XBRL in the Accounting Curriculum

XBRL in the Accounting Curriculum
Roger Debreceny and Stephanie Farewell
ABSTRACT: This position paper argues that the eXtensible Business Reporting Lan-
guage ͑XBRL͒ be integrated across the accounting curriculum, in a manner relevant to
the temporal stage and content of particular courses within the curriculum. XBRL is a
metadata representation language for the Internet, based on the World Wide Web
consortium’s eXtensible Markup Language ͑XML͒. XBRL provides an important foun-
dation for the automated transfer of accounting information and associated metadata.
The design of XBRL is fine-tuned to meet the particular needs of accounting and related
disclosures. Several countries have adopted XBRL in a variety of information value
chains, notably in the USA context the Securities and Exchange Commission’s interac-
tive data program. XBRL has implications for the totality of the accounting curriculum
and pedagogy. A program for the integration of XBRL across a typical accounting cur-
riculum is developed. The proposed XBRL assignments, as part of this program, are
aligned with Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives. Recommendations are made
for faculty, case and textbook writers, and the leadership of the XBRL and academic
accounting communities.
Keywords: XBRL; accounting education; pedagogy; financial reporting; disclosure;
transparency; auditing; accounting information systems; XML.
INTRODUCTION
I
n this position paper, we argue that the eXtensible Business Reporting Language ͑XBRL͒ be
integrated across the accounting curriculum, in a manner relevant to the temporal stage and
content of particular courses within the curriculum. XBRL is a flexible, open-source knowl-
edge representation language based on the World Wide Web consortium’s eXtensible Markup
Language ͑XML͒. XBRL is made up of a specification that governs the manner of adoption;
taxonomies built by information consumers that provide a suite of metadata for the particular
information value chain and instance documents generated by information providers that align
with both the specification and taxonomies. XBRL facilitates unambiguous Internet reporting of
entity performance data. It empowers stakeholders by allowing them to draw this performance
data directly into their data warehouses and decision models and supports automated repurposing
of the data in web-based applications.
There are many current and emerging adoptions of XBRL both nationally and internationally.
The most important XBRL adoption from the perspective of accounting education in a U.S.
Roger Debreceny is a Professor at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, and Stephanie Farewell is an
Associate Professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
The authors thank the editor of the Special Issue, Greg Gerard, and two anonymous reviewers.
ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION American Accounting Association
Vol. 25, No. 3 DOI: 10.2308/iace.2010.25.3.379
2010
pp. 379–403
Published Online: August 2010
379

context is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ͑SEC͒ “interactive data” program. When
fully implemented, the SEC mandate will require all SEC corporate registrants and mutual funds
to report significant levels of performance information in the XBRL format ͑SEC 2009a͒. For
example, by 2012 corporate registrants will tag all the textual and numeric data in form 10-Q and
10K disclosures in XBRL. This change in the method of reporting represents the most thorough
change in the disclosure environment for financial reporting in U.S. capital markets since the SEC
brought the EDGAR repository of filings in plain text and HTML to the Internet in the early
1990s. There are clear implications of the SEC’s interactive data rule both for registrants and users
of financial information ͑CFA 2009; Wagenhofer 2003͒ with the potential to change the relative
power relationships between preparers and users ͑Bloomfield 2008͒. Currently, there is no require-
ment for auditors to provide assurance on the XBRL filings. There is considerable debate on the
role of assurance on XBRL filings that will continue for the foreseeable future ͑Boritz and No
2008, 2009͒.
In this paper, we discuss the implications of XBRL for the accounting curriculum and de-
scribe a program for integrating XBRL into the accounting curriculum. To support this position we
rely on the inherent importance of XBRL adoption in the U.S. and elsewhere. The significance of
this adoption has been noted by the SEC’s Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial
Reporting ͑ACIFR 2008, Chapter 4͒, the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the
U.S. Department of the Treasury ͑ACAP 2008, Chapter VI͒, the six largest international audit
networks ͑International Audit Networks 2006, Section 3͒, AICPA leadership ͑Lamoreaux and
Bonne 2009͒ and the SEC ͑Cox 2008͒. Additionally, the AICPA notes that XBRL will take a
greater role in the CPA exam with forthcoming enhanced integration ͑Anon 2009͒.
We recommend that the study of XBRL be integrated at relevant points in the accounting
curriculum. There is a natural tendency within the accounting academy to place any topic that
includes computerized technology into the accounting information systems course. This is not
appropriate for XBRL. While there is a technology foundation to XBRL, most of the teaching and
learning outcomes relate to accounting and reporting issues. For example, the way that SEC
registrants and users of financial statements interact with the U.S. GAAP taxonomy is much more
about accounting concepts than it is about technology. In this paper, we devise a standard under-
graduate accounting curriculum with learning objectives linked to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
͑Anderson and Krathwohl 2001͒. We then describe how we view the alignment of XBRL with the
various courses that constitute that curriculum. In so doing, we are cognizant both of the signifi-
cant and growing information content within the curriculum and the different levels of XBRL
knowledge that are appropriate as students navigate through the curriculum. Similarly, necessary
faculty knowledge of XBRL will vary. For most faculty, strategic awareness will suffice. For
others, some understanding of the core XBRL technologies will be important. A limited number of
faculty will require moderately detailed knowledge of XBRL at a technical level. We make rec-
ommendations for faculty, case authors, textbook writers, and the broader XBRL community.
While this paper concentrates on the undergraduate curriculum, there are lessons for both the
Masters of Accounting and Masters of Business Administration curricula.
It is rare for change in the accounting curriculum within institutions to be holistic and
curriculum-wide. We seek, therefore, to provide guidance to faculty who teach across the curricu-
lum as to how they might integrate XBRL into their courses, on a standalone basis. Availability of
teaching and learning materials is an important element of adoption of new content in the curricu-
lum. Accordingly, the paper makes recommendations for textbook authors and case writers.
The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows: the next section provides background on
XBRL. Choices that policymakers have when implementing XBRL are set out. A number of
current and planned implementations of XBRL in different sectors both in the U.S. and interna-
tionally are introduced to demonstrate the need for the inclusion of XBRL in the accounting
380 Debreceny and Farewell
Issues in Accounting Education Volume 25, No. 3, 2010
American Accounting Association

