contradictions and uncertainties: lecturers' conceptions of teaching introductory accounting

British Accounting Review (2002) 34, 183ÿ203doi:10.1006/bare.2002.0197, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on 1

CONTRADICTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES:

LECTURERS' CONCEPTIONS OF TEACHING

INTRODUCTORY ACCOUNTING

URSULA LUCASUniversity of West of England

This paper draws upon educational research to examine lecturers' conceptions ofteaching introductory accounting. A critical review of relevant research indicates thatlecturers' conceptions of teaching may be speci®c to particular disciplinary andeducational contexts. Thus the context of introductory accounting may yield its ownunique domain of lecturers' conceptions of the objectives, approaches, outcomes andproblems of teaching. A model of teaching conceptions (Fox, 1983) is identi®ed asparticularly relevant for the analysis of conceptions within a disciplinary context. Thephenomenographic research study reported in this paper analyses lecturers' conceptionsof teaching introductory accounting within the framework of Fox's model. Resultsindicate both the relevance of Fox's model as well as some key contradictions anduncertainties within conceptions of the teaching of introductory accounting. Suchcontradictions and uncertainties have to do with, amongst others, a tension between aprofessed priority for conceptual understanding, a dif®culty in articulating concepts andan emphasis upon technical mastery of topics and problems. The results indicate the needfor further research but also provide a conceptual framework through which lecturersmight re¯ect upon the manner in which introductory accounting is, and can be, taught.

# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

There has been much criticism of accounting education in recent years forits narrow focus and rules-based procedural approaches. In part, this hasbeen attributed to the dominance of professionally related textbooks (Zeff,

Thecommentsandadviceof twoanonymousrefereesaregratefullyacknowledged,as is the®nancial supportof the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales CATER Fund trustees for this research.

Please address all correspondence to: Ursula Lucas, Bristol Business School, University of West ofEngland, Coldharbour Lane, Frenchay, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK, Tel: � 44 117 344 3409; Fax: �44 1179786 3851; email: [email protected]

Received May 1999; revised November 2001; accepted May 2002

0890±8389/02/$ÿÿsee front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

U. LUCAS184

1989a) and the accreditation requirements of professional accountingbodies (Zeff, 1989b; Dewing & Russell, 1998). However, professionalpressures are just one of a range of possible in¯uences which may affect theteaching objectives, teaching and learning approaches and learning outcomeswithin accounting education. These in¯uences have been widely researchedin recent years and this has led to the development of the presage-process-product (3P) model (Biggs, 1989). This model acknowledges the complexityof learning but also makes it amenable to study. The 3P model (Figure 1)identi®es learning-related factors at three points in time: presage, beforelearning takes place; process, during learning; and product, the outcome oflearning. The presage factors interact at the process stage to determine thestudent's and lecturer's approaches to learning and teaching.

Figure 1 shows a somewhat simpli®ed version of the 3P model. It is a systemsmodel in which all elements are seen as forming an open-ended and recursivesystem. Learning outcomes are determined by many factors interacting witheach other. Thus, the model does not describe anything as straightforward as acausal process. As Biggs (1999, p. 19) wryly observes: `This systems featureexplains why no two classes you teach are ever the same.'

Figure 1. The 3P model (adapted from Biggs, 1989)

CONTRADICTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES 185

Prior research within the introductory accounting curriculum has tendedto focus strongly on presage factors: student characteristics and teachingcontext, and how they may be used as predictors of learning outcomes (for areview of this see Lucas, 1998; Rebele et al., 1991, 1998a,b). However,there has been much less research into students' and lecturers' conceptions.

The importance of these conceptions arises from a key assumption thatunderpins this part of the model. Lecturers' approaches to teaching andstudents' approaches to learning are not assumed to be stable personalitytraits or cognitive styles that operate regardless of context. Rather, theirapproaches to learning and teaching are a response to their conceptions ofthe particular context in which they ®nd themselves (Thomas, 1951). Thus asconceptions of context change so, too, do approaches to learning andteaching. Thus learning is viewed from a constructivist, rather than acognitive, perspective. Pratt (1992), in explaining the term `conception'describes this perspective:

Conceptions are speci®c meanings attached to phenomena which thenmediate our response to situations involving those phenomena. We formconceptions of virtually every aspect of our perceived world, and in so doing,use those abstract representations to delimit something from, and relate it to,other aspects of our world. In effect, we view the world through the lenses ofour conceptions, interpreting and acting in accordance with our understand-ing of the world (p. 204).

