An investigation into student satisfaction, approaches to learning and the learning context in Auditing
Abstract
Arguably, the audit course is one of the most challenging as it links prior accounting knowledge with new audit knowledge that students are generally not exposed to. A mini-audit group project was implemented at a New Zealand university, and a learning approach and learning experience survey instrument was administered. Responses from 98 students suggest that they perceived the learning experience positively and were encouraged to adopt a deep approach to learning. The findings have implications for accounting educators in the design and development of learning and assessment strategies in an audit course.
1 Introduction
Accounting education has been criticised for its failure to adequately prepare graduates for professional accounting practice. In particular, The Pathways Commission (2012, p. 11) found that: ‘students in accounting classes are exposed to technical material in a vocation-focused way that is disembodied from the complex, real-world settings to which students are bound’. Critics went further with specific claims of failure to provide students with an appropriate balance of theoretical knowledge and real-world application (Buckless et al., 2014), and to develop practical and judgemental decision-making skills (Helliar et al., 2009). It has been suggested that one of the reasons why auditing students have difficulty in understanding an audit in practice is because they are required to absorb technical audit knowledge without the experience of a practical audit (Crawford et al., 2011; Tonge and Willett, 2012). These findings have led to claims that auditing is unsuited to the traditional teaching approach commonly used in universities and that audit knowledge is best acquired through instruction and experience from the performance of audits (Libby, 1995). In response to these criticisms and with the aim of enhancing the learning experience, students enrolled in a third year Auditing course at a New Zealand (NZ) university were required to complete a group mini-audit assignment as part of their course requirements.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the mini-audit as a relevant concrete learning experience and to examine the influence of this learning context on the students’ approach to learning and overall student satisfaction with the learning activity. As a consequence, this paper responds first to calls for research in accounting education into the influence of the learning context on students approach to learning (Sharma, 1997) and specifically the factors that influence the adoption of a deep approach to learning (Booth et al., 1999), including strategies to increase the adoption of a deep approach to learning by accounting students (Jackling, 2005; Turner and Baskerville, 2013). Second, it responds to calls for changes to the learning context to be monitored and assessed (Lucas, 2001). Third, this paper responds to calls for real-life examples to be incorporated into auditing courses (Chaffey et al., 2011) and finally to identify the factors that influence student satisfaction with their own learning (Denson et al., 2010).
The next section discusses the literature relating to approaches to learning, and student satisfaction. Student perception data collected on this learning experience are then reported, analysed and discussed. The final section concludes the paper and discusses the implications of these findings.
2 Background
This paper draws on three strands of the literature, the first relating to student approaches to learning, the second to experiential learning, while the third strand examines student satisfaction with learning.
2.1 Approaches to learning
The learning context may be considered from a number of perspectives; these include curriculum, assessment, modes of teaching, students’ prior experiences and perceptions (Booth et al., 1999). Prosser and Trigwell (1999) claim that altering the teaching and learning context influences students’ approach to learning which in turn can improve the quality of the learning outcomes. Marton and Saljo (1984) suggest that there are two distinct approaches to learning: surface learning and deep learning. Surface learning focuses on ‘reproducing bits and pieces of memorised or textbook knowledge. The process of learning is external to the student: it is one in which alien material is impressed on the memory or manipulated unthinkingly with the intention of satisfying assessment demands’ (Ramsden, 1992, p. 46). Meanwhile with a deep approach to learning ‘students are focussing on the content of the task and how it relates to other parts of the course, or previous knowledge; they are trying to understand the task and relate its component parts to the whole. The process is internal: the students are concerned with integrating new material with their personal experiences, knowledge and interests’ (Ramsden, 1992, p. 48).
The significance of this distinction between the two approaches to learning is in the quality of learning as measured by student performance and satisfaction (Biggs, 1987). Higher education studies have found that higher academic performance is associated with a deep approach to learning and lower performance with a surface approach (Biggs, 1987; Trigwell and Prosser, 1991). Adler and Milne (1997) and Sharma (1997) concluded that learning approaches were associated with perceptions of the learning context and that altering the learning context would encourage accounting students to adopt a deep approach to learning. It was also found that the learning context provided the catalyst to intrinsically motivate students to learn and thus counter the vocational concerns of students which have traditionally led them to adopt a surface approach to learning (Lucas, 2001). Sharma (1997) and Lucas (2001) both suggested that accounting students fail to adopt a deep approach to learning due to the perceived lack of relevance of the subject. What is learned in the course is not perceived as relevant to future employment. It was suggested that the alignment of the educational environment with work expectations created relevance and reduced the effect of vocational concerns (Lucas, 2001). These concerns provided the motivation to develop an experiential learning exercise to provide a learning experience which students could relate to future employment.
2.2 Experiential learning
Experiential learning addresses the needs or wants of learners and refers to the application of knowledge that comes from doing something. Kolb (1984) maintained that the elements of experiential learning are: concrete experience; reflective observation; abstract conceptualisation; and active experimentation. The first stage, concrete experience, is where the learner actively experiences an activity such as a lab session or fieldwork. The second stage, reflective observation, is when the learner consciously reflects on that experience. The third stage, abstract conceptualisation, is where the learner attempts to conceptualise a theory or model of what is observed. The fourth stage, active experimentation, is where the learner is trying to plan how to test a model or theory or plan for a forthcoming experience. In this context ‘concrete experience is used to validate and test abstract concepts while providing a publicly shared reference point for testing the implications and validity of ideas created during the learning process’ (Kolb, 1984, p. 21).