curriculum. The third section discusses program-level integration of XBRL in the accounting
curriculum. We show how the recommended integration of XBRL in the curriculum aligns with
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives. The following section addresses detailed guidance for
each of the parties involved in the development and delivery of particular courses. The fifth and
final section sets out our conclusions and describes an agenda for future research on XBRL and
accounting education.
BACKGROUND
In this section, we present information on the nature of XBRL, XBRL taxonomy design, and
world-wide implementations. Policymakers and designers have many choices as they build
XBRL-facilitated information value chains. These choices include the range and extent of infor-
mation transferred, the design of taxonomies, and how information is captured, transformed, and
distributed. We point to a number of current and planned implementations of XBRL. This back-
ground sets the scene for a high-level review of integration of XBRL in the accounting curriculum.
Nature of XBRL
A complete technical analysis of XBRL is beyond the scope of this article. There is an
overdue but increasing array of introductory ͑Hoffman and Watson 2009; White 2008a͒ and more
advanced ͑Debreceny et al. 2009͒ books, teaching guides ͑White 2008b͒, websites ͑e.g., http://
www.xbrl.org, http://www.xbrl.us, http://www.xbrlplanet.org and http://www.xbrleducation.com͒
and other learning resources on XBRL. We traverse enough of the technical intricacies of XBRL
to enlighten later discussion.
There are four primary components in the delivery of XBRL reporting solutions, illustrated in
Figure 1. These components are ͑1͒ the XML standard; ͑2͒ the XBRL Specification; ͑3͒ XBRL
taxonomy; and ͑4͒ instance documents. We introduce each of these components in turn.
XBRL builds upon the foundations provided by the World Wide Web Consortium’s ͑W3C͒
XML standard.1
XML is a flexible method for dissemination of information on the web. XML
overcomes the limited ability of HTML ͑HyperText Markup Language͒ to represent the semantic
meaning of concepts. XML underpins many of the applications in daily use on today’s web. For
example, each time a student subscribes to a blog submission he or she is using Really Simple
Syndication ͑RSS͒, an XML-based service. Apart from the primary XML standard, the W3C
publishes a family of XML-based standards and XBRL employs a small subset of that family.
The second component is the XBRL 2.1 specification ͑Engel et al. 2003͒. The specification
systematically leverages XML to facilitate business reporting. The specification is an engineering
document that ensures that taxonomy builders and software developers can construct reporting
solutions. While the specification is the intellectual property of the XBRL International consor-
tium, it is freely licensed.
The hard work of development of XBRL-enabled information value chains comes in the third
component, taxonomy design. It is within the taxonomy that the primary metadata relationships
are expressed, primarily in the linkbases discussed in the previous paragraph. Facts in the instance
document are tagged against the taxonomy. Again, complete analysis of the role and design of
taxonomies is beyond the scope of this paper ͑Debreceny et al. 2009, Chapter 3͒. A couple of
examples will suffice. First, taxonomy architects can develop a suite of human-readable labels for
any given element. These can be short for use in mobile applications; verbose for reporting on
traditional Web pages and in different languages. Labels can also adjust for given data relation-
1
The http://www.w3schools.com website provides a series of tutorials on XML.
XBRL in the Accounting Curriculum 381

ships. For example, the taxonomy architect can assign one label for positive values of a given
quantitative element and a different value for negative values. Second, the taxonomy architect can
define mathematical relationships between elements ͑e.g., Revenue Ϫ CostOfGoodsSold ϭ Gross-
Margin͒. This capability is clearly important for financial reporting solutions.
As an example, the U.S. GAAP taxonomy includes the element IncomeTaxExpenseBenefit
that has the standard label “Income Tax Expense ͑Benefit͒” and the label “Income Tax Expense
͑Benefit͒, Total” when used to total other detailed tax items in the Income Statement. The tax-
onomy refers to the FAS No. 109 and the SEC’s Regulation S-X ͑SX͒, Para 210͑h͒, as authority.
The taxonomy shows that the element is involved in several calculation relationships. It is the
parent of a calculation relationship that includes child elements such as “Current Income Tax
͑Benefit͒” and “Deferred Income Tax ͑Benefit͒.” In turn, it is the child of a calculation relationship
whose parent is “Income ͑Loss͒ from Continuing Operations, Including Portion Attributable to
Noncontrolling Interest.” As the term “eXtensible” suggests, XBRL allows ͑but does not mandate͒
information providers to build extension taxonomies for their own particular reporting needs that
were not envisaged by the taxonomy architect.
Finally, the instance documents are where the facts for a particular entity are set out and
tagged to one or more taxonomies. An instance document published by a given entity will tag to
concepts in the foundation taxonomy for the relevant information value chain. The instance docu-
ment has its own metadata on factors such as temporality ͑e.g., revenue for a period from 1
January to 31 March͒ and context ͑e.g., budgeted or actual͒.To use the example from the previous
section, when an instance document incorporates an income statement that includes Income Tax,
as most do, the particular fact will be tagged against the U.S. GAAP element IncomeTaxExpense-
Benefit. The instance document will also include metadata on concepts such as period ͑e.g., period
FIGURE 1
XBRL Technology Suite

from 1 January 20xx to 31 December 20xx͒ and currency ͑e.g., U.S. dollar͒. It may also refer to
an extension taxonomy for concepts that are specific to the particular entity. Also included are
metadata on issues such as details of the reporting entity.
Taxonomy Design
The flexibility of XBRL has allowed its use in a wide variety of information value chains. We
see two primary vectors in the use of XBRL: first, the level of openness in taxonomy design, and,
second, the availability of information flowing from the XBRL reporting solution. “Closed” tax-
onomies are those that meet the reporting requirements of a particular information consumer.
Typically, closed taxonomies are those that meet the well-defined needs of a single information
recipient. Often, these information flows are in regulatory environments. An instance document
based on a closed taxonomy may be the XBRL equivalent of a pre-existing paper form, electronic
document, or spreadsheet. There is typically little by way of public involvement in taxonomy
design or due process review after initial development. Indeed, the taxonomy may not even be in
the public domain. Closed taxonomies are usually developed for a known set of information
providers and for data points that are well understood and do not require extensions.
Conversely, while open taxonomies are usually developed by a single organization, such as
XBRL U.S. or the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation ͑IASCF͒, they em-
ploy a strategy that seeks broad input into taxonomy design and content development and quality
assurance. Normally, developers of open taxonomies expect and indeed may encourage extensions
by individual information providers.
Another major strand in taxonomy development is the XBRL Global Ledger ͑XBRL GL͒
͑XBRL International 2009͒. XBRL GL facilitates the transfer of reporting information ͑e.g., man-
agement reporting data͒ and transactional information ͑e.g., general ledger journal entries͒ be-
tween disparate computer applications ͑Cohen 2009; Garbellotto 2008a, 2008b͒. It comprises a
family of taxonomies that support this exchange of information.
The second vector relates to the end user of information flows. At the closed end of the
continuum, a very limited number of information consumers keep the information confidential.
There are a couple of models at the open end of the continuum. The most open is where there is
no information intermediary. A reporting entity places the information on the web, relying either
on information consumers to point to that repository with, for example, a RSS feed or on search
engines recognizing the telltale fingerprints that XBRL leaves within the instance document. A
second, and much more common, scenario is for an information intermediary to receive the
information flows and subsequently make the information available to information consumers,
normally in XBRL format. In this scenario, the information intermediary will usually undertake a
variety of information quality enhancement tasks. These may include taxonomy quality assess-
ment, rules on report preparation, screening of submissions, data validation, and maintenance of a
data warehouse.
In Figure 2, we map examples of adoptions in each of the quadrants made up by the inter-
sections of each of the two continua ͑i.e., taxonomy openness and information flow͒. In the United
Kingdom, the tax authority ͑Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs ͓HMRC͔͒ have built an XBRL
solution for the filing of corporate tax data ͑Example 1 in Quadrant 3͒. The taxonomy was built
in-house and all information flows are confidential. This is a closed taxonomy with closed data
flows. “Standard Business Reporting” ͑SBR͒ projects in the Netherlands, Australia, and other
countries seek to reduce the cost of compliance by small and medium enterprises. There was broad
participation in taxonomy development ͑Example 2 in Quadrant 3͒. The steering committee in the
Netherlands included governmental agencies, professional accounting organizations, the Dutch

accounting standards board, and XBRL Netherlands. All information flowing within the project is
confidential and stays within the governmental sector and is for limited other uses. The taxonomy
is moderately open with closed information flows.
An important element of prudential supervision of financial institutions in several countries in
Europe is based on reporting to central banks with the Financial Reporting ͑FINREP͒ taxonomy
͑Example 3 in Quadrant 1͒. This taxonomy is an extension of the International Financial Reporting
Standards ͑IFRS͒ taxonomy, fine-tuned for the needs of financial institutions. The IFRS taxonomy
is built by the IASCF but with significant public input and formal quality reviews. All of the data
flows are confidential to the bank regulators. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination
Council ͑FFIEC͒ bank call report XBRL adoption in the U.S. is quite different ͑Example 5 in
Quadrant 4͒. Taxonomy development built on many years of bank call reports and involved the
regulator community with limited input from the accounting profession and the XBRL community.
The FFIEC data provide the foundation for services such as iBanknet’s website that tracks the
health of financial institutions on a state-by-state basis ͑iBanknet 2009͒.
The most open of both taxonomies and information distribution is the SEC interactive data
program ͑Example 6 in Quadrant 2͒. The SEC outsourced taxonomy development to XBRL U.S.,
FIGURE 2
Taxonomy Development versus Information Availability

a not-for-profit organization. There was significant public involvement in the development and
review process with multiple layers of participation, including a publicly available bug-tracking
website. Actual corporate and mutual fund filings are available from the SEC website, supported
by a RSS feed. XBRL data from the program are now “mashed up” ͑i.e., combined with other
data͒ in online applications. For example, Freerisk ͑http://www.freerisk.org͒ is a service for com-
munity risk rating of corporations as a complement or even substitute to the credit rating agencies.
Freerisk relies on SEC filings in XBRL as the data foundation for its crowd sourced, or user-
generated, ratings process. No doubt, when all SEC filers are reporting in XBRL, there will be
many more innovative uses of the data.
XBRL Adoption
Financial reporting in the United States is being transformed through the adoption of XBRL
by the SEC. On January 30, 2009, the SEC released Rule 33-9002, which phases in the require-
ment for registrants to furnish XBRL tagged financial information ͑SEC 2009a͒. While the largest
500 companies began filing 10-Qs for reporting periods ending on or after June 15, 2009, the rule
will not fully phase in until 2012 when the last group of registrants will furnish not only tagged
financial statements but also detailed tagged footnotes and additional disclosures. When the imple-
mentation is complete, every numeric, monetary, and textual disclosure in the 10-Q and 10-K will
have an appropriate tag from the U.S. GAAP XBRL taxonomy or an entity-specific extension.
Because of the inherent complexity of financial reporting, the U.S. GAAP taxonomy is a substan-
tial and complex taxonomy with more than 12,000 discrete elements. The tagged statements
increases the Commission’s ability to effectively and efficiently monitor registrants and reduce the
risks of future financial scandals such as those that have plagued the last decade. The SEC also
monitors the quality of XBRL filings and provides feedback to filers ͑e.g., SEC 2009b͒.
While the SEC interactive data program meets a considerable proportion of the financial
reporting undertaken by SEC registrants, there is other information that is not currently required to
be tagged by the SEC. For example, the Management Discussion and Analysis ͑MD&A͒ is not
required to be tagged. The MD&A provides a valuable perspective on forward-looking informa-
tion. According to Warren Buffet, information consumers need to know “all the important facts
about current operations as well as the CEO’s frank view of long-term economic characteristics of
the business. We would expect both a lot of financial details and a discussion of any significant
data we would need to interpret what was presented” ͑Buffet 2000͒. This information could be
tagged with a common set of XBRL tags from a MD&A taxonomy.
An important driver of long-term adoption of XBRL is the Standard Business Reporting
͑SBR͒ project in the Netherlands and elsewhere. SBR seeks to reduce the burden of regulatory and
other forms of reporting by small and medium enterprises ͑SMEs͒ as well as enhance access to
credit for SMEs. In a recent development, financial institutions in the Netherlands will leverage
SBR for credit reporting by SMEs ͑Ministerie van Financiën 2009͒. An Australian version of SBR
commences in July 2010. The project brings together the reporting requirements of the Australian
Taxation Office, Australian Securities and Investment Commission, Australian Prudential Regula-
tion Authority, and the state and territory revenue offices ͑Australian Treasury 2009͒. There are
SBR developments underway in Singapore and New Zealand.
In this section, we described the XBRL technology suite, reviewed the choices in the design
of XBRL taxonomies, and discussed a sample of current and emerging XBRL adoptions. We
demonstrate that XBRL is in use in a wide variety of information value chains, with financial
reporting being the most consistent theme in these adoptions.

INTEGRATING XBRL INTO THE ACCOUNTING CURRICULUM
In this section, we describe how XBRL integrates into the accounting curriculum. While it
may seem on the surface that XBRL is a systems topic, it is much more. For example, the issues
and choices faced by accounting standards setters, securities regulators, and individual corpora-
tions in the implementation of XBRL-enabled ﬁnancial reporting value chains are much more
about accounting principles and practice than they are about XBRL technology. The study of
XBRL should be across the accounting curriculum to facilitate learning. XBRL should be learned
within the context of transactional data and domestic and international reporting to stockholders,
government entities, and other stakeholders. With the knowledge base developed, students will be
prepared to tackle the technical issues that properly belong in the accounting information systems
course. Our suggested coverage of XBRL builds in the accounting curriculum the same way that
the breadth and depth of accounting concepts increases. In the introductory courses of the account-
ing curriculum core concepts are explored. These include the double-entry bookkeeping system
and the role of accounting information within organizations and the broader economy. Later in the
program the curriculum broadens ͑ﬁnancial and management accounting, systems and auditing͒
and deepens. So it is with XBRL. Introductory courses might address general concepts and stra-
tegic issues. Later in the curriculum, the study of XBRL should more closely relate to the content
in the particular course and be in greater depth.
We describe a XBRL curriculum that aligns with a high proportion of accounting curricula in
the U.S. We concentrate on XBRL in the undergraduate curriculum although many of the issues
we raise also apply to the Masters of Accounting or MBA curricula. We see different intensity and
focus in the various courses within the curriculum. We map the coverage of XBRL in the curricu-
lum on the integration of two continua: “perspective” and “intensity.” The perspective continuum
has the end-points of end-user and preparer. The preparer-side is focused on the creation of an
XBRL instance document while on the end-user side the focus is on using the XBRL tagged data
for analysis purposes. The intensity continuum has the end-points of introductory and advanced.
The introductory end-point would include an overview of XBRL while at the advanced level the
coverage would be detail-oriented. We show how these recommended adoptions of XBRL within
the curriculum relate to the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives ͑Anderson and
Krathwohl 2001͒. We recognize the constraints of a crowded curriculum that is subject to ever-
increasing demands from factors such as the integration of IFRS and fair value accounting. We
recommend only the minimum level of study necessary for graduates to appreciate the implica-
tions of XBRL. In the next section, we describe in more depth the way in which XBRL could be
integrated into particular courses.
The Accounting Curriculum
Over the last couple of decades there have been several calls to fundamentally remake ac-
counting education ͑AAA 1986; Albrecht et al. 1994; Albrecht and Sack 2000; Van Wyhe 2007,
490͒ that arose from longstanding concerns of the accounting profession ͑e.g., Perspectives on
Education 1989͒. Despite the initiatives of the American Accounting Association and the Account-
ing Education Change Commission ͑Sundem 1999͒ and marquee initiatives such as Project Dis-
covery at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign or other proposals for reform ͑e.g., Arya
et al. 2003͒, the undergraduate curriculum is stubbornly resistant to change. There is a high degree
of similarity in the curriculum between institutions and across time. Alumni that graduated from a
given institution decades previously can often see exactly the same curriculum today down to and
including the course codes.
We surveyed the curricula at our own institutions and at several others to map the typical
courses and sequence of courses in the undergraduate accounting curriculum. There are some
variations on the general theme, often driven by state licensing differences. For example, some

programs do not have an AIS course. Others have limited study of taxation. Some programs
include auditing as a core course, others as an elective. Nonetheless, there is a striking similarity
in the design of the undergraduate accounting curriculum; we show the typical curriculum in
Figure 3. The curriculum could be used in either two-year ͑upper division͒ or four-year business
schools. We show a path through the curriculum that is typical for a student who intends on taking
the CPA exam. There are some thirteen courses in the curriculum that traverses the sophomore to
senior year. In the detailed discussion on courses below, we conﬂate the two cost and management
and taxation courses.
Other proposals for curriculum reform relate to changes in the overall direction of all account-
ing programs or development of niche programs. For example, Tatikonda ͑2004͒ makes an im-
FIGURE 3
Typical Undergraduate Course Sequence

