Perceptions of the learning context and learning approaches: Implications for quality learning outcomes in accounting

Abstract

This study analyses learning approaches, course perceptions and learning outcomes of a group of second year accounting students at an Australian university using qualitative data analysis techniques. The research method involves the development of a series of matrices linking types of motives and strategies used by students in their study, together with their perceptions of the learning context associated with learning outcomes. The study focuses on assessing the links between learning approaches and a qualitative assessment of students' conceptual understanding of aspects of financial accounting studied at the undergraduate level. The results confirm how individual differences in the perceptions of the learning context relate to study motives and strategies. The findings show how different forms of memorisation relate to study strategies and how the completion of accounting tasks link to students' perceptions of course requirements. There was also some evidence that, in terms of learning outcomes, students with sophisticated levels of understanding of concepts, tended to have consistent deep and achieving approaches to learning. This result was compared with students' academic performance as a measure of learning outcome. Discrepancies between these two measures of learning outcome are highlighted in the conclusions. The findings strengthen the case for further investigation of the use of measures other than academic performance in examining relationships between learning approaches and learning outcomes.

Keywords:

• Learning approach
• learning context
• memorisation
• learning outcomes
• qualitative analysis

Notes

1. Van Rossum and Schenk (1984) analysed the quality of student learning responses from reading text using a taxonomy developed by Biggs and Collis (1982). The Structure of Observed learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy contains five levels of outcome which are used to classify the structural complexity of students' responses. At levels 4 (Relational) and 5 (Extended Abstract) responses involve evidence of understanding in the sense of integrating and structuring parts of the material learned which are readily identifiable with deep approaches to learning.

2. The specific variables identified in this study are referred to throughout this study using capitalised names e.g. Surface motive, Surface strategy, to distinguish the variables from general reference to e.g. surface motives and strategies in learning.

3. The content specific questions related to financial accounting were compiled in consultation with the Lecturer in Charge of the unit.

4. The data related to studying for examinations provided the richest descriptions of students' strategies. Consequently these were used in the analysis of study strategies.

5. The Lecturer in Charge of the unit, who was not associated with this study, rated the specific content questions in terms of difficulty.

6. It is acknowledged that a more detailed analysis of responses to the specific content questions would be achieved by sorting the data into sub-groups and grading the quality of the responses in each cell of the matrix.

7. Qualitative data analysis package known as NUD*IST which is an acronym for Non-numerical Unstructured Data-Indexing, Searching and Theorizing.

8. The Lecturer in Charge of the unit provided an assessment of interview response to the specific content questions.