An analysis of how students construct knowledge in a course with a hierarchical knowledge structure

Abstract

Passing the introductory accounting semester is often seen as a challenge for first year students. Being aware of both effective and ineffective ways of constructing knowledge in a discipline with a hierarchical knowledge structure will be of value to students and teachers alike in assisting in the development of effective styles of learning. This article, which is part of a larger body of research, analyses how students in an introductory financial accounting class at Rhodes University constructed knowledge. Previous research described the course as having a hierarchical knowledge structure.

In this research, first year accounting students at Rhodes University were interviewed to gain an improved understanding of how they constructed knowledge in this course. This article describes how students who were successful in passing this semester course used similar, effective ways of constructing knowledge, while students who were not successful also employed similar but less effective ways of constructing knowledge. These different ways of constructing knowledge, both effective and ineffective, were analysed, using the Bernstein’s pedagogic device and Maton’s Legitimation Code Theory.

This article provides those involved in teaching and learning in a discipline with a hierarchical knowledge structure, with a theoretical explanation of why some methods of constructing knowledge are more effective than others. Understanding and being explicit about more (and less) effective ways of constructing knowledge in a course with a hierarchical knowledge structure can guide those involved in teaching and learning to improve results.

Keywords:

• Accounting education
• introductory accounting
• constructing knowledge
• pedagogic device
• Legitimation Code Theory

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Judith Reynolds, one of my Master's degree supervisors, who felt this would be valuable research to share and encouraged me to write the article.

ORCiD

L. Peta Myers http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6676-5239

Notes

1. The IASB, consisting of a board of 15 members, develops the International Financial Reporting Standards. Although input is sought from outside sources, this board takes ultimate responsibility for the development and dissemination of these standards.

2. This research refers specifically to technical questions at the introductory financial accounting level.

3. ‘procedures of investigation’ is a term used by Bernstein (1999, p. 165)

4. Myers (2016) highlights a potential problem where students watch an ‘expert’ complete a task and recognise the figures and then think the task is easy to complete. However, when trying to complete the same task on their own, they are unable to do so. These students have acquired recognition rules, but not realisation rules.

5. This can be contrasted with, for example, a knower code where the gaze generates the procedures (Maton, 2011).

6. These terms were discussed earlier, in the subsection ‘How Bernstein’s pedagogic device and LCTs impact on teaching and learning in introductory financial accounting’.

7. Accounting questions usually provide a scenario which is followed by a section where what students are required to do in the question is explained. This is what students refer to as the ‘required’. Without knowing what they are required to produce in their solution, it is difficult to identify what is relevant in the scenario.

8. A t-account is a simplified version of a general ledger account. It is useful to provide an illustration of which accounts are involved and what amounts should be debited and credited in a given scenario.

9. Formatting marks are given to ensure that students present the question in the correct format. Correct presentation of the solution is important at the introductory accounting level, as this provides the foundation for future years.