
important to maintain morals and ethics in business.
 I did not like it at the beginning and did not see the relevance it has on my life as a
future chartered accountant. But now I see that [it] is actually a great course that
opens your mind to all aspects of the world. It has enriched me and I have learnt a
lot from it.
 [It] is a hectic course. It is totally different from the other courses, it requires a lot of
time and critical thinking...
 [It] is a brilliant course, you learn a lot from it and these issues always apply and
you can apply them to other courses.
Hence students at first-year level express the sense that IDL challenged them to think in
new ways.
This sub-section has demonstrated how IDL can be implemented to meet the
stakeholders’ needs in terms of developing competencies and knowledge that have been
found lacking; developing research skills in students and providing learning
opportunities that can affect positively student throughput rates. There are, however a
number of obstacles to its implementation within university environments and these are
presented below with some recommendations for changes to university policies and
structures that are obstructive to implementing IDL or to achieving stakeholder
requirements.
Obstacles to implementing IDL and recommendations for change
Changing from a ‘traditional’ educational approach to implementing IDL requires a
great deal of commitment and yet efforts of this nature are often not supported by
university policies and structures. Change of this nature brings with it implications for
human and financial resources decisions, and hence for university structures and
policies that have so often come to prioritise efficiency over effectiveness (Bitzer, 2006;
Jarvis, 2001; Sunderland and Graham, 2001). Effective, broad implementation of IDL
would need institutional support (Biggs, 1996).
Policies and structures that represent obstacles to academics’ abilities to meet
stakeholder demands, specifically in accounting schools, need serious re-consideration.

The quest to increase academics’ research outputs and to improve student throughput
rates and graduate competencies, including research, will involve allocations of
financial resources to support ongoing researched improvement to teaching and learning
through, for example:
 appropriate development of tutorial programmes and payment for quality tutors;
 provision of appropriate teaching venues and IT facilities where necessary;
 building teaching and assessment expertise in academic staff in contexts that include
large classes;
and adjustment of human resource and research policies around:
 suitable payment categories for IDL tutors;
 rewarding excellence in teaching;
 promotion criteria.
Some recommendations are made in relation to developing tutorial programmes;
improving teaching facilities; developing teaching expertise; rewarding teaching
excellence; and broadening promotion criteria.
Developing tutorial programmes
Central to IDL is the opportunity for students to engage collaboratively and
interactively with conceptual knowledge. Much of the learning takes place in tutorials
making the tutorial programme crucial in achieving required competencies, but tutorial
effectiveness depends on first, the recruitment of potentially good tutors; second,
ongoing development of tutorials and tutors; third, adequate payment of tutors; and
fourth, workable tutor: student ratios (Skinner, 2009).
The nature of the tutorials make it ideal to limit student numbers to 20-25, though when
budgets, tutor availability or tutorial venues prohibit ideal class sizes the approach can
be applied in larger classes with relevant expertise, proper management and tutor
development. Senior students, if not postgraduates, should be used as tutors and given
appropriate opportunities to develop their learning-facilitation skills. It bears noting that
tutors implementing principle-based rather than rules-based learning, in line with IDL
principles, have found that their tutoring has helped them come to grips in new ways
with their own learning (Watson, 2010; 2011). This is particularly the case for honours
students tutoring third-years and benefits are further enhanced when third-year and
honours courses’ subject matter is synchronised making third-year tutorial content
concurrent with tutors’ own learning focus. Another important spin-off experienced
from developing students as tutors is that they have been enthused by the interaction
and approach to facilitating learning and have expressed some interest in academia as a
career option.
The tutorials should not be a re-teach of lectures but a means of engaging students in
making sense of concepts introduced in lectures. Tutors need to buy into IDL principles
and to spend time preparing for tutorials, marking tests and assignments, and

JH Hesketh 25
moderating marks, participating in tutorial/material development processes with
academic staff as far as possible. Tutorials should include weekly short ‘concept tests’
that contribute to the course mark. Formative assessment of tests and other class work
give ongoing feedback to tutors on students’ competencies and understanding and also
give rapid and regular feedback to students on their academic progress, warning them in
good time when they need to apply new learning approaches. The tests also ensure
students learn from the start of their courses. Tutorials should offer opportunities for
students to grapple with writing tasks, using appropriate language to express the logic
of their understandings and arguments, and tutors should be trained to give formative
feedback. This could include probing questions on reflective e-journals to provoke
appropriate critique or action from students. Hence payment of tutors has to reflect
fairly their effort, time and expertise (Skinner, 2009) and payment structures and
policies need to accommodate tutors’ implementation of IDL-like approaches.
The increased costs should be weighed against financial benefits to the school and
university in terms of increased student retention, throughput and pass rates and related
reputational benefits that help attract and retain high quality students and staff and
indeed support from other stakeholders.
Improving teaching facilities
With their vested interest in good learning outcomes, universities need to prioritise the
provision of facilities suited to the purpose. If teaching and learning would be enhanced,
for instance, by access to facilities like flat venues with good acoustics for tutorials,
adequate venues should be available. Similarly, if dealing with large numbers of
students indicates the need for Information Technology (IT) to support ways of
applying sound teaching, learning and assessment principles, through e-learning for
example, appropriate IT facilities should be made available.
Developing teaching expertise
Applying new approaches to teaching and learning involves first, recognising that
teaching based only on ‘craft knowledge’ may well be inadequate for the purpose of
enabling students to develop the required knowledge, skills and qualities (Scott et al.,
2007); second, taking the underlying educational principles on board both technically
and philosophically (Hesketh, 2003, 2004); and third, developing a scholarly interest in
teaching and ongoing curriculum development.
Hence teaching and learning needs to be brought explicitly into accounting academics’
conversations and debates and ways need to be found to facilitate such interaction,
through processes like: collegial work on improving courses; regular semi-formal
forums for reflection and discussion; collaboration with educational specialists in
curriculum development / research projects; presenting findings from teaching
practices; attending courses in higher education. The last would help directly in
applying ELT-based approaches like IDL to challenges that include: setting tasks that
evoke the kind of learning that is desired; assessing in ways that reward knowledge,
skills and qualities that are valued; facilitating and assessing learning in different
contexts, from large classes to small groups; and dealing with student diversity.
Educators for medical professions have found that teaching expertise was nurtured
through pro-teaching environments that accommodated pro-teaching governance

structures including curriculum offices offering strong administrative support
prestigious academic career paths (Irby, 2000; Kirkland, 2000; Whitcomb, 2000).
Rewarding teaching excellence
If teaching scholarship is to be seriously promoted, contributions to teaching and
learning need to be properly recognised and rewarded. Universities should find ways to
give status that equates with research status (Bitzer, 2007), to effective practices
informed by educational theory that is justified in terms of intended learning outcomes
or “systematic knowledge” of higher education teaching and learning processes
informed by reflection, literature and research (Scott et al., 2007). This could be
achieved by establishing an infrastructure for peer-review similar to that for research
(van Fleet and Peterson, 2005). Teaching excellence should be recognised also in
academics whose practices play a role in influencing curricula improvements and in
testing and developing educational theory. Promotion policies like those of the
University of Cape Town (UCT) should incorporate contributions to improving
teaching and learning (UCT, 1999).
Broadening promotion criteria
When research output drives promotion, universities should consider new ways of
thinking about the nature of research that incorporate both discipline-based and
education-based scholarly work.
Universities should, for instance, find ways to encourage practitioner-research,
including doctoral work, to promote progressive, theoretically-informed understandings
of teaching, learning and assessment within disciplines (Hesketh, 2003). Theorising
practice will provide new opportunities for academics to reflect critically on and
improve curricula, providing a platform for sharing findings with colleagues. At the
same time critical reflection on practices in different contexts, in relation to theory, will
push the boundaries of curriculum, specifically teaching and learning, theory and make
important contributions to the ongoing development of practical and theoretical
educational understandings.
Since good teaching clearly implies scholarship within the discipline taught, ways
should be found to draw together the cultures of teaching and research in order to
promote excellence in teaching. There will be little incentive to engage in scholarship
around teaching and learning until both discipline-based and education-based research,
or ideally an integration of both, in different, approved balances, are given the status
they deserve on promotion panels (Bitzer, 2007; van Fleet and Peterson, 2005).
Promotion rules should incorporate a notion of scholarship that is broader than, but
includes, research and these rules should be applied in ways that make sense in terms of
contributing to knowledge in different disciplines. For instance, in accounting schools,
scholarly work might be reflected through contributions to policy documents with
independent evidence of the influence of this work. Scholarship might include crucial
involvement in local or international standard setting processes and contributions to
accounting thought rather than refereed publications. Work might involve resolving
problems of principle and revising definitions underpinning structures of financial
reporting. The end product of such work will not result in a research publication but will
be subjected to intense scrutiny because of its importance to global standard setting,

JH Hesketh 27
contribution to accounting knowledge and capacity to promote defensible
improvements to financial reporting. Scholarship has been acknowledged in these kinds
of ways at the UCT (2010).
Scholarship could also be evaluated in terms of producing quality text books. Criteria
could be set for reviewing scholarship, perhaps through anonymous review processes,
in terms of effectiveness in: promoting understandings of principles or concepts rather
than rules (Barth, 2008, 2011; Watson, 2010); demonstrating theoretically-based
understandings of the discipline (Barth, 2008, 2011; Watson, 2010) and demonstrating
understandings of teaching and learning through explicit linking of intended learning
outcomes to learning theory or systematic educational knowledge informed by research
(Scott et al., 2007). Producing text-books that meet these criteria could then add weight
to scholarship-based applications for promotion.
Clearly each university and accounting school will have to work together to find ways
forward that will allow the schools to meet university and stakeholder demands.
Universities’ research-centred promotion policies can threaten accounting schools’
capacities to provide strong departmental leadership and administration, with associated
contributions to the university. For example, if school heads resign their positions
because onerous responsibilities make it difficult for them to meet promotion criteria
like research output, schools might well find it difficult to function optimally and
indeed to meet SAICA’s range of accreditation criteria. Indeed this scenario has the
potential to affect very negatively schools’ capacities to meet the stakeholder
requirements discussed above, specifically to drive the development of teaching and
learning strategies in line with SAICA’s competency framework.
CONCLUSION
The stakeholder requirements are both challenging and urgent and call for some
fundamental re-thinking on teaching, learning and assessment practices. The article has
argued that IDL offers a suitable means of addressing the requirements and has
demonstrated how it can be used to enable students to: develop the knowledge, skills
and qualities that have generally been found lacking; develop research skills in
undergraduate students to enhance learning and to equip them for honours research
projects; provide appropriate learning opportunities to promote student retention; and
offer additional research opportunities for accounting academics who are interested in
developing research-informed teaching practices.
However the article is not intended to be prescriptive on the use of IDL. The theoretical
underpinnings of ELT and IDL have therefore been made explicit in order to allow
readers to consider for themselves the relevance of the theories to their own contexts;
whether and to what extent they might consider implementing the ideas; and how they
would do so.
Aside from demonstrating how IDL works to meet stakeholder requirements, the article
has contextualised SAICA’s and the DoE’s requirements within a bigger picture of very
similar challenges facing others elsewhere. The confluence of current thought and
experience of SAICA with other accounting bodies, other professional bodies and
employers generally, has been demonstrated to add credence and weight to the
competency framework (SAICA, 2010a) requirements and to thereby confirm the
competency framework’s importance and relevance to higher education and the

accounting profession. Hence the article has argued that there is no space for
dismissive, simplistic responses to the stakeholder challenges, however tough the
requirements might appear in certain contexts. If ways forward are to be found for
implementing appropriate educational approaches, it is important that accounting
academics not only acknowledge that change is necessary but also consider how it
might be implemented.
Obstacles to implementing IDL and thereby meeting stakeholder requirements are
identified so that they can be acknowledged and addressed. They relate to financial
resources, human resources and research policies that could hinder academics’ efforts to
implement educational approaches like IDL. Hence overcoming the obstacles represents
another set of challenges. For this reason the article includes recommendations for the
kind of changes to university structures and policies that would enable academics to
respond in educationally appropriate ways to stakeholder requirements.
Since time is short for implementing new teaching, learning and assessment strategies it
is important to share ideas. This article is intended to catalyse collaborative action but at
the very least to engender critical reflection and debate on how accounting academics
can best prepare their students for the new-style professional exams from 2013.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to Drs Jane Skinner and Caroline
Goodier for years of collaborative work on which this article draws and for their
comments on the first draft, and to the anonymous reviewers and editor for their helpful
comments. Grateful thanks also go to Alex Hesketh for his unwaveringly cheerful
technical support.
REFERENCES
Atwater, J. B., Kannan, V. R. and Stephens, A. A. (2008). Cultivating systemic thinking
in the next generation of business leaders. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 7 (1):9-25.
Barth, M. 2008. Global financial reporting: implications for U.S. academics. The
Accounting Review, 83 (5):1159-1179.
Barth, M. (2011). Seminar at University of Pretoria, 21 June 2011.
Beenen, G. and Pinto, J. (2009). Resisting organizational-level corruption: an interview
with Sherron Watkins. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8 (2):275-289.
Biggs, J. (1996). Assessing learning quality: reconciling institutional, staff and
educational demands. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(1):5-16.
Birkinshaw, J. (2009). Talking management for the Globe and Mail with Karl Moore
(talking to Julian Birkinshaw, professor and dean at London Business School)
http://theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ managing/man. Accessed 12 Oct 2009.
Bitzer, E.M. (2006). Restoring the status of teaching scholarship at a research-orientated
university. South African Journal of Education, 20(4):372-390.