There is now a substantial body of educational research which hasidenti®ed how conceptions of learning, teaching and the subject vary,affecting approaches to learning and teaching and, ultimately, the learningoutcome (an overview of this research is provided in Prosser & Trigwell(1999)).

Within accounting there is a small, but growing, body of research thatprovides some insight into students' conceptions of learning introductoryaccounting. In particular, several research studies (reviewed byMladenovich, 2000) show that introductory accounting students come totheir study of accounting with many negative preconceptions of accounting.The power of such stereotypical views of accounting should not beunderestimated (Friedman & Lyne, 2001; Fisher and Murphy, 1995).Lucas (2000) identi®es two quite different student worlds of accounting: aworld of detachment where students see accounting as a subject to bepassed, a technique to be learnt, lacking relevance and possessing negativeattributes; and a world of engagement where students see accounting aspossessing inherent meaning and personally relevant. These different worldsare associated with different approaches to learning (Lucas, 2001). Theworld of detachment is associated with a surface approach to learning(involving an intention to reproduce and rote-learn rather than understand)and the world of engagement is associated with a deep approach to learning(involving an intention to understand ideas and seek meanings). The surface

U. LUCAS186

approach, involving a focus on technique, is thus closely related to students'negative preconceptions about accounting.

Much less is known about lecturers' conceptions of teaching accounting.Yet the role of the lecturer is an important contextual variable affecting theapproach to learning adopted by students. It has been demonstrated thatstudents' approaches to learning are related to lecturers' conceptions ofteaching and their approaches to teaching (Biggs, 1987; Gow et al., 1994;Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981; Sheppard & Gilbert, 1991; Trigwell et al.,1994). Students who learn in a context where the lecturer adopts a student-focused approach to teaching that emphasises learning as involving a changein students' conceptions, are more likely to adopt deep approaches tolearning. However, where a lecturer adopts a teacher-focused strategy,which emphasises learning as the accumulation of knowledge, students aremore likely to adopt surface approaches to learning. Accordingly, it wouldbe interesting to know whether lecturers are able to overcome a student-focus on technique. To answer that question we need to know more aboutlecturers' conceptions of teaching introductory accounting.

A FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY OFLECTURERS' CONCEPTIONS OF TEACHING

INTRODUCTORY ACCOUNTING

There is a signi®cant body of research into lecturers' conceptions of, andapproaches to, teaching generally (reviewed by Kember, 1997). There is ahigh degree of consensus on the categories used to describe conceptions ofteaching in higher education, such research having been conducted inseveral countries and in a diverse range of universities. Kember (1997)derived a synthetic model of conceptions of teaching1 from that priorresearch. This model of teaching comprised two broad orientations. The®rst is a teacher-centred/content orientation where the teacher focuseseither on imparting information or on transmitting structured knowledge.The second is a student-centred/learning orientation that focuses on eitherfacilitating understanding or on supporting conceptual change.

However, Kember's synthetic model has been criticised for being generic,applying to all teaching contexts irrespective of either level or discipline(Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Prosser et al., 1994). This criticism issupported by research on students' approaches to learning that indicatesthat their characteristic features may differ from one discipline context toanother (Entwistle, 1984; Meyer et al., 1990; Ramsden, 1984). This is likelyto apply equally to teaching. A review of previous research into lecturers'conceptions of teaching reveals one model that is potentially relevant tofurther study within a disciplinary context. Fox (1983) proposes a model,which is similar to that of Kember's but offers a matrix view (Figure 2), thathas the potential to allow the disciplinary element to emerge more fully. Fox

Figure 2. A matrix view of conceptions of teaching (adapted from Fox, 1983)


identi®ed four personal `theories of teaching' held by lecturers. He uses theterm `theory' but uses it in the same sense as the term `conception'.2

One aspect of Fox's matrix identi®es conceptions as either teacher-controlled or student-centred. However, within this a lecturer might adopteither the subject or the student as his or her primary focus. Fox's fourconceptions will now be brie¯y described. It should be noted that animportant aspect of Fox's approach is that he identi®es the analogies ormetaphors that lecturers use when talking about teaching, providingdelightful examples. It is impossible to do justice to these in a summaryand the reader is urged to refer to the paper itself for a full description.

