Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Interaction of Learning Styles and Teaching Methodologies in Accounting Ethical Instruction

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ethical instruction is critical for trainee accountants. Various teaching methods, both active and passive, are normally utilised when teaching accounting ethics. However, students’ learning styles are rarely assessed. This study evaluates the learning styles of accounting students and assesses the interaction of teaching methods and learning styles in an ethics instruction environment. The ethical attitudes and preferred learning styles of a cohort (137) of final year accounting students were evaluated pre-instruction. They were then subject to three different teaching methods while studying ethics during an auditing course. When ethical attitudes and preferred learning styles were re-assessed post-instruction, the teaching methods were found to have influenced active learners more than passive ones. Furthermore, when learning styles matched teaching methods used, usefulness was assessed as high but when learning styles and teaching methods differed, usefulness deteriorated significantly. Students displayed a preference for passive learning styles, despite being so advanced in their education. The implications are that instructors should consider learning styles before deciding on appropriate teaching methods, in accounting ethics environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the remainder of this paper, they will be referred to simply as active and passive.

  2. 139 students attended the first lecture and 134 attended the sixth lecture. These attendance rates (50 %) are standard for subjects at this final year level at this university, so there was no reason to assume non-attendees would be any different from attendees in their responses.

  3. Comparison of two binomial proportions test (SISA 2011). p < .005 (t = −2.18). The movement in ‘undecided’ was also significant (p < .001, t = 3.16), but for ‘active’ it was not (p > .400, t = .779).

  4. Cronbach’s Alpha scores of .702, .802 and .761, respectively.

  5. Analysis of the allocation of students to tutorials (Table 5) reveals no significant bias in students of a particular learning type dominating a particular tutorial type, in relation to the overall ratio of active to passive students.

  6. For scenarios 1–5, respectively, F scores with significance levels in brackets: .459 (.499), .027 (.869), .276 (.600), 1.090 (.298) and 1.206 (.273).

  7. A full copy of the survey instrument available from authors on request.

References

  • Abdolmohammadi, M. J., Fedorowicz, J., & Davis, O. (2009). Accountants’ cognitive styles and ethical reasoning: A comparison across 15 years. Journal of Accounting Education, 27(1), 185–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Accountants Professional Ethical Standards Board (APESB). (2010). Ethics handbook. Sydney: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC). (1990). Objectives of education for accountants: position statement number one. Issues in Accounting Education, 5(2), 307–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, R. W., & Milne, M. J. (1997). Improving the quality of accounting students’ learning through action-orientated learning tasks. Accounting Education, 13(3), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, R. W., Whiting, R. H., & Wynn-Williams, K. (2004). Student-led and teacher-led case presentations: Empirical evidence about learning styles in an accounting course. Accounting Education, 13(2), 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, R. E., Simon, J. R., & Bazeli, F. P. (1986). An assessment of the learning style preferences of accounting majors. Issues in Accounting Education, 1(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, R. A., & Reckers, P. M. (1984). Exploring the role of learning style research in accounting education policy. Journal of Accounting Education, 2, 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bean, D., & Bernardi, R. A. (2005, December). Accounting ethics courses: A professional necessity. The CPA Journal. Retrieved from http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2005/1205/essentials/p64.htm.