JH Hesketh 29
Boud, D. and Feletti, G. (1998). Changing problem-based learning: introduction to the
second edition. In D. Boud & G. Feletti (eds). The challenge of problem-based
learning: 2nd edition, Kogan Page, London, pp.1-14.
Chartered Accountants of Canada (2007). Uniform Evaluation Report. Toronto:
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Coles, C. (1998). Is problem-based learning the only way? In D. Boud & G. Feletti
(eds). The challenge of problem-based learning: 2nd
edition, Kogan Page, London,
pp.313-325.
Clinebell, S. K. and Clinebell, J. M. (2008). The tension in business education between
academic rigor and real-world relevance: the role of executive professors. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 7 (1):99-107.
D’Andrea, V., Gosling, D., Scott, I. and Tyeku, S. (2002). Outline of current HE policy
goals and possible areas of capacity building in relation to teaching and learning.
Council on Higher Education’s Higher Education Quality Committee Improving
Teaching and Learning Project. Pretoria.
Department of Education. (1997). Education White Paper 3: A programme for the
transformation of higher education. Government Gazette, 386. Pretoria: Government
Printer.
Department of Education. (1998). South African Qualifications Authority. Government
Gazette, 393. Pretoria: Government Printer
Department of Education. (2007). The Higher Education Qualifications Framework.
Government Gazette, 928. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Department of Education. (2004). A new funding framework: how government grants
are allocated to public higher education institutions. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Dewey, J. (1916). Education and democracy. The Free Press, Macmillan Publishing Co:
New York.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan: New York.
Dominicé, P. F. (2000). Learning from our Lives. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Drinan, J. (1997). The limits of problem-based learning. In D. Boud and G. Feletti
(eds). The challenge of problem-based learning: 2nd edition. London: Kogan Page
pp.333-339.
Entwistle, N.J. (1987). A model of the teaching-learning process. In J.T.E. Richardson,
M.W. Eysenck, and D. Warren Piper (eds). Student Learning: Research in Education
and Cognitive Psychology. Milton Keynes: SRHE/Open University Press.

Entwistle, N.J. (1992). The Impact of Teaching on Learning Outcomes in Higher
Education. Sheffield: Universities' and Colleges Staff Development Unit.
Fenton-O’Creevy, M.P., Knight, P and Margolis, J. (2006). A Practice-Centered
Approach to Management Education in a Distance Learning Context. In C. Wankel and
R. DeFillippi. (2006) New Visions of Graduate Management Education: Research in
Management Education and Development, vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Giacalone, R.A. and Thompson, K. R. (2006). Business ethics and social responsibility
education: shifting the worldview. Academy of Management Learning and Education,
2006. Vol 5. No. 3, 266-277.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. London:
Bloomsbury.
Goodier, C. (2005). Report on academic/business literary courses: IBS and IBSM.
Unpublished. Management Studies Education Unit, University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Goodier, C. and Parkinson, J. (2005). Discipline-based academic literacy in two
contexts. Journal for Language Teaching 39(1):66-79.
Gregory, J. (2002). Principles of experiential education. In P. Jarvis, (ed.). The theory
and practice of teaching, 94-107. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Grey, C. (2004). Reinventing business schools: the contribution of critical management
studies. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3 (2):178-186.
Griesel, H and Parker, B. (2009). Graduate attributes: A baseline study on South
African graduates from the perspective of employers. Higher Education South Africa
(HESA) and South African Qualification Authority (SAQA)
Griffin, C. (2002). Didacticism: lectures and lecturing. In P. Jarvis (ed.). The theory and
practice of teaching, 94-107. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: product or praxis. London: The Falmer Press.
Henry, J. (1989). Meaning and practice in experiential learning. In Weil, S. W. and
McGill, I. (Eds). Making sense of experiential learning. Buckingham: SRHE and OUP,
pp. 25-37.
Hesketh, J. (2003). A management studies curriculum for free thought in a changing
South African context: learning from a unique experience. Doctoral thesis. Guildford:
University of Surrey.
Hesketh, J. (2004). What can we know from case study research? Journal of Education,
Kenton Special Issue, 33.
Hesketh, J. (In Press). Ch 16: Section on ‘Learning’. In Wankel, C. (ed.) Management
through Collaboration: teaming in a networked world. New York: Routledge.