The transfer conception treats knowledge as a commodity to betransferred from one vessel to another. What is transferred to the studentis the subject, making this conception subject-centred with the primeresponsibility resting with the teacher. In the shaping conception, the primeresponsibility still remains with the teacher but the focus is the student.There are many varieties of the shaping conception. One view is thatteaching is about the shaping of raw material, i.e. student minds. Thus,certain verbs predominate, such as `produce' (engineer, architect) or`develop' (a capacity to solve problems, to manipulate data). Typicallyteachers would do this by `demonstrating' and `showing' these qualities andskills, using the language of an athletics coach or industrial trainer. Theteaching strategy is often for:

The teacher to demonstrate the way of solving the problem by `going throughit' at the blackboard or overhead projector and for the students to be requiredto solve similar problems by the same methods (Fox, 1983, p. 154).

The travelling conception is evidenced by the use of such words as `lead',`guide' and `explore'. The focus is on the subject and the aim is to provide aview of the territory. The teacher becomes a travelling companion, learningsomething too, gaining new perspectives. As Fox observes:

The teacher is a local guide and equipment supplier, not a coach driver on apackaged tour (Fox, 1983, p. 157).

The growing conception focuses on the student and what is happening tothe student as a person. Here the teacher acts as gardener, acting as a

U. LUCAS188

nurturer, but unwilling and unable to speci®cally direct the way in which thestudent might grow. There are no precisely de®ned ends.

Fox identi®ed a ®fth conception but did not include this in his matrix.This is the building conception, which he describes as a hybrid between thetransfer and shaping conceptions. He points out that the words `build' and`building' are frequently used in connection with the word `concept'. Sinceconcepts can be complex structures involving several interrelated elements,teaching not only involves delivering the materials to the building site butalso involves building the structure to a predetermined plan. He sees thebuilding conception as a transfer conception when the teacher perceives hisor her role to be principally that of the quantity surveyor or builder'smerchant. It becomes a shaping conception when the role of the teacher isanalogous to that of the architect and builder.

Fox also sees the building conception as potentially transitional, leadinginto the travelling and growing conceptions. He speculates:

Once it is realised that the student has to build his own concepts and that thedesign will be modi®ed and developed by the student as the building proceeds,then the conception is well on the way to becoming a developed conception(Fox, 1983, p. 155).

Fox's matrix thus offers a more elaborate model than Kember, placing thesubject as well as the student within its framework. It therefore appears to bemore relevant for research within a disciplinary, rather than a generic,setting. Further, its application within a disciplinary context will allow itsdescriptive validity to be tested.

THE RESEARCH STUDY

Aims and objectives

The aim of this research study is to identify lecturers' conceptions ofteaching introductory accounting. In particular, its objectives are to:

� analyse lecturers' conceptions of teaching introductory accounting withinthe framework of Fox's model; and thus� assess the descriptive validity of Fox's model.

Research method

The constructivist assumption underpinning the 3P model of studentlearning (Figure 1) requires a research method that is able to tap into therich nature of lecturers' experiences of teaching introductory accounting. Allstudies of lecturers' conceptions of teaching have adopted a naturalisticframework. As Kember (1997) describes, this involves:

No preconceived hypotheses of conceptions of teaching. Rather, theresearchers expected the descriptions or classi®cations of teaching


conceptions to emerge from the data. The aim was to report the perceptionsof the teacher rather than impose the researcher's framework (p. 258).

The dominant research method used within previous studies wasphenomenography. Of the thirteen previous studies described by Kember(1997), seven used this method. Of the remaining six studies, ®ve usedsimilar research methods and one developed a questionnaire based onprevious phenomenographic research.

Phenomenography is a research method that emerged from educationalresearch carried out in Sweden in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It takes anexperiential or second-order perspective (Marton, 1981) involving:

The empirical study of the limited number of qualitatively different ways inwhich various phenomena in, and aspects of, the world around us areexperienced, conceptualized, understood, perceived and apprehended(Marton, 1994, p. 4424).

The objective of this research is to see the world from the individual'sperspective. The emphasis is on experience that has been re¯ected on, to theextent that it can be discussed and described by the experiencer. Thelifeworld of the individual is the focus of enquiry.3 It was this form ofresearch that identi®ed the surface and deep approaches to students'learning (Marton, 1975, 1976). Since then phenomenography has emergedas an internationally valued educational research method (Entwistle, 1997).

A key aspect of phenomenography is to engage with the lifeworld of theindividual. Consequently, the design, conduct and analysis of interviewsinvolve an intention by the researcher to bracket presuppositions about thenature of the phenomenon being investigated and to avoid the explicit priorconstruction of hypotheses or interpretative categories. Clearly any suchattempt to bracket will only be partial in its success. It is very dif®cult to setaside particular ways of viewing the world and implicit personal beliefs.Consequently it is of value to counter such tendencies by the developmentof an empathetic understanding of the individual's experience (Ashworth &Lucas, 1998). In this research study, a comprehensive analysis of theinterviews was carried out without reference to any prior model of teachingconceptions. A fuller description of what is involved in such analysis isavailable in Ashworth & Lucas (2000) and Lucas (1999). Subsequently,following the identi®cation of Fox's model as relevant for use within adisciplinary setting, a further analysis was carried out within Fox'sframework.

The participants and teaching context

Ten lecturers from four United Kingdom universities were interviewedabout their experience of teaching. They taught on introductory accountingcourses that were designed for both accounting and non-accountingstudents.4 The four male and six female lecturers were diverse in terms

U. LUCAS190

of: length of teaching experience, industrial and professional experience andtypes of course taught. They lectured at two `old' and two `new' universities.Following the interviews, it was not possible to identify any common featurethat might indicate that, as a group, they might present a restricted range ofexperience or conceptions. It appeared that there was a suf®cient element ofrepetition or re-occurrence of themes and perceptions such that saturationhad occurred (Guba & Lincoln, 1985, p. 350).

The conduct of interviews

One interview was conducted with each lecturer. The objective was toexplore aspects of teaching accounting in the broadest sense and to remainopen-minded to all possible aspects of the subject being taught. All lecturerswere asked the same initial question: `What do you expect students to havelearnt or achieved by the end of the course?' Thereafter the interview wassemi-structured, being designed to elicit aspects of the experience ofteaching accounting and the nature of accounting. Open-ended questionswere asked in a variety of areas, covering such aspects as: students'problems, concepts that underpin student learning, notions of learning, thelecturer's experience of learning accounting, teaching activities, learningactivities and students' attributes. However, the lecturer's interests andresponses dictated much of the shape and content of the interview. Mostinterviews lasted between forty-®ve and seventy-®ve minutes.

THE FINDINGS

Fox's model provides an informative, and conceptually coherent, frame-work through which to view conceptions of teaching introductoryaccounting. However, in the light of this study, it was found necessary torevise his model. This revised model is illustrated in Figure 3.

There are three revisions. First, the transfer conception has beensubsumed within the shaping conception. Second, those lecturers whoexpressed the growing conception also expressed travelling conceptions (butnot vice versa). In accounting, it would appear that the growth of the studentinvolves an exploration of the subject of accounting and its relation to thestudent. Thus these two aspects are not easily separated and this is denotedby the dotted line between these two conceptions in Figure 3. Third, Fox'smodel has also been revised to include the building conception. Describedas a hybrid between the transfer and shaping conceptions and as a `possiblebridge' to the travelling and growing conceptions, Fox saw the buildingconception as a shaping conception when the role of the teacher isanalogous to that of the architect and builder. The lecturer moves into therole of guide and nurturer within the travelling and growing theories once itis realised that the students have to think for themselves (understand

Figure 3. Conceptions of teaching introductory accounting


concepts) and recognise their own relation to accounting (design aconceptual structure). The building conception forms a central part of theteaching of introductory accounting but, as will be discussed below, it failsto be fully actualised in the experience of lecturers.

The following sections will discuss the shaping, travelling, growing andbuilding conceptions of teaching in more detail.

The shaping conception (incorporating the transfer conception)

The transfer conception was found to be incorporated within, andsubservient to, the shaping conception. Lecturers talked about the deliveryof the subject within lectures and tutorials. Yet this was, essentially, asecondary aspect of their work. The delivery and presentation of appropriatelearning materials was a necessary, but not a suf®cient condition, for theteaching of accounting. The necessary condition was expressed through theshaping conception of teaching. Six of the ten lecturers fell into the shapingcategory. However, there were two distinct aspects to the shapingconception, one explicit and one implicit: explicitly, students were to beshaped as performers and, implicitly, they were to be shaped as converts.

First, lecturers wanted to shape the student into a person who hasmastered a technique and can produce accounts. There was a high degree ofconsensus that accounting is a `technical thing' and was taught using an:

Illustrative approach. You do one on the board or you demonstrate anexample, they do an example, then you try to give them more extendedexamples in the tutorial (6:40).5

U. LUCAS192

Thus learning is then de®ned in those terms as:

Giving the student an ability to perform a series of tasks, or to interpret a set ofaccounts, that they didn't have at the beginning of the course. So I see it as anenhancement in, I suppose, technical ability (6:57). (Emphasis added)

There was a rather unrelenting tone attached to teaching approaches. Forexample, students can be `drilled', material is `spelt out', the practicing ofquestions is associated with `rooting it in their brain' and the conventionalteaching approach is associated (negatively) with `beating them over thehead with the pro®t and loss accounts and balance sheets' (5:84). Twolecturers used analogies to illustrate what was involved, such as learning todrive a car or ride a bike. This involved becoming so familiar with theroutines required that one would carry them out automatically.

Second, lecturers implicitly expressed another important teachingobjective. This was a strong theme in their re¯ections. Their studentswere to be `won over': converted from individuals who ®nd accountingboring, dull, connected with maths and numbers and something to befeared. In other words, negative preconceptions of accounting were to bechallenged and eliminated. Lecturer 1 wants to:

Change their minds, I think they come with the idea that accounts are boring,[ . . . ] and it's very hard on us to actually make them change their mind. Saylook, it's not that bad after all (1:274).

Lecturer 2 sees students as worried and fearful about accounting. Thus itis not surprising that she sees the teaching of accounting as:

One big hurdle getting over just the, you know, their fears or preconceptionsabout ®nancial information, how to do the work (2:6).

As Lecturer 8 comments: `You've got to win them back' (8:25).

The travelling conception

Four lecturers (4,5,9,10) described their teaching in terms that saweducation as a journey: exploring the subject with the role of the lectureras guide. However, for two of these lecturers (4 and 9) it was their primefocus. For the remaining two lecturers (5 and 9), as will be discussed below,their prime focus was on the student rather than the subject. Teachinginvolves an ongoing process of continually re®ning approaches as the subjectis re-examined. The aim is to explore, thus:

Good workshops to me are when the students are asking a lot of questions[ . . . ] and they explore with you I think, the concepts. And again, theworkshop isn't about ®nishing the exercise and getting the right answer, it'smore about well, this is the subject area, OK this is an activity, but it is moreexploring the subject (4:103).


The teaching objective is to provide the students with some sort of map ofthe territory:

Actually one thing that I think, perhaps an overriding thing is, if they don'tknow something, that they at least know where to go [ . . . ] That they could seea ®gure, or a statement made, and then could realise that well there's more inthat than I know, but I know where to read, where to ®nd out about it (9:105).

Lecturer 9 recognises the dangers of shaping students since this may deterthem from exploring: `That we're not encouraging them to think but to do.'(9:182).

Accordingly, both Lecturer 4 and Lecturer 9 have made speci®c changesto their teaching to address this: by reducing the amount of technicalcalculation required and by speci®cally assessing conceptual understandingrather than technique. As Lecturer 4 explains, the best form of assessmentrequires:

. . . questions where, what is the best de®nition of . . . how well that shows anunderstanding I don't know. Really you need the students to be able to exploreit themselves and put it down in their own words . . . (4:124). (Emphasis added)

Another feature of the travelling conception is that it can involve acommitment to sharing personally held views with students. These twolecturers saw these as `personally held' because they represent views thatthey do not see as normally included in the curriculum. They are dif®dentabout sharing these views because they see a con¯ict between a commitmentto the professionalism of accountants and the dif®culties (or impossibility)of providing a `real' picture. As Lecturer 9 re¯ects:

I very much stress the fact that [pro®t] is estimated and that it approximatesand it can be manipulated. And I've slightly had this internal con¯ict, that ifyou're not careful, if you tell them too much they end up thinking that allaccountants are crooks and yet if you play it straight down the line, saying wellthis is real, then again they're going away with a . . . an incorrect picture . . . Youknow, to try and impress upon them that it can be manipulated (9:46/49).