  • Brickner, D. R., & Etter, E. R. (2008). Strategies for promoting active learing in a principles of accounting course. Academy of Education Leadership Journal, 12(2), 87–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H. D., & Burke, R. C. (1987). Accounting education: A learning-styles study of professional-technical and future adaptation issues. Journal of Accounting Education, 5, 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanaugh, G. F., & Frizsche, D. J. (1985). Using vignettes in business ethics research. In L. E. Preston (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy (pp. 279–293). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, J., & Monroe, G. S. (2007). An exploratory study of counter explanation as an ethical intervention strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(2), 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottell, P. G., & Millis, B. J. (1992). Cooperative learning in accounting. Journal of Accounting Education, 10, 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottell, P. G., & Millis, B. J. (1993). Cooperation learning structures in the instruction of accounting. Issues in Accounting Education, 8(1), 40–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, P. C., Davidson, R. A., & Schwartz, B. N. (2001). The effect of organizational culture and ethical orientation on accountants’ ethical judgements. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(2), 101–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, E. J., Mouton, J. S., & Blake, R. R. (1963). Group problem solving effectiveness underconditions of pooling vs. interaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 59, 14–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawtrey, K. (2007). Using experiential learning techniques. Journal of Economic Education, 38, 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, M., & McCutcheon, M. (2008). Engagement with active learning: Reflections on the experience. The Irish Accounting Review, 15(1), 31–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heron, J. (2002). The complete facilitator’s handbook. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, G. W. (1982). Groups versus individual performance: Are n + 1 heads better than 1? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holloman, C. R., & Hendrick, H. W. (1971). Problem solving in different sized groups. Personnel Psychology, 24, 489–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huss, H. F., & Patterson, D. M. (1993). Ethics in accounting: Values education without indoctrination. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(3), 235–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, N. R., Lui, G., & Tong, M. Y. (2008). Cooperative learning in a passive learning environment: A replication and extension. Issues in Accounting Education, 23(1), 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2006). www.ifac.org. Cited 21 Oct 2011.

  • Jenkins, E. K., & Holley, J. H. (1991). Learning style preferences and the prospective accountant: Are there gender differences? The Woman CPA, 53, 46–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive development approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1981). The meaning and measurement of moral development. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory—version 3.1 2005 Technical Specifications. http://www.learningfromexperience.com. Accessed December 14, 2010

  • Loeb, S. E. (1988). Teaching students accounting ethics: Some crucial issues. Issues in Accounting Education, 3(2), 316–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, B. J., Kocakulah M. C. (2007) VITA, the MTC and the modern accounting curriculum (Part I). The Tax Adviser, 38, 474–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, M. (2010). Experiential learning theory: From theory to practice. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 8(5), 131–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, G. M., & Donleavy, G. D. (1995). Objections to the teaching of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(10), 839–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munro, L., & O’Leary, C. (2011). Student learning styles and teaching methodologies in accountancy. What if they differ? Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, Annual Conference. 3–5 July, Darwin, Australia.

  • Nelson, D. R., & Wittmer, D. P. (2001). Developing a learning community approach to business ethics education. Teaching Business Ethics, 5(3), 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnaly, (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, C. (2009). An empirical analysis of the positive impact of ethics teaching on accountancy students. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 18(4), 505–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, C., & Mohamad, S. (2008). The successful influence of teaching ethics on Malaysian accountancy students. Malaysian Accounting Review, 7(2), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, C., & Pangemanan, G. (2007). The effect of groupwork on ethical decision making of accountancy students. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(3), 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, C., & Radich, R. (2001). An analysis of Australian final year accountancy students’ ethical attitudes. Teaching Business Ethics, 5(3), 235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, C., & Stewart, J. (2007). Governance factors affecting internal auditors’ ethical decision making: An exploratory study. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(8), 787–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppas, S. C., & Diskin, B. A. (2001). College courses in ethics: Do they really make a difference? The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6/7), 347–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piper, T. R., Gentile, M. C., & Parks, S. D. (1993). Can ethics be taught?. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research theory. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbaugh, J. (1979). Improving the quality of group judgement: social judgement analysis and the Delphi technique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 73–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sie, M. (2005). Justifying blame. Why free will matters and why it does not. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R. (2002). Business ethics teaching for effective learning. Teaching Business Ethics, 6(4), 393–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SISA—Simple Interactive Statistical Analysis (2011). www.quantativeskills.com. Cited 20 Sep 2010.

  • Smart, K. L., & Csapo, N. (2007). Learning by doing: Engaging students through learner-centred activities. Business Communication Quarterly, 70(4), 451–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. A. (2001). Understanding self-regulated learning and its implications for accounting educators and researchers. Issues in Accounting Education, 16(4), 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sniezek, J. A., & Henry, R. A. (1989). Accuracy and confidence in group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, L. J., & Wadsworth, D. (2002). Using an electronic bulletin board in teaching business ethics: “En Route to a virtual agora”. Teaching Business Ethics, 6(3), 335–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, I. (1997). Teaching accounting ethics: The power of narrative. Accounting Education, 2(2), 173–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, K. L. (2006). Corporate accounting scandals. OLR Research Report. www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0122.htm.