The concerns identified above led to the development of case studies in auditing courses ‘to illustrate real-world institutions and practices’ (Libby, 1991, p. 195). Case studies provided an experiential aspect to learning which enable real-life examples to be incorporated into auditing courses (Clikeman, 2005; Cohen et al., 2008; Chaffey et al., 2011; Drake, 2011). Campbell and Lewis (1991) identify two criteria for a case. The first is that a case must contain a question or requires a conclusion, and the second is the requirement for there to be more than one reasonable answer. It has been claimed that while auditing cases have been used to solve particular audit problems, students are required to understand audit needs through the practice of audit and ‘the reality of collating data from various sources (tests of controls, of balances, direct confirmations, etc.) and dealing with conflict between them’ (Maltby, 2001, p. 426).
Concurrent with these criticisms were calls for instructors to develop interventions that will encourage auditing students to adopt a deep approach to their learning (Stout et al., 2012; Barac et al., 2016). One learning context which we propose, that potentially addresses these concerns, is the completion of a mini-audit assignment. A mini-audit is similar to the extended single case study developed by Dennis (2003) in that it provides a concrete experience for examining the entire audit process (from audit planning to audit reporting of a company). However, it differs from extended case studies in that no specific questions requiring resolution were asked. The mini-audit also differs from ‘The Lakeside Company: Case Studies in Auditing’ (Trussel and Frazer, 2008) where there are 13 separate cases each having a different audit focus. Instead, complex and messy issues and problems are embedded within a single mini-audit for the students to ‘uncover’ and to ‘open up discussions about the problems of audit’ (Maltby, 2001, p. 425). Given the novelty and unstructured nature of this learning activity, it was considered important to measure student satisfaction with the mini-audit as a positive learning experience.
2.3 Student satisfaction
Past studies of predictors of overall course satisfaction revealed that at institutional and degree levels, the following were identified as predicting factors for the quality of the course and the teaching: excellence and quality of instruction; knowledgeable, fair and unbiased staff; clear and reasonable requirements for each major; access to information; and ability to get to classes (or convenient timetabling) (Elliot and Shin, 2002); good teaching (which incorporates providing feedback); clear goals and standards; appropriate assessment; appropriate workload; and generic skills development (Ginns et al., 2007). Generally, the underlying purpose of the evaluations was to improve teaching quality rather than to improve course content (Chen and Hoshower, 2003). Denson et al. (2010) claim that whilst evaluation questionnaires always include ratings of teaching and teaching activities, students are rarely asked to assess their own learning despite the fact that such information could be used to support the desired learning outcomes. These findings suggest that student experiences in active and deep learning should also be taken into consideration when assessing their overall satisfaction with a course of study.
RQ1: Did completion of the mini-audit encourage students to adopt a deep approach to their learning?
RQ2: What factors influenced the students’ approach to their learning?
RQ3: What were the key determinants of student satisfaction in the completion of the mini-audit?
RQ4: Is the approach to learning related to the student evaluation of the mini-audit?
3 Research design
3.1 Participants
A total of 118 students enrolled in a third year auditing course at a NZ university from two semesters were invited to participate in the study. This course was compulsory for students seeking to satisfy the academic requirements for membership of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CAANZ). Student demographics of the population are included in Table 1.
| % | |
|---|---|
| Ethnicity | |
| European | 20 |
| Maori | 3 |
| Asian | 51 |
| Pasifika | 4 |
| Other | 7 |
| Non-declared | 15 |
| 100 | |
| Study | |
| Full-time | 65 |
| Part-time | 35 |
| 100 | |
| Status | |
| Domestic | 70 |
| International | 30 |
| 100 | |
| Age | |
| 20–24 | 56 |
| 25–29 | 18 |
| 30–39 | 21 |
| 40–50 | 3 |
| 50+ | 2 |
| 100 | |
| Gender | |
| Male | 34 |
| Female | 66 |
| 100 | |
Data for this study were collected using a questionnaire designed to capture students’ learning approaches and experiences. Questions in the instrument were adapted from the Learning Approaches Inventory employed by Sharma (1997) and subsequent studies (e.g., Booth et al., 1999; Lucas, 2001; Jackling, 2005). The Learning Approaches Inventory has been widely validated in the prior accounting education literature. Nevertheless, the instrument is tested for reliability because each learning context and set of students are different (Sharma, 1997). As described later, the reliability tests are consistent with prior studies. Ninety-eight students (83 percent) voluntarily completed the instrument in week 12 of the semester after the mini-audit had been completed. The questionnaire required students to evaluate their experiences with the mini-audit group project and to complete the learning approach questions. A copy of the instrument is contained in Appendix I.
3.2 The mini-audit group assignment
While auditors often follow rules and procedures contained in audit manuals, the overall requirement of an audit is for the auditor is to assess systems and controls in order to develop an understanding of risk (Helliar et al., 2009). While the objective of the mini-audit was to enable students to demonstrate an understanding of the audit process and apply basic auditing principles in a small company audit situation, it did not exhaust the complexities of a thorough and complete audit. The topics covered and assessed are described in Appendix II. Information provided to complete the mini-audit is described in Appendix III, and included general instructions on how to complete a mini-audit. In addition, the groups were provided with a set of instructions on the processes to be covered in each of the four parts of the mini-audit. However, as auditing is a process of discovery, students were not provided with details on what to look for. As a consequence, the assessment schedule was not made available prior to submission of their work. The assessment schedule is contained in Appendix V.
The students were required to complete the mini-audit in groups of four. They were given three weeks to form their groups and commence the mini-audit assignment and assume audit roles in a small accounting firm within their groups. They were required to plan their meetings and to decide on the time schedule for completing the sections of the mini-audit. As the ‘audit process requires teamwork, group decisions and judgement’ (Helliar et al., 2009, p. 186), the groups were not allowed to discuss with or ask the instructor any questions directly about the mini-audit; instead, they were encouraged to resolve issues and challenges within their groups. The instructor did not make any specific or direct reference to the mini-audit, as the assignment was entirely group-driven.
Each group was required to submit an audit file that included working papers and minutes of their meetings by prescribed dates. The students were not told exactly what they had to submit, but they were clearly instructed in the first week that the audit work they complete should be directly aligned with the topics covered each week. For example, mini-audit Part 1 to be submitted in week 6 should cover topics for weeks 1–5; Part 2 (topic 6); Part 3 (topics 7–9); Part 4 (topics 10–11) (refer to Appendix IV). The group had to be creative and perceptive in deciding how to approach the tasks and the audit concerns embedded in the information for the mini-audit. Judgement was required for deciding what information was relevant and which audit concepts, theories and rules were appropriate to apply and how to apply them. The mini-audit accounted for 40 percent of the overall assessment for the course.
4 Findings and discussion
4.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 2 provides the mean, standard deviation, and percentage agreement data for the Project Evaluation (PE) section of the survey. The responses to the shaded statements suggest an overwhelming majority of students positively perceived and were actively engaged in the project. This is demonstrated through critical thinking (PE10), discovery (PE3), analytical thought (PE11), integrating multiple aspects (PE4), applying theory to practice (PE1), searching for new knowledge beyond the textbook (PE2), and considering relationships between concepts not previously considered (PE5).
| No. | Statement | Mean | SD | % Agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | The project required me to think carefully and critically | 4.18 | 0.61 | 93 |
| 3 | I discovered new knowledge through the project process on my own and through group discussions | 4.14 | 0.53 | 92 |
| 11 | I learned how to apply knowledge and think analytically through the project | 4.11 | 0.65 | 86 |
| 4 | The project integrated various aspects of the course | 4.08 | 0.63 | 89 |
| 1 | The project related theoretical concepts to real-life business | 4.06 | 0.70 | 84 |
| 2 | The project provided me with the opportunity to learn new material not covered in the textbook and classes | 3.97 | 0.64 | 80 |
| 5 | The project made me visualise and realise relationships between various concepts that I may not have considered | 3.94 | 0.75 | 74 |
| 13 | I would like to see a smaller scale project that brings realism into classroom learning | 3.9 | 0.92 | 67 |
| 9 | The project made me see learning from a different perspective | 3.86 | 0.73 | 71 |
| 7 | The project introduced me to research and its value for understanding and creating new knowledge | 3.78 | 0.70 | 71 |
| 8 | The project illustrated the value of research to problems in the real world | 3.76 | 0.73 | 66 |
| 12 | I would support continuation of similar projects in this course | 3.76 | 0.94 | 59 |
| 6 | The project allowed me to manage learning at my own pace and depth | 3.63 | 0.89 | 58 |
| 14 | I would support replacement of the project by theoretical (textbook-based) case studies for more effective learning | 3.11 | 1.18 | 40 |
- 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree.
Table 3 provides the mean, standard deviation and percentage agreement data for the Approach to Learning (LA) statements in the survey instrument. The response to Learning Approach questions LA6, LA7, LA8, LA9, LA11 and LA12 suggest that students had a higher propensity to adopt a deep approach to their learning when completing the mini-audit. Likewise, it should be noted that there was significantly less support for learning approaches related to a surface approach to learning as indicated by the last three statements in Table 3. It was also found that there was significantly less support for, and greater variability in, student responses to the suggestion that mini-audit should be replaced with more theoretical case studies (PE14).
| No. | Statement | Mean | SD | % Agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | My tutor was effective in explaining things and encouraged me to learn | 3.97 | 0.69 | 79 |
| 6 | I put in a lot of effort trying to understand things which initially seemed difficult | 3.88 | 0.66 | 78 |
| 7 | I tried to understand thoroughly the material I read | 3.86 | 0.57 | 80 |
| 12 | I was motivated to understand and discover new knowledge | 3.81 | 0.65 | 67 |
| 11 | I felt I was actively engaged in learning | 3.66 | 0.70 | 63 |
| 9 | I played around with my own ideas either myself or with classmates (including group members) when trying to make sense of a complex issue | 3.63 | 0.79 | 60 |
| 8 | When reading new material, I found I was continually reminded of material I already knew/read and saw the new material in a new light | 3.56 | 0.81 | 60 |
| 4 | When I was reading, I found it useful to memorise important facts that might become useful later | 3.54 | 0.85 | 61 |
| 5 | The best way to understand technical terms and concepts is to remember their definitions | 3.05 | 0.96 | 35 |
| 10 | I spent a good amount of my own time finding out more about interesting topics that were discussed in classes | 3.02 | 0.86 | 32 |
| 3 | I found that I had to read material without really having a chance to understand them | 2.9 | 0.98 | 28 |
| 1 | I tended to concentrate on memorising most of what I had to learn | 2.87 | 0.84 | 23 |
| 2 | I usually did not spend time thinking about the implications of what I read or had done | 2.27 | 0.86 | 11 |
- 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree.
It was interesting to note that although students were not directed by specific questions in the mini-audit, this appeared to have no negative influence on student perceptions of tutor effectiveness (PE13). Similarly, the responses to student approaches to learning provide evidence suggesting that students felt motivated to learn and were actively engaged in the learning process.
4.1.1 Did the students adopt a deep approach to their learning (RQ1)?
The means were calculated over the 'Surface Learning' variables (2.88) and 'Deep Learning' variables (3.62) and a T-test was conducted. This resulted in t = |8.99| (p < 0.001) indicating that the deep learning approach was significantly more favoured by students than the surface learning approach as displayed in Table 4.
| Variable | Number of students | Mean | SE | SD | (95% confidence interval) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surface learning (LA1 – LA4) | 92 | 2.88 | 0.06 | 0.60 | 2.76 (3.01) |
| Deep learning (LA6 – LA12) | 92 | 3.62 | 0.04 | 0.40 | 3.54 (3.70) |
| Difference | 92 | −0.74 | 0.08 | 0.79 | −0.90 (−0.57) |
| Mean (difference) | T = −8.99 | ||||
| DF = 91 | |||||
| Pr(|T|> |t|) 0.000 |
4.2 Regression and reliability scales
4.2.1 What factors influenced student satisfaction (RQ3)?
In this study, PE12 was used as the satisfaction variable. To determine which of the items from the mini-audit evaluation were significantly related to student satisfaction, a multiple ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was performed. The results are reported in Table 5. There were only four significant relationships between the project evaluation and approach to learning questions on the one hand and student satisfaction on the other. First, there was a positive relationship between student satisfaction and the perception that the project introduced them to new knowledge both on their own and through group discussions (PE3). While it is unclear whether satisfaction related to individual or group study, it was apparent that the acquisition of new knowledge had an influence on student satisfaction. Second, those that were satisfied with the mini-audit did not perceive that it introduced them to research and its value for creating new knowledge (PE7). Third, those students that did not wish to see the mini-audit replaced with a more theoretical case study (PE14) were more satisfied with the mini-audit. This finding suggests that these students preferred to learn through the application of theory to practice. Fourth, those students who concentrated on memorising most of what they had to learn were more satisfied with the mini-audit as a learning experience (LA1). It was surprising that students who were more satisfied with the project still tended to utilise a surface learning approach such as memorisation. However, in other research (Jackling, 2005) it was found that students memorised material for different reasons. One reason is to prepare for an assessment whereas another reason is that memorisation is perceived as a prerequisite for understanding. As a result, memorisation could be considered to relate to both a surface or a deep approach to learning depending on student motivation to memorise material.
| Satisfaction | Coefficient | SE | t | p > t | Beta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PE1 | 0.136 | 0.188 | 0.72 | 0.473 | 0.11 |
| PE2 | −0.124 | 0.161 | −0.77 | 0.445 | −0.09 |
| PE3 | 0.654*** | 0.191 | 3.43 | 0.001 | 0.40 |
| PE4 | 0.189 | 0.188 | 1.01 | 0.317 | 0.14 |
| PE5 | 0.035 | 0.200 | 0.18 | 0.86 | 0.03 |
| PE6 | 0.231 | 0.153 | 1.51 | 0.136 | 0.23 |
| PE7 | −0.397** | 0.159 | −2.50 | 0.015 | −0.30 |
| PE8 | 0.007 | 0.148 | 0.05 | 0.962 | 0.01 |
| PE9 | 0.124 | 0.188 | 0.66 | 0.512 | 0.10 |
| PE10 | 0.347 | 0.207 | 1.68 | 0.099 | 0.24 |
| PE11 | 0.227 | 0.201 | 1.13 | 0.264 | 0.17 |
| PE13 | 0.097 | 0.099 | 0.98 | 0.329 | 0.10 |
| PE14 | −0.281*** | 0.097 | −2.92 | 0.005 | −0.37 |
| LA1 | 0.406*** | 0.126 | 3.23 | 0.002 | 0.37 |
| LA2 | −0.036 | 0.132 | −0.27 | 0.788 | −0.03 |
| LA3 | −0.083 | 0.112 | −0.74 | 0.461 | −0.09 |
| LA4 | −0.039 | 0.118 | −0.33 | 0.742 | −0.04 |
| LA5 | −0.148 | 0.095 | −1.55 | 0.125 | −0.16 |
| LA6 | −0.051 | 0.134 | −0.38 | 0.703 | −0.04 |
| LA7 | −0.016 | 0.176 | −0.09 | 0.929 | −0.01 |
| LA8 | −0.067 | 0.134 | −0.50 | 0.618 | −0.06 |
| LA9 | 0.020 | 0.123 | 0.16 | 0.874 | 0.02 |
| LA10 | −0.028 | 0.113 | −0.25 | 0.804 | −0.03 |
| LA11 | −0.242 | 0.163 | −1.48 | 0.143 | −0.19 |
| LA12 | −0.201 | 0.183 | −1.10 | 0.276 | −0.15 |
| LA13 | 0.238 | 0.169 | 1.41 | 0.163 | 0.18 |
| Constant | −0.666 | 1.324 | −0.50 | 0.617 | |
| F(26,61) = 3.36; p > F = 0.0001; R2 = 0.58; Adj R2 = 0.41 | |||||
- **p ≤ 0.05, ***p ≤ 0.01.
While there was a positive relationship between teacher effectiveness (LA13) and student satisfaction, the relationship was not statistically significant. This finding is notable given that student satisfaction surveys are frequently used to evaluate teaching effectiveness and are used to rate teacher performance. This is despite claims that the focus should be on learning rather than teaching (Denson et al., 2010). Overall, it would appear that learning something new and the application of theory to practice had a significant influence on student satisfaction.
4.2.2 What factors influenced a deep approach to learning (RQ2)?
The learning approach questions were then separated into two related groups – the deep and surface approach. Learning approach questions 6–12 (Table 3) were about seeking meaning, relating ideas, and using evidence and collaboration, which is associated with a deep approach to learning. Learning approach questions 1–5, on the other hand, reflected an unwillingness to discover, understand and apply learning that has taken place.
A Cronbach’s alpha analysis was performed to test for the reliability of these two scales. The alpha value for surface learning (LA1–5) approach was calculated as 0.58 and judged to be low for a satisfactory scale representation (Table 6). Removal of item LA5 increased the scale reliability to 0.61. The deletion of item LA5 is not surprising given that earlier it was found that memorisation appears to be associated with both surface and deep learning. The reliability coefficient for the deep learning approach (LA6–12) was calculated as 0.62 which we assessed as satisfactory (Table 7). While the values of 0.61 and 0.62 for our two scales of surface and deep learning are on the low side of the acceptability for a valid scale, George and Mallery (2003) and Hair et al., (2006) have shown values near 0.6 to be acceptable if there are only few items in a scale.
| Item | Obs | Sign | Item-test correlation | Item-rest correlation | Average interitem correlation | α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LA1 | 98 | + | 0.6646 | 0.4124 | 0.1924 | 0.4879 |
| LA2 | 97 | + | 0.7409 | 0.5232 | 0.1520 | 0.4176 |
| LA3 | 96 | + | 0.6302 | 0.3601 | 0.2112 | 0.5171 |
| LA4 | 98 | + | 0.5381 | 0.2427 | 0.2566 | 0.5800 |
| LA5 | 98 | + | 0.4955 | 0.1898 | 0.2773 | 0.6055 |
| Test scale | 0.2178 | 0.5820 |
| Item | Obs | Sign | Item-test correlation | Item-rest correlation | Average interitem correlation | α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LA6 | 98 | + | 0.4199 | 0.1730 | 0.2228 | 0.6324 |
| LA7 | 96 | + | 0.5952 | 0.3863 | 0.1779 | 0.5649 |
| LA8 | 98 | + | 0.5743 | 0.3566 | 0.1841 | 0.5751 |
| LA9 | 98 | + | 0.5207 | 0.2904 | 0.1979 | 0.5968 |
| LA10 | 97 | + | 0.6103 | 0.4040 | 0.1749 | 0.5598 |
| LA11 | 98 | + | 0.5243 | 0.2974 | 0.1974 | 0.5961 |
| LA12 | 98 | + | 0.6232 | 0.4184 | 0.1707 | 0.5525 |
| Test scale | 0.1893 | 0.6205 |
A principal component factor analysis (PCFA) was then performed on each of the two scales in order to reduce the variables in each scale to one. The result of the component factor analysis is reported in Tables 8 and 9.
| Factor | Eigenvalue | Difference | Proportion | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor 1 | 1.863 | 0.845 | 0.466 | 0.466 |
| Factor 2 | 1.019 | 0.335 | 0.255 | 0.721 |
| Factor 3 | 0.684 | 0.249 | 0.171 | 0.891 |
| Factor 4 | 0.434 | 0.109 | 1.000 |
- LR test: independent vs. saturated: χ2(6) = 53.21 Prob > χ2 = 0.
| Factor | Eigenvalue | Difference | Proportion | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor 1 | 2.212 | 1.130 | 0.316 | 0.316 |
| Factor 2 | 1.082 | 0.066 | 0.155 | 0.471 |
| Factor 3 | 1.016 | 0.044 | 0.145 | 0.616 |
| Factor 4 | 0.972 | 0.248 | 0.139 | 0.755 |
| Factor 5 | 0.724 | 0.139 | 0.104 | 0.858 |
| Factor 6 | 0.586 | 0.178 | 0.084 | 0.942 |
| Factor 7 | 0.408 | 0.058 | 1.000 |
- R test: independent vs. saturated: χ2(21) = 82.09 Prob> χ2 = 0.
The extracted main factor for the surface approach (LA1–LA4) explained 47 percent of the variance in all ‘surface learning' items. This factor accounts for the majority of the correlational portion of the variance in the four constituent variables of the surface approach.
While using the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (Guttman, 1954; Kaiser, 1960) in this analysis could justify the retention of the first three factors, we considered the significant dominance of the first factor and inspected the scree plot resulting from the factor analysis. This led us to extract only the first factor. This dominant factor explained 32 percent of the variance in all ‘deep learning’ items.
4.2.3 Is the approach to learning related to the student evaluation of the project (RQ4)?
After creating the two learning approach measures, multivariate regression was used and the surface learning and deep learning measures were jointly regressed on all the project evaluation items. The results of this analysis are reported in Table 10.
| Coef. | SE | t | p > t | [95% confidence interval] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surface | |||||
| PE1 | 0.276 | 0.233 | 1.19 | 0.239 | −0.187 (0.740) |
| PE2 | 0.033 | 0.203 | 0.16 | 0.871 | −0.371 (0.437) |
| PE3 | −0.239 | 0.261 | −0.92 | 0.362 | −0.759 (0.281) |
| PE4 | −0.276 | 0.248 | −1.11 | 0.270 | −0.771 (0.219) |
| PE5 | 0.007 | 0.236 | 0.03 | 0.977 | −0.463 (0.477) |
| PE6 | −0.100 | 0.174 | −0.58 | 0.566 | −0.446 (0.246) |
| PE7 | 0.079 | 0.206 | 0.39 | 0.701 | −0.331 (0.490) |
| PE8 | 0.015 | 0.200 | 0.08 | 0.939 | −0.384 (0.414) |
| PE9 | −0.352 | 0.232 | −1.52 | 0.132 | −0.814 (0.109) |
| PE10 | −0.233 | 0.262 | −0.89 | 0.377 | −0.755 (0.290) |
| PE11 | 0.090 | 0.245 | 0.37 | 0.714 | −0.398 (0.578) |
| PE12 | 0.226 | 0.165 | 1.37 | 0.174 | −0.102 (0.554) |
| PE13 | −0.072 | 0.133 | −0.54 | 0.590 | −0.337 (0.193) |
| PE14 | 0.364*** | 0.115 | 3.18 | 0.002 | 0.136 (0.593) |
| Constant | 1.103 | 1.399 | 0.79 | 0.433 | −1.686 (3.892) |
| Deep | |||||
| PE1 | 0.085 | 0.191 | 0.44 | 0.659 | −0.297 (0.466) |
| PE2 | 0.048 | 0.167 | 0.29 | 0.773 | −0.284 (0.381) |
| PE3 | −0.080 | 0.215 | −0.37 | 0.709 | −0.508 (0.348) |
| PE4 | 0.119 | 0.204 | 0.58 | 0.561 | −0.288 (0.526) |
| PE5 | 0.480** | 0.194 | 2.48 | 0.016 | 0.094 (0.867) |
| PE6 | 0.237 | 0.143 | 1.66 | 0.101 | −0.048 (0.522) |
| PE7 | −0.352** | 0.170 | −2.07 | 0.042 | −0.690 (−0.014) |
| PE8 | −0.101 | 0.165 | −0.61 | 0.540 | −0.430 (0.227) |
| PE9 | 0.684*** | 0.191 | 3.59 | 0.001 | 0.305 (1.065) |
| PE10 | −0.265 | 0.216 | −1.23 | 0.223 | −0.695 (0.165) |
| PE11 | 0.172 | 0.202 | 0.85 | 0.396 | −0.230 (0.574) |
| PE12 | −0.171 | 0.136 | −1.26 | 0.212 | −0.441 (0.099) |
| PE13 | −0.010 | 0.109 | −0.09 | 0.927 | −0.228 (0.208) |
| PE14 | −0.001 | 0.094 | −0.01 | 0.991 | −0.189 (0.187) |
| Constant | −3.307*** | 1.152 | −2.87 | 0.005 | −5.602 (−1.011) |
| Equation | Obs | Parms | RMSE | R 2 | F | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surface | 88 | 15 | 1.019 | 0.159 | 0.985 | 0.477 |
| Deep | 88 | 15 | 0.821 | 0.465 | 4.526 | 0.000 |
- **p ≤ 0.05, ***p ≤ 0.01.
A strong positive relationship was detected between the surface approach and PE14. This indicated that those who adopted a surface approach to their learning were significantly more inclined to think that the mini-audit was too practical. Furthermore, there is a significant positive relationship between visualising and realising relationships between various concepts not previously considered (PE5) and the deep approach, and also seeing learning from a different perspective (PE9) and the deep approach. Therefore, it can be resolved that those who found new relationships between concepts and who saw learning from a different perspective were more inclined to adopt a deep approach to learning. Not surprisingly, however, there was a negative perceived relationship between PE7 and a deep approach to learning. In other words, those students who were likely to adopt a deep approach to their learning did not perceive that the mini-audit introduced them to research and its value for creating new knowledge (PE7). This finding was not surprising given that the purpose of the mini-audit was not to examine research and future developments in auditing, but rather to provide an experiential learning activity involving audit practice.
One of the benefits of multivariate regression is that it enables an assessment of whether the effect of individual project evaluation variables is significantly different for the deep and surface approach. We tested for the difference of coefficients in our simultaneous equations and the result is displayed in Table 11. The primary finding here is that the response to the question whether the project made one see learning from a different perspective (PE9) is not only statistically different for the surface and deep approach, but also in the opposite direction. While a stronger inclination to see learning from a different perspective is associated with an increased propensity for the deep learning approach, a weaker inclination to see learning from a different perspective is related to a stronger affinity for the surface approach. The relationship is also opposite for both approaches for the support to replace the audit with a theoretical exercise. A stronger appetite for the theoretical exercise indicates a higher propensity for the surface learning approach, while increased desire for a theoretical exercise is not related in the same way for the deep approach.
| Surface | Deep | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PE1 | 0.276 | 0.085 | 0.554 |
| PE2 | 0.033 | 0.048 | 0.956 |
| PE3 | −0.239 | −0.080 | 0.662 |
| PE4 | −0.276 | 0.119 | 0.254 |
| PE5 | 0.007 | 0.481 | 0.151 |
| PE6 | −0.100 | 0.237 | 0.165 |
| PE7 | 0.079 | −0.352 | 0.135 |
| PE8 | 0.015 | −0.101 | 0.675 |
| PE9 | −0.352 | 0.685 | 0.002 |
| PE10 | −0.233 | −0.265 | 0.930 |
| PE11 | 0.090 | 0.172 | 0.809 |
| PE12 | 0.226 | −0.171 | 0.086 |
| PE13 | −0.072 | −0.010 | 0.738 |
| PE14 | 0.365 | −0.001 | 0.024 |
5 Conclusion
This study examined student approaches to learning and the relationship between approaches to learning and student satisfaction in the completion of a group mini-audit assignment.
Overall, this investigation found that students were very satisfied with the mini-audit as a learning and assessment activity and a key influence on this level of satisfaction was the opportunity to discover new knowledge. In addition, the students were inclined to adopt a deep approach to their learning as the mini-audit helped them view learning from a different perspective and also to visualise relationships between concepts not previously considered. This assessment was trialled over two semesters. As a result of the positive findings from this study, the assessment has continued in subsequent course offerings but was modified five years ago when faculty academic protocols placed limitations on the percentage of group work permitted in coursework.
These findings have implications for accounting educators in the design and development of learning strategies for their students. Where possible, the learning context should require students to apply theory learned to practice so that they may reflect on the concepts and consider the relationships between them as this appears to motivate them to consider learning from a different perspective to that with which they have become accustomed.
This study adds to the accounting education literature by examining data from student evaluations of a mini-audit assignment. Conducting this investigation at an assessment level has the potential to provide greater insights for instructors in the discipline (Eley and Meyer, 2004) and specifically the sub-discipline of auditing. It is acknowledged that the number of participants in this study was relatively small (n = 98), and therefore, replicating this research with a larger cohort may be useful in validating these results and provide additional insights.
Appendix I: Questionnaire
PROJECT EVALUATION
Based on your experiences with the mini-audit Group Project for the Advanced Auditing module, please circle the response that you deem most appropriate. Your responses will assist in assessing the effectiveness and improvement to the design of project work.
Please circle the most appropriate response where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree.
| 1. | The project related theoretical concepts to real-life business | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 2. | The project provided me with the opportunity to learn new material not covered in the textbook and classes | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 3. | I discovered new knowledge through the project process on my own and through group discussions | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 4. | The project integrated various aspects of the course | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 5. | The project made me visualise and realise relationships between various concepts that I may not have considered | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 6. | The project allowed me to manage learning at my own pace and depth | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 7. | The project introduced me to research and its value for understanding and creating new knowledge | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 8. | The project illustrated the value of research to problems in the real world | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 9. | The project made me see learning from a different perspective | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 10. | The project required me to think carefully and critically | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 11. | I learned how to apply knowledge and think analytically through the project | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 12. | I would support continuation of similar projects in CA 367904 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 13. | I would like to see a smaller scale project that brings realism into classroom learning | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 14. | I would support replacement of the project by theoretical (textbook-based) case studies for more effective learning | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
YOUR LEARNING APPROACH
Below are statements about student learning approaches. Please indicate your learning orientation by marking the appropriate response for each statement. There is no right or wrong approach; it is a matter of personal choice. However, you are required to think of your learning behaviour in CA 367904 only and that which occurred throughout the semester given the various learning activities in the course.
Please circle the most appropriate response where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree.
| 1. | I tended to concentrate on memorising most of what I had to learn | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 2. | I usually did not spend time thinking about the implications of what I read or had done | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 3. | I found that I had to read material without really having a chance to understand them | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 4. | When I was reading, I found it useful to memorise important facts that might come useful later | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 5. | The best way to understand technical terms and concepts is to remember their definitions | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 6. | I put in a lot of effort trying to understand things which initially seemed difficult | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 7. | I tried to understand thoroughly the material I read | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 8. | When reading new material I found I was continually reminded of material I already knew/read and saw the new material in a new light | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 9. | I played around with my own ideas either myself or with classmates (including group members) when trying to make sense of a complex issue | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 10. | I spent a good amount of my own time finding out more about interesting topics that were discussed in classes | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 11. | I felt I was actively engaged in learning | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 12. | I was motivated to understand and discover new knowledge | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 13. | My tutor was effective in explaining things and encouraged me to learn | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Appendix II
Topics covered and assessed in the mini-audit
- Audit risks and materiality assessments in audit planning
- Interim work – evaluating the effectiveness of internal controls in the accounting systems and deciding on the extent of tests of controls and substantive testing
- Final audit – verifying account balances
- Audit completion
- Audit reporting
- What course evaluation questions predict overall student satisfaction?
- Which questions are the strongest predictors of student satisfaction?
Appendix III
Information for completing the mini-audit
- General instructions on how to study and complete the mini-audit
- Narratives on company history and background
- A plan of the company premises and location
- Company staff organisational chart and structure (for production, sales, accounting, finance and administrative staff)
- Narratives and flowcharts for the accounting systems and internal control procedures – the general accounting cycle, sales & collection cycle, purchases & payments cycle, the payroll cycle, the inventory management system
- Completed internal control questionnaires for the above cycles
- Company financial statements and financial ratios (current and previous year’s) and client’s supporting schedules
- Partially completed audit schedules
- Partially completed audit programs
- Simulated documentary ‘evidence’.
- Any type of oriented material such as may normally be found in audit working papers
- Information of meetings and discussions with the client
- Additional information for completing the mini-audit
- Audit & accounting issues (messy stories) embedded in the narratives and other information
- No assignment questions to answer
Appendix IV
Submission schedule for the assigned topics covered and assessed in the mini-audit
| Week | Weekly topics | Submission datelines for the teaching weeks |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | An overview of auditing | |
| 2 |
The role of regulators & regulations in auditing Governance & the auditor |
|
| 3 |
Professional & ethical obligations of auditors Auditors’ legal liability |
|
| 4 |
Client evaluation Audit risk assessment |
|
| 5 | Materiality and audit evidence | |
| 6 |
Gaining an understanding of client’s internal control system Tests of controls |
Mini-audit Part 1 to be submitted (Covering topics for weeks 1–5) |
| 7 | Designing substantive procedures | Mini-audit Part 2 to be submitted (Covering topics for week 6) |
| 8 | Auditing sales and receivables | |
| 9 |
Auditing inventories and property, plant & equipment Overview-auditing P/L items |
|
| 10 | Completing the audit | Mini-audit Part 3 to be submitted (Covering topics for weeks 7–9) |
| 11 | The auditor’s report | |
| 12 | Contemporary issues
|
Mini-audit Part 4 to be submitted (Covering topics for weeks 10–11) |
Appendix V
A. Assessment schedule
| Question 1: Audit planning | |
| 1. Prepare an organisation chart for the company. Can you suggest any organisational changes that would improve internal control? | |
| 2. Prepare flowcharts for the general accounting cycles | |
| 3. Perform preliminary analytical procedures on management accounts to identify unusual trends, etc. | |
| 4. You are required to prepare the Audit Engagement letter | |
| 5. Prepare a formal planning memorandum. Date your memorandum December 27, 2016 | |
| Question 2: Accounting and internal control systems review and evaluation | |
| 1. Write the steps you will take in the evaluation of internal controls in the accounting systems | |
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of each of the accounting and internal control system in the company:
|
|
| 3. Write a letter to management to highlight identified weaknesses and your recommendations for improvements | |
4. Prepare interim audit programmes for:
|
|
| 5. For each of the programme prepared, identify the programme step which addresses the strength or weakness in internal control | |
| Question 3: Audit verification of cash at bank | |
| 1. Explain why the audit of the bank account is considered significant in almost all audits, even when the ending balance is immaterial | |
| 2. Write a final audit programme on the verification of bank | |
| 3. Complete the audit work for cash at bank, drawing conclusions on whether the balance at year end is true and fair | |
| Question 4: Audit verification of stock at year end | |
1. Prepare an inventory observation memorandum describing:
|
|
| 2. Describe the work you would undertake to verify that cut-off was correctly carried out at the year end | |
| 3. Explain why the stock account is usually associated with a high inherent risk assessment? | |
| 4. Follow the audit programme on the verification of inventory, and perform all the required audit work on the given schedules, drawing conclusions whether stock at year-end is true and fair | |
B. Submission schedule for the assigned topics covered and assessed in the mini-audit
| Week | Weekly topics | Submission dates for the teaching weeks |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | An overview of auditing | |
| 2 |
The role of regulators & regulations in auditing Governance & the auditor |
|
| 3 |
Professional & ethical obligations of auditors Auditors’ legal liability |
|
| 4 |
Client evaluation Audit risk assessment |
|
| 5 | Materiality and audit evidence | |
| 6 |
Gaining an understanding of client’s internal control system Tests of controls |
Mini-audit Part 1 to be submitted (Covering topics for weeks 1–5) |
| 7 | Designing substantive procedures | Mini-audit Part 2 to be submitted (Covering topics for week 6) |
| 8 | Auditing sales and receivables | |
| 9 |
Auditing inventories and property, plant & equipment Overview-auditing P/L items |
|
| 10 | Completing the audit | Mini-audit Part 3 to be submitted (Covering topics for weeks 7–9) |
| 11 | The auditor’s report | |
| 12 | Contemporary issues
|
Mini-audit Part 4 to be submitted (Covering topics for weeks 10–11) |