passioned call for curriculum reform that recognizes the importance of management accounting.
Kranacher et al. ͑2008͒ propose a new curriculum for a fraud and forensic accounting specialist
program. We take a more cautious approach. We seek integration of XBRL within the existing
curriculum. While we see that all accounting courses have the potential to integrate XBRL knowl-
edge and learning outcomes, the impact is differential. When we came to design the “touch” of
XBRL on the curriculum, we recognized that there should be variation in perspective and inten-
sity. We model the coverage of XBRL in the curriculum from two continuum, as previously
discussed. First, we view the “perspective” of the discussion. In some courses, the impact of
XBRL on how users interact with business information is the appropriate perspective. Other
courses should have a much stronger focus of the impact of XBRL on preparers and the process
of reporting. The second continuum is the intensity of covering XBRL at a policy or at a more
technical level. We anticipate that some courses would have a “hands-on” component, which
requires students to use appropriate software, but most will not. In Figure 4, we model all the
courses in the model curriculum against the focus and depth perspectives. For each course, we
show whether they are “hands-on” or “hands-off.”
Our unit of analysis for the impact of XBRL on the curriculum was the individual course.
Fortunately, as can be seen in Figure 4, the outcome is well balanced in terms of depth, focus, and
the level of hands-on activity. Further, as students progress through the curriculum they add depth
to their understanding of XBRL. For example, the ﬁrst courses in accounting have limited content
FIGURE 4
XBRL Coverage in Accounting Courses mapped to Depth and Focus Perspectives

at an appropriately introductory level. For more advanced courses such as Auditing and Account-
ing Information Systems, there is in-depth coverage, albeit within the time constraints of those
courses.
Alignment with Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives
In this subsection, we discuss how the various ways that XBRL touches the curriculum can be
seen from the viewpoint of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives. Given the diversity of
XBRL-enabled information value chains and the different perspectives, we build student knowl-
edge of XBRL across the curriculum. Many of the assignments and exercises we describe in this
section and integrate into the detailed course-by-course discussion in the next section involve
higher-order thinking. For example, requiring students to interact with taxonomic structures, think
deeply about the semantic meaning of accounting terms, and be able to make judgments on
appropriate mapping outcomes have beneﬁts for learning outcomes relative to information literacy
͑Jackson and Durkee 2008͒, accounting theory, and research skills.
In Figure 5, we show a set of assignments for the various courses in our proposed XBRL
curriculum. These vary from lectures through exercises, cases, and short written papers. These
FIGURE 5
Assignment Learning Objectives

learning points correlate to the depth level and focal concentration that we set out in Figure 4. We
now proceed to align these learning points with Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives
͑Bloom 1956͒ as revised by Anderson and Krathwohl ͑2001͒. The revised taxonomy has four
levels of the knowledge dimension ͑i.e., “Factual,” “Conceptual,” “Procedural,” and “Meta-
cognitive”͒ and five levels of the cognitive process dimension ͑i.e., “Remember,” “Understand,”
“Apply,” “Analyze,” “Evaluate,” and “Create”͒. Factual knowledge refers to terminology ͑e.g.,
schema, taxonomy, instance document͒. Conceptual knowledge requires understanding the inter-
relationships within the domain ͑e.g., how the schema, taxonomy, and instance document are
related͒. Procedural knowledge is how to accomplish the task ͑e.g., create a taxonomy extension or
map financial statement line items͒. Meta-cognitive knowledge is knowledge of knowledge ͑e.g.,
knowing which tools to use and how to conduct an instance document examination͒. The cognitive
process is the process used to learn with depth of processing increasing as you move from simply
remembering to creating. Remembering is the ability to recall or recognize ͑i.e., recognize “US-
GAAP”͒ as a valid namespace for the U.S. GAAP Taxonomy. Understanding is the ability to use
the knowledge ͑e.g., summarize how the SEC implementation of XBRL affects financial report-
ing͒. To apply knowledge is to use it appropriately in a given situation ͑e.g., classify financial
statement line items to the appropriate taxonomy element͒. Analysis is the ability to break apart
the material and explain or differentiate the sub-components ͑e.g., explaining the role of dimen-
sions in note disclosure reporting͒. To evaluate requires making judgments or conclusions based
on standards ͑e.g., examining an instance document to determine compliance with SEC filing
rules͒. Creation is reorganizing elements or production of a new whole ͑e.g., creating an instance
document with taxonomy extension or conducting an attestation examination͒. Figure 6 shows the
FIGURE 6
Mapping of Bloom Taxonomy to Curriculum Outcomes

mapping of the assignments with the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. When assignments crossed
multiple cognitive process levels or knowledge domains, we indicate the highest level.
Adoption of XBRL in the Curriculum
Organizations adopt technology in three waves. There are early adopters, those that adopt
only after it has proven itself, and late adopters ͑Lancaster and Taylor 1986; Von Hippel 1997͒.
Faculty also adopt technology in these three waves. There are early adopters who bring emerging
technology into the classroom. These early adopters typically develop their own materials. The
next faculty adopters do so only when sufficient resources have been developed. Finally, the late
adopters incorporate the technology only when outside constituencies demand it. The incorpora-
tion of XBRL into the curriculum has followed this path. In the 2002–2003 academic year there
were less than a dozen academics incorporating XBRL into the accounting curriculum within the
accounting information systems course. At that early juncture, faculty were either teaching the
value proposition of XBRL or were spending equal time on technical application and theory.
Interestingly, little has changed in the mix of theory and application in the classroom in the
intervening period. XBRL is still being taught primarily in the accounting information systems
course, albeit by a larger number of faculty. It is now time to move the teaching and learning of
XBRL from the accounting information systems Gulag into the broader accounting curriculum.
The role of the leadership of the various sections of the American Accounting Association will be
important for diffusion. The network effects of innovation diffusion are a clear determinant of
innovation adoption ͑Robertson et al. 1996͒. Further, in the next section, we make recommenda-
tions for textbook authors and case writers. These are clearly important facilitators in the devel-
opment of academic innovation.
GUIDANCE ON PROGRAM SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF XBRL IN THE
CURRICULUM
We now turn our attention to our course-by-course design and recommendations. For each
course we address five questions: ͑1͒ Why teach it? We address the question why a particular
course should have an XBRL component. We point out the way that XBRL touches on the typical
content within the given course. Of course, the extent of the relationship between XBRL and the
course content varies considerably between courses. ͑2͒ What to teach? What to learn? We
address the teaching and learning objectives for the particular course. ͑3͒ Possible assignments?
We describe possible assignments for the course. ͑4͒ Things to avoid? We set out tips and tricks
for faculty that adopt XBRL in their particular course. ͑5͒ Advice for? Support for faculty varies
widely by course. We make recommendations to case writers and textbook authors.
Sophomore Classes
The first course that both accounting and other business majors take is Principles of Account-
ing. Early in most textbooks within this course there is a discussion on the role of accounting in
the functioning of companies and the economy. This is an appropriate point in which to introduce
XBRL. We see only a very limited exposure to XBRL at this point. We believe it is sufficient to
introduce students to XBRL. Faculty and textbooks should emphasize the role XBRL plays in the
consumption of accounting information. Students should receive an end-user perspective on
XBRL and only at a relatively surface level. At this stage of their development, students often ask
the question “Why do I have to study accounting?” Discussion of the important role XBRL plays
in corporate transparency including sustainability and capital markets correlates with the world-
view of our audience of millennials. We set out more detailed guidance in Figure 7.
The focus remains on users within the introductory cost and management course. Introduction
to XBRL GL as a means for transfer of management accounting data between disparate accounting