  • Sundem, G. L., Williams, D. Z., & Chironna, J. F. (1990, December). The revolution in accounting education, Management Accounting (IMA) 72(6), 49–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J. A. (2007). Business ethics training: insights from learning theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 61–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynn-Williams, K., Whiting, R. H., & Adler, R. W. (2008). The influence of business case studies on learning styles: An empirical investigation. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 17(2), 113–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeff, S. A. (2005). Evolution of US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Rice University, USA. www.iasplus.com/resource/0407zeffusGAAP .

  • Ziegenfuss, D. E. (1996). Teaching professional ethics using student-produced video scenarios. Managerial Auditing Journal, 11(5), 21–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Accounting and Law Discipline, Griffith Business School, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, Qld. 4111, Brisbane, Australia

    Conor O’Leary

  2. Accounting and Law Discipline, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Logan Campus, Logan, Australia

    Jenny Stewart

Authors
  1. Conor O’Leary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jenny Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Conor O’Leary.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 9.

Table 9 Active teaching methods reported in literature
Full size table

Appendix 2

Self-Assessed Learning Style and Example Vignette (Extracted from Survey Instrument #1)

1. How do you consider you like to learn about a topic such as ethics?

Learning style

Tick (one only)

I am an experiential (active) learner. I like to research a topic, with or without colleagues, and then come up with an answer.

 

I am a non-experiential (passive) learner. I like to get the answers from a lecturer/tutor or textbook, and then reflect on it.

 

I don’t know which type of learning style describes me.

 

Ethical Scenario #1Footnote 7

You have completed your business degree and have spent 6 months in your first job, as assistant accountant in a chemical company involved in various research and development projects. Projects that have high probabilities of earning sufficient future revenue to cover costs are capitalised. You find out that one particular research and development project, already capitalised, has serious doubts regarding its ability to generate sufficient future revenue. You confront your superior, the chief accountant, who reluctantly admits to this fact. You soon learn the chief accountant’s bonus is performance-related based on the company’s annual profit, so you become suspicious of his motives for not writing-off this and other doubtful projects. The chief accountant becomes concerned this matter troubles you and offers you an annual payment of $10,000—25 % of your annual salary—for your silence.

Please circle one option:

Would you:

  1. (1)

    Accept the offer and keep silent?

  2. (2)

    Accept the offer for 1 year, but insist it finish then?

  3. (3)

    Decline the offer and tell no one?

  4. (4)

    Decline the offer and encourage your boss to confess to the directors (but inform him you won’t pursue the matter if he doesn’t)?

  5. (5)

    Decline the offer and report to the directors of the company?

Appendix 3

Self-Assessed Learning Style and Evaluation of Teaching Methods (Extracted from Survey Instrument #2)

2. How do you consider you like to learn about a topic such as ethics?

Learning style

Tick (one only)

I am an experiential (active) learner. I like to research a topic, with or without colleagues, and then come up with an answer.

 

I am a non-experiential (passive) learner. I like to get the answers from a lecturer/tutor or textbook, and then reflect on it.

 

I don’t know which type of learning style describes me.

 

3. Do you think your answer to the previous question has changed since you first answered a question on learning styles 6 weeks ago?

4. Over the past few weeks you have been involved in three (3) different methods of studying ethics. Please evaluate the three methods and their overall impact. How did you consider the A. traditional lecture B. tutorial based computer case study C. Group assignment D. overall combined approach as a tool(s) to increase your focus on ethical issues? (please circle one number).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Leary, C., Stewart, J. The Interaction of Learning Styles and Teaching Methodologies in Accounting Ethical Instruction. J Bus Ethics 113, 225–241 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1291-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1291-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation