Enhancing accounting and finance students’ awareness of transferable skills in an integrated blended learning environment

References

• Alkhatib, O. J. (2018). An interactive and blended learning model for engineering education. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(1), 19–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0097-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anakwe, B. (2008). Comparison of student performance in paper-based versus computer-based testing. Journal of Education for Business, 84(1), 13–17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.1.13-17
   Google Scholar
• Angus, S. D., & Watson, J. (2009). Does regular online testing enhance student learning in the numerical sciences? Robust evidence from a large data set. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 255–272. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00916.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballantine, J., Duff, A., & Larres, P. (2008). Accounting and business students’ approaches to learning: A longitudinal study. Journal of Accounting Education, 26(4), 188–201. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2009.03.001
   Google Scholar
• Basioudis, I., & De Lange, P. (2009). An assessment of the learning benefits of using a web-based learning environment when teaching accounting. Advances in Accounting, 25(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2009.02.008
   Google Scholar
• Beaty, E., Gibbs, G., & Morgan, A. (1997). Learning orientations and study contracts. In F. Marton, D. J. Hounsell, & N. J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning 2nd ed. (pp. 72–88). Scottish Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, M. B., Borkhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamin, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education; from general to applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436930120107
   Google Scholar
• Biggs, J. B. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggs, J. B. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105
   Google Scholar
• Biggs, J. B. (2011). Teaching for quality learning. SRHE and Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bonk, C., & Graham, C. (2005). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (4th ed.). Pfeiffer Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, P. C., Sorensen, J. E., & Stout, D. E. (2014). The future of accounting education: Addressing the competency crisis. Strategic Finance, 96(2), 29–38.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers and Education, 79, 16–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choy, S. C., Goh, P. S. C., & Sedhu, D. S. (2016). How and why students learn: Development and validation of the learner awareness levels questionnaire for higher education students. International Journal for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 28(1), 94–101.
   Google Scholar
• Chung, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36(1), 28–71. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0681
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed). Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• De Villiers, R. (2010). The incorporation of soft skills into accounting curricula: Preparing accounting graduates for their unpredictable futures. Meditari Accountancy Research, 18(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/10222529201000007
   Google Scholar
• Dunkin, M, & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. Holt: Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Elliot, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entwistle, N. J. (2012). The quality of learning at university: Integrative understanding and distinctive ways of thinking. In J. Kirby & M. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 15–31). Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Entwistle, N. J., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Education Research, 41(6), 407–428. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.009
   Google Scholar
• Eves-Bowden, A. (2001). What basic writers think about writing. Journal of Basic Writing, 20(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.37514/JBW-J.2001.20.2.07
   Google Scholar
• Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
   Google Scholar
• Fox, A., Stevenson, L., Connelly, P., Duff, A., & Dunlop, A. (2010). Peer-mentoring undergraduate accounting students: The influence on approaches to learning and academic performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787410365650
   Google Scholar
• Frensch, P. A., & Runger, D. (2003). Implicit learning. Current Direction in Political Science, 12(1), 13–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
   Google Scholar
• Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez-Gomez, D., Jeong, J. S., Airado Rodríguez, D., & Canada-Canada, F. (2016). Performance and perception in the flipped learning model: An initial approach to evaluate the effectiveness of a New teaching methodology in a general Science classroom. Journal of Science and Education Technology, 25(3), 450–459. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9605-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabinski, K., Kedzior, M., & Krasodomska, J. (2015). Blended learning in tertiary accounting education in the CEE region – A Polish perspective. Accounting and Management Information Systems, 14(2), 378–397.
   Google Scholar
• Greasley, A., Bennett, D., & Greasley, K. (2004). A virtual learning environment for operations management: Assessing the student's perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(9/10), 974–993. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570410558030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, G. (2011). Explaining English Language teaching: Learning in action. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, K., Collins, J., Benjamin, S., Nind, M., & Sheeby, K. (2004). Saturated models of pupildom: Assessment and inclusion/exclusion. British Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 801–817. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000279512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hameed, S., Mellor, J., Badii, A., & Cullen, A. (2007). Factors mediating the routinisation of E-learning within a traditional university education environment. International Journal of Electronic Business, 5(2), 160–175. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEB.2007.012971
   Google Scholar
• Hettich, P. (1997). Epistemological approaches to cognitive development in college students. In P. Sutherland (Ed.), Adult learning: A reader (pp. 46–57). Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• Huon, G., Spehar, B., Adam, P., & Rifkin, W. (2007). Resource use and academic performance among first year psychology students. Higher Education, 53(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-1727-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IBA Global Employment Institute. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and Robotics and Their Impact on the Workplace Licensed under Creative Common Page 628.