The growing conception

Two lecturers expressed the growing conception. This places moreemphasis on what is happening to the student rather than on the subjectper se. The two lecturers allocated to this conception both expressed thetravelling theory but they placed a more central focus on the student ratherthan the subject. Accounting is described as an activity that is:

All about giving you (the student) information for managing, planning andcontrol etc. So that is really the starting point and it is from these that wemove into the actual subject itself (10:28).

Consequently, learning can be explained as:

Going through an experience of some kind, where you end up in thatparticular respect, being different, and having your perceptions changed. I

U. LUCAS194

suppose . . . that's the best I can do. You are a different person afterwards, notnecessarily better or even worse, just different . . . (5:115).

Learning is associated with a sense of personal growth. What makes agood student is not good attendance, intellect or whatever but `an attitudeof mind that says this is important for me, what I've learnt' (5:106).

Where personal growth is the objective then this puts the student, and hisor her relation to accounting, at the forefront. Both Lecturers 5 and 10move beyond the technique and provide students with the opportunities toidentify problems and to judge whether accounting techniques offersolutions. Thus Lecturer 5 wants students to develop:

. . . an ability to question. I want them to understand that there is no suchthing as a perfect pro®t calculation, and there is no such thing as an unbiasedmanagement accounting technique, and that if, that money is very important,they are going to be judged by money, and if they are going to be judged bymoney they should be in a position to ®nd out exactly how they are beingjudged (5:5/8).

However, both lecturers felt constrained in how much they could achieve.They recognised that, since they are talking about a ®rst year undergraduatecourse, there was a limit to how much the student might develop.

An adaptation of Fox's model: the explicit integration of the building conception

The building conception was an important part of all lecturers' re¯ectionson teaching. There was a prevalence of building metaphors in their accountsof teaching. In particular, structure and sequencing assumed a greatimportance. For example, Lecturer 8 comments:

I think there are building blocks in accounting and with the system ofrecording is part of . . . is one of the building blocks, things like thefundamental accounting concepts which we introduced and get an under-standing of, I hope, in the ®rst year [ . . . ] So yes I do think there are . . . thereare . . . there is sequential learning going on there, they are important buildingblocks in that process (8:13/14).

Yet while all lecturers readily see the teaching of accounting in theseterms, the building conception fails to be fully actualised in their re¯ectionson teaching. The actualisation of the building conception requires three keyelements:

� a conceptual structure;� key concepts; and� the means of assessing students' understanding of the structure and

concepts.

However, whereas a high degree of certainty was attached to descriptionssurrounding the shaping conception and teaching of the technique,


lecturers' re¯ections within the interviews revealed either inherent contra-dictions or indicated areas of expressed uncertainty as follows:

Inherent contradictionsDespite the professed importance of conceptual understanding there was:

1. A scarcity of articulated concepts2. An avoidance of concepts3. A lack of an expressed clear structure into which concepts might be ®tted4. Dif®culty in providing explanations

Expressed uncertainties about5. The relationship between conceptual understanding and the learning of

technique6. The effectiveness of assessment techniques.

Each of these issues will be discussed in turn.

1. A scarcity of articulated conceptsWhile there was an emphasis on the need for conceptual understanding,lecturers identi®ed relatively few key concepts that it was important for thestudent to grasp. The two concepts which all lecturers agreed upon asfundamental were cash and pro®t: students should appreciate the differencebetween these. Underlying this was the concept of the matching or accrualsconvention.

Two further concepts which arise logically out of the matching conceptare realisation and periodicity. The matching adjustments are only requiredbecause of the convention that the ®nancial statements re¯ect either theposition of the enterprise at a certain point in time or performance over aperiod of time. In addition, accounting rules are applied to judge when atransaction is `realised' and recognised within the ®nancial statements.However, no lecturers referred to these concepts.

2. The avoidance of conceptsNot only is there a scarcity of articulated concepts but some lecturers wentout of their way to avoid references to concepts, which at times they referredto as `jargon'. This was linked very much with the second teaching objectivein the shaping conception. If students perceive accounting to be dull,boring, about numbers and maths, then a way of making it more accessibleis to avoid what lecturers term `accounting jargon'.

It is Lecturer 4, who expresses a travelling conception of teaching, whoconsiders this issue further. She doesn't see this as an issue of jargon.Having `explored' these issues with her students, she recognises that it is amatter of needing to understand the business environment, but also ofunderstanding aspects of the world in terms of accounting concepts.