systems is appropriate in this course. XBRL GL allows transfer of much more than just financial
data between systems. Again, the focus of discussion in this sophomore course should be at the
introductory level only. Unfortunately, at the time of writing, we observe very little discussion of
XBRL within standard cost and management textbooks. This is in stark contrast to the role played
by the Institute of Management Accountants ͑IMA͒, which has had a long-standing strategic focus
on XBRL. We discuss more of the challenges of adopting XBRL in the introductory management
accounting class in Figure 8.
Junior Classes
The junior year is arguably the most intensive for students in the accounting major. Students
face the two intermediate financial accounting courses that provide the foundation for their evo-
lution into financial statement preparers. The study of XBRL in these pivotal courses should
support and integrate with overall learning objectives for those courses, rather than be a stand-
alone learning outcome. We set out our more detailed recommendations on the two intermediate
financial accounting courses in Figure 9 and Figure 10.
Senior Classes
We now turn to the courses that are typically in the final year of study in the undergraduate
curriculum. A capstone course in the curriculum is Advanced Financial Accounting ͑see Figure
FIGURE 7
Principles of Accounting

11͒. The content for Advanced Financial Accounting differs somewhat from textbook to textbook,
but a consistent theme is the process of consolidation. There are software applications such as
Hyperion that assist corporations in the consolidation process. However, in practice, many spread-
sheets are used in the consolidation process. A key element of the discussion on XBRL should
encompass its role in the consolidation process. This may involve the use of both XBRL-GL and
financial reporting taxonomies ͑e.g., the U.S. GAAP and IFRS taxonomies, for foreign subsidiar-
ies͒. When a corporation uses externally determined taxonomies, the quality of the consolidation
process should improve. Unfortunately, at the time of writing there is a dearth of pedagogical
materials.
Now we come to the two-course sequence of Accounting Information Systems ͑Figure 12͒
and Auditing ͑Figure 13͒. As we discuss above, faculty teaching in the financial and management
accounting courses may consider that this is where XBRL “belongs” in the curriculum. There are
appropriate aspects of XBRL that should receive coverage in the AIS class. These include more
detailed knowledge of the technical aspects of XBRL. This is the course where, we believe,
students should develop more expertise in the construction of instance documents—although
introductory instance document creation exercises might well be seen in the Principles or Inter-
mediate courses. It is particularly important that students have worked with the U.S. GAAP
taxonomy and financial statements in earlier courses, especially given that such learning is more
productive when viewed in context. The primary consideration of XBRL in the AIS class should
be on the construction and consumption of high-quality instance documents. It is important to
expose students to some of the complexities of XBRL implementation of metadata, particularly in
the various linkbases. Just as accounting standards affect the content of financial accounting
classes, guidance from the SEC, XBRL International, and XBRL U.S. affects the content of XBRL
in the AIS class. A second major strand in the AIS class is an introduction to XBRL GL. This suite
of taxonomies is important for linking disparate systems, internal reporting systems, and ensuring
the quality of the close and consolidation process.
FIGURE 8
Cost and Management Accounting

The AIS course leads logically to the Auditing course. Given the importance of the production
of financial statements in XBRL format, the standard auditing course should now pay attention to
the role of XBRL. While an audit of XBRL filings is not yet required in the U.S. setting, there is
voluntary assurance on the production of financial statements in XBRL format. The AICPA,
PCAOB, and the Center for Audit Quality have all issued guidance in recent years. At the date of
writing, XBRL is also on the agenda of the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board
͑IAASB͒ internationally and the Auditing Standards Board in the U.S. Given the primacy of
XBRL reporting in the U.S. environment, the inherent complexity of financial reporting, the
complexities of relevant taxonomies, and the choices that reporting entities have, there are many
risks in production of incorrect or misleading instance documents. We expect that in the future,
assurance on XBRL filings will be required. While we are seeing the first coverage of XBRL in
auditing textbooks, there is a lack of sufficient teaching materials for the audit class.
XBRL features in the realm covered by both the Government and Nonprofit ͑GNP͒ class
͑Figure 14͒ and taxation ͑Figure 15͒ courses. Governmental agencies both produce and consume
FIGURE 9
Intermediate Financial Accounting I

accounting information and reports. Many of the implementations of XBRL internationally have
been in the government sector. XBRL has been put to use to enhance compliance processes during
the initial implementation by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority ͑APRA͒ in the early
years of the millennium. Government instrumentalities and agencies must also report under ac-
counting standards that require complex fund disclosures. XBRL is clearly a candidate for enhanc-
ing reporting both to and by these agencies. The Association of Governmental Accountants ͑AGA͒
has taken a close interest in XBRL. Once again, unfortunately, there are no teaching case studies
to support faculty in the GNP class. The taxation class ͑particularly Corporate Taxation͒ is a
special case of compliance. While we do not see that XBRL will, for the foreseeable future, play
a major role in the taxation class, there is a role for discussion of the implications for tax reporting
and compliance in the corporate taxation class.
The international accounting course ͑Figure 16͒ is one of the most interesting and relevant in
which to implement XBRL. There are well-developed taxonomies for three of the major families
of accounting internationally with the U.S. GAAP, IFRS, and EDINET ͑Japanese GAAP͒ taxono-
mies. There is a strong reﬂection in these taxonomies that arise from the different institutional
FIGURE 10
Intermediate Financial Accounting II