   Google Scholar
• Jacklin, B., & Lange, De. (2009). Do accounting graduates` skills meet the expectations` of employers? A matter of convergence or divergence. Accounting Education, 18(4-5), 369–385. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280902719341
   Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mind tools for schools. Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Kaggermann, H.. (2015). Change through digitazation-value creation in the Age of the industry 4.0. In H. Albach, H. Meffert, A. Pinkwart, & R. Reichwald (Eds.), Management of Permanent Change (pp. 23–45). Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kavanagh, M. H., & Drennan, L. (2008). What skills and attributes does an accounting graduate need? Evidence from student perceptions and employer expectations. Accounting & Finance, 48(2), 279–300. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2007.00245.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, S. D., Kravitz, C., & Hopkins, M. (2004). Neural correlates of bimodal speech and gesture comprehension. Brain and Language, 89(1), 253–260. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00335-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kermis, G., & Kermis, M. (2010). Professional presence and soft skills: A role for accounting education. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 3(2), 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Kirschner, P. A., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Learner characteristics. In N. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1743–1745). Springer US.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, D., & Ware, M. (2003). E-learning: New opportunities in continuing professional development. Learned Publishing, 16(1), 34–46. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1087/095315103320995078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H. L., Parsons, D., Kwon, G., Kim, J., Petrova, K., Jeong, E., & Ryu, H. (2015). Cooperation begins: Encouraging critical thinking skills through cooperative reciprocity using a mobile learning game. Computers & Education, 97, 97–115. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., & Jocelyn, L. (2004). International outcomes of learning in mathematics literacy and problem-solving: Pisa 2003 results from the US perspective (NCSE 2005–003). US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
   Google Scholar
• Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 282–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodŕiguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcome. Computers & Education, 56(3), 818–826. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodŕiguez-Ariza, L. (2013). The influence of the use of technology on student outcomes in a blended learning context. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 625–638. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9303-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Love, N., & Fry, N. (2006). Accounting students’ perceptions of a virtual learning environment: Springboard or safety net? Accounting Education: an International Journal, 15(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/06939280600609201
   Google Scholar
• Luke, C. (2000). Cyber-schooling and technological change: Multiliteraices for new times. In B. Cope, & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and design of social futures (pp. 69–91). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(3), 277–300.
   Google Scholar
• McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v16i4.239
   Google Scholar
• Moore, T., & Hough, B. (2005). The perils of skills: Toward a model of integrating graduate attributes into the disciplines. Paper presented at Language and Academic Skills in Higher Education Conference. Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, T., & Morton, J. (2017). The myth of job readiness? Written communication, employability, and the ‘skills gap’ in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 591–609. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1067602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2014). PISA 2012 results: creative problem-solving: Students` skills in tackling real-life problems (volume V).
   Google Scholar
• Pellas, N., & Kazandis, I. (2015). On the value of second life for students` engagement in blended and online courses: A comparative study from the Higher Education in Greece. Journal of Education and Information Technology, 20(3), 445–466. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9294-4
   Google Scholar
• Penfield, R. D., & Lee, O. (2010). Test-based accountability: Potential benefits and pitfalls of science assessment with student diversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, F. (2001). A research note on accounting students`epistemological beliefs, study, strategies and unstructured problem-solving performance. Issues in Accounting Education, 16(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/iace.2001.16.1.21
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1953). To understand is to invent. Grossman.
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge; an essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes (B. Walsh, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J. (2015). Applying a hybrid model: Can it enhance students learning outcomes? Journal of Institutional Pedagogies, 17(11), 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. Routledge David Fulton.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Riley, T. J., & Simons, K. A. (2013). Writing in the accounting curriculum: A review of the literature with conclusions for implementation and future research. Issues in Accounting Education, 28(4), 823–871. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/iace-50491
   Google Scholar
• Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O. K., & Hutter, R. (2005). Epistemological beliefs, mathematical problem-solving beliefs, and academic performance of middle school students. The Elementary School Journal, 105(3), 289–304. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/428745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smedley, J. K. (2010). Modelling the impact of knowledge management using technology. OR Insight, 23(4), 233–250. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/ori.2010.11
   Google Scholar
• So, H.-J., & Brush, T. A. (2009). Students perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers and Education, 51(1), 318–336. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stonebraker, P. W., & Hazeltine, J. E. (2004). Virtual learning effectiveness. The Learning Organization, 11(2/3), 209–225. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470410532987
   Google Scholar
• Stull, J. C., Varnum, S. J., Ducette, J., Schiller, J., & Bernacki, M. (2011). The effects of formative assessment pre-lecture online chapter quizzes and student-initiated inquiries to the instructor on academic achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 17(4), 253–262. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2011.621756
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. (2000). Reflective practice. Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 275–284. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079612331381211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, L., Reilly, D., Herdan, A., & Lin, Y. (2020). Self-efficacy, performance and the role of blended learning. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13(1), 98–111. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-08-2019-0210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, L., Tatnall, A., & Burgess, S. (2014). A framework for investigating blended learning effectiveness. Education + Training, 56(2/3), 233–251. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2013-0049
   Google Scholar