U. LUCAS196

Re¯ecting on why students have problems with gross pro®t percentages andmark-ups she comments:

But there is some problem as far as, I suppose, they can't visualise something,a commodity having perhaps a cost and a price (4:98). (Emphasis added)

Not all lecturers take this approach of explicitly avoiding jargon.However, as will be discussed below, neither did any lecturers put forwarda comprehensive overview of the concepts which they felt underpinned thelearning of introductory accounting.

3. The lack of an expressed clear structure into which concepts might be ®ttedLecturers perceived accounting in two main ways. First, as a micro activitywhich involved the preparation of ®nancial statements. Second, as a macroactivity which involved the role and use of accounting information in a widercontext. The lecturers who expressed a shaping conception of teachingmainly focussed on the micro level of accounting: the technique of preparing®nancial statements. They did refer to macro concepts in their re¯ections,for example, accountability, performance, probity, control, informationsystems and stakeholders. But, in teaching, prominence was given to the keytechnique-related concepts of cash, pro®t and accruals.

Those lecturers who expressed a travelling or growing conception ofteaching, whilst certainly teaching the technique, also placed emphasis onthe macro level of accounting. For example, Lecturer 4 states:

the aim of the course I think, is to have an understanding of the accountingenvironment and the way that ®nancial information is produced and how thatcan be used. That's the decision making, the planning (4:4).

She distinguishes her aim from what she describes as `the conventionalobjectives and secondary objectives' of teaching the technique.

Structure is central to the building conception and the macro view ofaccounting provides a potential framework for a conceptual structure. Yetonly one lecturer re¯ected on the need to provide that structure, what shetermed a `narrative drive'.

I really believe that the best courses are the ones that have a very strongnarrative drive to them, [ ] which has to go through the entire syllabus, so thatyou can connect up the bits. You have to do the syllabus, almost by de®nitionin bits, but if you can get that strong narrative drive, then it makes it easier forthe lecturer, and I think if it makes it easier for the lecturer, it makes it betterfor the students (5:29/33).

4. Dif®culty in providing explanationsAs discussed above, lecturers did not necessarily adopt an explicit structurefor their teaching that was in accordance with their expressed view ofaccounting. Another related feature was that lecturers experienced


dif®culties in `coming up' with explanations. For example, Lecturer 9, whenasked how she describes accounting to her students, says:

At a simplistic level, I tell them that it's record-keeping and then, I try and tellthem it's not record keeping! It's more than that . . . um, so . . . most probably,actually you're making me wonder what they actually get out of that, do theythink that it is just record keeping? I suspect that they do (9:32/4).

When Lecturer 9 is asked what she thinks accounting is, rather than whatshe tells the students, she replies unhesitatingly:

Oh I think it's accountability, mmm . . . (pause) but it's a while before Iactually introduce that to the students (9:36).

When asked if she refers to accountability explicitly, she replies:

Yes, I do but I think that's because that's the way I . . . yes, I mean that's theway I see it. I don't think it is actually . . . , it's not in the handout coursematerial that they're given but I think that, yes, that comes across very muchin what I say (9:38/39).

The experience of Lecturer 8 is similar. When asked how he wouldrespond to students asking about what accounting is, he struggled for ade®nition:

The de®nition that I use, which I can't remember exactly, can be interpretedquite narrowly or has within it the capability of being interpreted quite widely.And I would obviously take the wider one but I don't introduce ®rst yearstudents to that breadth on lecture one! We start off with it a bit narrower(8:17).

In only one area did explanations trip off the tongue. By far the mostnotable example of this was the explanation of the balance sheet. Herelecturers had an explanation ready and waiting. This is illustrated by thecomments of Lecturer 3, when asked how he sees the balance sheet,responds:

Well, I mean we all have dif®culty with the balance sheet as accountants,don't we? You know, it's dif®cult, you know. You go through the stockanswers, you know, it's a snap shot of a business at a point in time . . . . Christ!You know, so I give them that (3:137/140).

This lack of commitment to the `stock answer' might have been sharedwith students (indicating a travelling or growing conception of teaching) butinstead it is `given' (transferred) to the students.

5. The relationship between conceptual understanding and thelearning of technique

All lecturers perceived the achievement of conceptual understanding asconstituting an important aspect of their teaching of accounting. Yet a key®nding was the uncertainty that surrounded the notion of conceptual

U. LUCAS198

understanding; in particular, doubt about its relationship with the learningof the technique. This was expressed by all lecturers regardless of their ownparticular conception of teaching.