JH Hesketh 31
Hilton. M. (2008). Skills for work in the 21st
century: What does the research tell us?
The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol 22 No. 4 November 2008: 63-78.
International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) (2010). International education
information paper: development and management of final written examinations based
on the practices of selected IFAC member bodies. http://www.ifac.org [Accessed 29
May 2010].
Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors, (2008). Public Practice Examination
November 2008: examiners’ comments.
www.irba.co.za/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc...35, [Accessed 25 June
2010].
Irby, D. (2000). University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. In The
education of medical students: ten stories of curriculum change. Association of
American Medical Colleges / Milbank Memorial Fund, pp 26-40.
http://www.milbank.org/reports/americanmedical colleges/0010medical... [Accessed 23
December 2010].
Jacobs, D. (2007). Critical biography and management education. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 6 (1):104-108.
Jarvis, P. (1999). The practitioner-researcher: Developing theory from practice. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Jarvis, P. (2001). Universities and corporate universities – the higher learning industry
in global societies. London: Kogan Page.
Jarvis, P. (2002). Teaching styles and teaching methods. In P. Jarvis, P. (ed.). The
Theory and Practice of Teaching. London: Kogan Page, pp. 22-30.
Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learning: theory and practice. 3rd
edition.
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Jarvis, P., Holford, J. and Griffin, C. (1998). The theory and practice of learning.
London: Kogan Page.
Johnstone, R. and Vignaendra, S. (2003). Learning outcomes and curriculum
development in law: a report commissioned by the Australian Universities Teaching
Committee (AUTC). Higher Education Group, Department of Education, Science and
Training, Australia.
Kirkland, R.T. (2000). Baylor College of Medicine. In The education of medical
students: ten stories of curriculum change. Association of American Medical Colleges /
Milbank Memorial Fund, pp14-26.
http://www.milbank.org/reports/americanmedical colleges/0010medical...[Accessed 23
December 2010].
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and
development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, A.Y. and Kolb, D.A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing
experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and
Education 4 (2): 193-212.
Learmonth, M. (2007). Critical management education in action: personal tales of
management unlearning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6 (1):109-
113.
Liang, N. and Wang, J. (2004). Implicit mental models in teaching cases: an empirical
study of popular MBA cases in the United States and China. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 3 (4):397-413.
Marton, F. and Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning – outcome and
process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46:4-11.
Mason, M. (2000). On the poverty of thought in contemporary education: an integrated
conception of critical thinking. Unpublished paper. Port Elizabeth: Kenton Education
Association Conference, October 27-29, 2000.
Merriam, S.B. (1993). Taking stock. Merriam, S.B (Ed.) An update on adult learning
theory. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 105-110.
Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In J.
Mezirow and Associates. Fostering critical reflection in adulthood – A guide to
transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1-20.
Mulligan, J. and Griffin, C. (eds). (1992). Empowerment through experiential learning:
explorations of good practice. London: Kogan Page.
Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U.S. business schools: a
study in failure? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7 (1):108-123.
Naudé, P. J. (2008). Ethics education in accounting: An outsider perspective. South
African Journal of Accounting Research, 22 (1):1-17.
Oberholzer, R. (2007). A note: Study abroad programs: A potential key to successful
accounting and management education in a global world. South African Journal of
Accounting Research, 21 (1):127-146.
Olivier, M. and Kleinhans, A. (2008). Developing the leaders of the future: defining and
delivering competent chartered accountants. Unpublished paper to explain the
competency framework. SAICA, Bruma Lake
Reynolds, M. (1999). Critical reflection and management education: rehabilitating less
hierarchical approaches. Journal of Management Education, 23(5) pp. 537-554.
Reynolds, M. and Vince, R. (2004). Critical management education and action-based
learning: synergies and contradictions. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 3 (4):442-456).

Accounting Academics Multiple Challenges Issues-Driven Learning Offers A Way Forward

Accounting Academics Multiple Challenges Issues-Driven Learning Offers A Way Forward

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Accounting Academics Multiple Challenges Issues-Driven Learning Offers A Way Forward

Similar to Accounting Academics Multiple Challenges Issues-Driven Learning Offers A Way Forward (20)

More from Brittany Brown

More from Brittany Brown (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Accounting Academics Multiple Challenges Issues-Driven Learning Offers A Way Forward