settings under which financial reporting exists in the three environments. Exposure to these three
taxonomies will improve student understanding of differences in reporting context, measurement,
and disclosure. Students can consider how automated cross-jurisdictional reporting could facilitate
investor and analyst understanding and use of reporting data. There are also many interesting
issues within areas such as compliance and consolidation.
Finally, we come to the financial statement analysis class ͑Figure 17͒. The potential for XBRL
is to allow the analyst to acquire information about corporations that is considerably more detailed
and with greater rapidity than is the case currently. There are, however, complexities caused by
inter-entity differences and the individual reporting choices made by corporations. End user tools
are increasingly available that allow the student “analyst” to acquire and manipulate this informa-
tion. Recent guidance from the CFA Institute addresses the implications of XBRL for investors
and analysts ͑CFA 2009͒. Again, at the time of writing there are no cases available for the financial
statement analysis class. The availability of a large set of XBRL tagged financials filed under the
SEC interactive data mandate will present many opportunities for the development of such cases.
We see the potential for significant hands-on content in this class, with access to real-time filing
data. This content relates to the use of XBRL data to conduct analysis, rather than cover XBRL
technical content that belongs elsewhere in the curriculum.
FIGURE 11
Advanced Financial Accounting

CONCLUSION
XBRL is a suite of technologies that facilitate automated reporting on the Internet. XBRL has
its roots in the accounting profession and, as a result, specifically targets the needs of the financial
reporting community. There are also tools and techniques within XBRL that support the transfer of
more transactional and operational information with XBRL GL. XBRL is a product of the XBRL
International consortium that has more than 500 members. We see many examples of international
XBRL adoption in a variety of information value chains, particularly in compliance and regulatory
environments. Although XBRL has been in existence for more than a decade, it is only over the
last two or three years that we have seen rapid adoption. From the perspective of the accounting
academy in the U.S., the single most important adoption of XBRL is the recent mandate by the
SEC in its interactive data program. This program requires a variety of reports, by corporate and
mutual fund registrants, to be in XBRL format.
There are clear implications for XBRL throughout the accounting curriculum. XBRL is per-
vasive. For example, while corporate use of Enterprise Resource Planning ͑ERP͒ systems is
extensive, it is an intermediate, i.e., supporting technology rather than impacting directly on the
final product of accounting, such as financial reports. XBRL, conversely, impacts both intermedi-
ate ͑e.g., information acquisition and accounting processes͒ and final processes ͑e.g., financial
reporting͒. As a result, we build a program for the adoption of XBRL into the curriculum in a way
that traverses the curriculum. For the purposes of illustrating XBRL integration into the study of
accounting, we build a model curriculum aligned with the typical undergraduate accounting pro-
FIGURE 12
Accounting Information Systems

gram in the U.S. We show how the study of XBRL ﬁts into each of the courses in the curriculum.
We describe two vectors: ﬁrst, the “perspective” from which XBRL is seen that ranges from
end-user to preparer. For example, the principles of accounting course should take an end-user
perspective and Intermediate Financial Accounting should take a preparer perspective. Second, we
introduce an “intensity” vector where we see that different courses will “touch” on XBRL at an
introductory ͑e.g., Introductory Cost and Management Accounting͒ or advanced level ͑e.g., Ac-
counting Information Systems͒. The learning points in each of these courses are aligned with
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives. We present detailed guidance on the implementation
of XBRL into each of the courses in the typical accounting curriculum. We make suggestions on
coverage and assignments and make recommendations to case and textbook writers. There are a
number of courses where there are presently minimal support materials for faculty.
We discuss the importance of clearly understanding the drivers for the adoption of XBRL in
the classroom. In order for XBRL to receive the attention that we believe it deserves in the
curriculum, there should be action from the leadership of the American Accounting Association
FIGURE 13
Auditing

and the various sections within the Association, XBRL U.S., XBRL International, and the various
members of the XBRL consortium. These members include each of the major professional ac-
counting services firms, software developers, specialist XBRL firms, and information intermedi-
aries. There are already strong foundations upon which to build. Academics have been involved
with XBRL from the outset, indeed in the XBRL pre-history. Bryant University has hosted an
academic competition for students for a creditworthy ten years. The American Accounting Asso-
ciation ͑AAA͒ has supported Continuing Professional Education ͑CPE͒ sessions and a residential
XBRL Workshop for a number of years. These initiatives arose, however, from faculty closely
involved with XBRL at a professional and research level. There has been little support of XBRL
at a strategic or tactical level from the AAA leadership either in the sections or centrally. Within
the XBRL community, equally, there has been little recognition of the need to support the aca-
demic community to build the next generation of XBRL-aware accountants and auditors. Aca-
demics will need access to the XBRL organization and resources in a manner that facilitates
ongoing development of educational resources.
While this paper has concentrated on the teaching and learning aspects of XBRL, there is also
a link to research. XBRL will play an important role in a variety of research questions. For
example, with automated access to firm-tagged filings, XBRL may significantly impact capital
markets research. There are implications for research in forensic accounting, auditing, accounting
information systems and in the behavioral realm as preparers and users interact with complex
FIGURE 14
Government and Not-for-Profit

FIGURE 16
International Accounting
FIGURE 15
Corporate Taxation

taxonomies. Research is also necessary on XBRL and accounting education. Research on issues
such as overcoming barriers to adoption by faculty, necessary student skills, aptitudes, and behav-
iors are among many important research questions surrounding XBRL in accounting education.
REFERENCES
Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting ͑ACIFR͒. 2008. Final Report of the Advisory
Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting to the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission. Washington, D.C.: Securities and Exchange Commission.
Advisory Committee to the Auditing Profession ͑ACAP͒. 2008. Final Report of the Advisory Committee on
the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Washington, D.C.: Advisory Commit-
tee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Albrecht, W., D. Clark, J. Smith, K. Stocks, and L. Woodﬁeld. 1994. An accounting curriculum for the next
century. Issues in Accounting Education 9 ͑2͒: 421–425.
Albrecht, W. S., and R. J. Sack. 2000. Accounting Education: Charting the Course through a Perilous
Future. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
American Accounting Association ͑AAA͒. 1986. Future accounting education: Preparing for the expanding
profession: Report of the committee of the structure content and the scope of accounting education of
the American Accounting Association. Issues in Accounting Education 1 ͑1͒: 168–195.
Anderson, L., and D. Krathwohl. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Anon. 2009. Talking to… Richard DeVore, Ed.D., simulation development leader for the uniform CPA
examination. The Uniform CPA Examination Alert Spring.
Arya, A., J. C. Fellingham, and D. A. Schroeder. 2003. An academic curriculum proposal. Issues in Account-
ing Education 18 ͑1͒: 1–29.
Australian Treasury. 2009. What is SBR? Available at: http://www.sbr.gov.au/en/About_SBR.aspx.
FIGURE 17
Financial Statement Analysis

Bloom, B. S. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New
York, NY: D. McKay Co., Inc.
Bloomfield, R. J. 2008. Accounting as the language of business. Accounting Horizons 22 ͑4͒: 433–436.
Boritz, J. E., and W. G. No. 2008. SEC’s XBRL voluntary program on EDGAR: The case for quality
assurance. Current Issues in Auditing 2 ͑2͒: A36–A50.
Boritz, J., and W. G. No. 2009. Assurance on XBRL-related documents: The case of United Technologies
Corporation. Journal of Information Systems 23 ͑2͒: 49–78.
Buffet, W. 2000. Letter to the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Available at: http://
www.berkshirehathaway.com/2000ar/2000letter.html.
CFA. 2009. eXtensible Business Reporting Language: A Guide for Investors. Charlottesville, VA: CFA
Institute Centre for Financial Market Integrity.
Cohen, E. E. 2009. XBRL’s global ledger framework: Exploring the standardised missing link to ERP
integration. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 6 ͑2͒: 188–206.
Cox, C. 2008. Opening statement—Open meeting on the use of technology to improve financial reporting.
Available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2008/spch051408cc.htm.
Debreceny, R. S., C. Felden, B. Ochocki, M. Piechocki, and M. Piechocki. 2009. XBRL for Interactive Data:
Engineering the Information Value Chain. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Engel, P., W. Hamscher, G. Shuetrim, D. v. Kannon, and H. Wallis. 2003. Extensible Business Reporting
Language ͑XBRL͒ 2.1. XBRL International. Available at: http://www.xbrl.org/Specification/XBRL-
RECOMMENDATION-2003-12-31ϩCorrected-Errata-2008-07-02.rtf.
Garbellotto, G. 2008a. The distinctiveness of XBRL GL. Strategic Finance 89 ͑5͒: 59–60.
——–. 2008b. The other side of the bridge: XBRL GL and transactions. Strategic Finance 90 ͑3͒: 57–58.
Hoffman, C., and L. Watson. 2009. XBRL For Dummies. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley Publishing.
iBanknet. 2009. iBanknet. Available at: http://ibanknet.com/.
International Audit Networks. 2006. Global Capital Markets and the Global Economy: A Vision From the
CEOs of the International Audit Networks. PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, Grant
Thornton International, Deloitte, KPMG International, BDO International, Ernst & Young.
Jackson, S., and D. Durkee. 2008. Incorporating information literacy into the accounting curriculum. Ac-
counting Education: An International Journal 17 ͑1͒: 83–97.
Kranacher, M.-J., B. W. Morris, T. A. Pearson, and R. A. Riley. 2008. A model curriculum for education in
fraud and forensic accounting. Issues in Accounting Education 23 ͑4͒: 505–519.
Lamoreaux, M. G., and P. Bonne. 2009. Preparing for the next opportunity. Journal of Accountancy.
Lancaster, G. A., and C. T. Taylor. 1986. The diffusion of innovations and their attributes: A critical review.
Quarterly Review of Marketing 11 ͑4͒: 13–19.
Ministerie van Financiën. 2009. Standard Business Reporting Newsletter. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Min-
isterie van Financiën.
Perspectives on Education: Capabilities for Success in the Accounting Profession (The White Paper). 1989.
Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Whin-
ney, Peat Marwick Main & Co, Price Waterhouse, and Touche Ross. New York, NY.
Robertson, M., J. Swan, and S. Newell. 1996. The role of networks in the diffusion of technological inno-
vation. Journal of Management Studies 33 ͑3͒: 333–359.
Securities and Exchange Commission ͑SEC͒. 2009a. Interactive data to improve financial reporting. Available
at: http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2009/33-9002a.pdf.
——–. 2009b. Staff observations from review of interactive data financial statements. Available at: http://
sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl/staff-review-observations.shtml.
Sundem, G. L. 1999. The Accounting Education Change Commission: Its History and Impact. Sarasota, FL:
Accounting Education Change Commission and American Accounting Association.
Tatikonda, L. U. 2004. Naked truths about accounting curricula. Management Accounting Quarterly 5 ͑4͒:
62–73.
Van Wyhe, G. 2007. A history of U.S. higher education in accounting, part II: Reforming accounting within
the academy. Issues in Accounting Education 22 ͑3͒: 481–501.
Von Hippel, E. A. 1997. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Wagenhofer, A. 2003. Economic consequences of Internet financial reporting. Schmalenbach Business Re-

view 55 ͑4͒: 262–279.
White, C. E. 2008a. The Accountant’s Guide to XBRL. 3rd ed. Newark, DE: SkipWhite.com.
White, C. 2008b. The Guide & Workbook for Understanding XBRL. 2nd ed. Newark, DE: SkipWhite.com.
XBRL International. 2009. XBRL GL key features. XBRL International. Available at: http://www.xbrl.org/
GLKeyFeatures.

Copyright of Issues in Accounting Education is the property of American Accounting Association and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

XBRL in the Accounting Curriculum

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to XBRL in the Accounting Curriculum

Similar to XBRL in the Accounting Curriculum (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

XBRL in the Accounting Curriculum