A problem identi®ed by all lecturers was that students often failed tograsp the meaning of pro®t and loss accounts, balance sheets and thedifference between pro®t and cash, despite being able to produce a set ofaccounts in the end of year examinations. Between them, they raised a seriesof questions:

Is conceptual understanding a prerequisite for the use of technique?Does the emphasis on techniqueÿÿ allow students to avoid conceptual understanding?ÿÿ divert students from achieving that understanding?ÿÿ provide a barrier to, or refuge from, conceptual understanding?

There is much speculation around these questions. Yet, the concern withthis issue is not overwhelming for those lecturers who expressed a shapingconception of teaching. A characteristic feature of their interviews is thatthese are regarded as interesting questions but not of suf®cient importanceto require a fundamental revision of, or experimentation with, the teachingof accounting.

6. The effectiveness of assessment techniquesThe lack of overriding concern with the relationship between conceptualunderstanding and the learning of the technique is matched by the taken-for-granted nature of assessment problems. Lecturers expressed manyconcerns about assessment but did not perceive this as posing anyfundamental problem within the teaching of introductory accounting.

The ®rst concern lies with the question of whether the assessments testunderstanding. Lecturers recognise that there is a `standard' type ofexamination assessment but that this may not necessarily test understand-ing. For example, Lecturer 8 describes the examination:

It's a 3 hour, standard type paper. A compulsory ®rst question for 30 markswhich is a basic book keeping question, then a choice of a number ofpredominantly calculative questions and at least one essay question (8:73).

Thus, most of the questions are computational, with a minority (20±40%)of essay questions. However, as Lecturer 8 states, often the computationalquestions have a small element of discussion in them. Lecturer 9 refers tothis as `the ®ve mark bit' which her students cannot answer.

The essay questions, the `®ve mark bits' and parts of the course workassessments, are designed to test understanding. This is seen as animportant part of the assessment because the lecturers do not have muchcon®dence in the standard computational questions that appear on the


examination paper. Lecturer 6 vividly describes what he perceives as theexercise of examination technique:

They've learnt almost algorithmically the way to produce a set of accounts.And then what you tend to ®nd with these students is the pro®t and lossaccount is more or less correct, because they've gone down the notes andthey've realised that they've got to add something here, and take somethingaway. But then the balance sheet is usually all over the place, dreadful [ . . . ]But, because the marks are allocated for the ®gures, going down in themarking scheme, they get through the question (6:47/48).

It is not clear, given this dissatisfaction, why assessment remains so taken-for-granted and unchallenged. However, several lecturers commented thatstudents would get lower marks if more essay questions were set. Forexample, Lecturer 9, who is the only lecturer who states that she emphasisesconceptual understanding in her examination, acknowledges this:

I set up my papers where half of the paper is theory which most probablymeans that they don't get as high marks as they might do but perhaps that'sthe price of [not being?] numerical. You know, and at this time of year[examination time] they're harder to mark and they get lower marks for them.But I think it's only . . . I personally think it's more important that theyunderstand why, and I also feel that they should be able to construct a decentessay (9:127/130).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In the Introduction it was noted that accounting education has beencriticised for its narrow focus and rules-based procedural approaches. Thisfocus has, in part, been attributed to the dominance of professionalrequirements. However, this paper has taken a broader view of possiblein¯uences, using a model of student learning that acknowledges thecomplexity of learning and the multiplicity of in¯uences on learning and itsoutcomes (Biggs, 1989). One in¯uence is lecturers' conceptions of teachingand Fox's model has provided an illuminative framework for the analysis oflecturers' conceptions of teaching introductory accounting.

Two central issues arise from these ®ndings. First, there is the failure toactualise the building conception of teaching. Lecturers profess theimportance of conceptual understanding yet their re¯ections reveal inherentcontradictions or they express uncertainty with the nature of conceptualunderstanding and its assessment. Consequently what emerges as anunintended consequence is a central preoccupation with the shaping ofstudents who can perform techniques.

Second, within the shaping conception lecturers also wish to `win thestudent over'. Teaching accounting is seen as an attempt to overcomenegative preconceptions held by students. However, this attempt is also

U. LUCAS200

associated with the avoidance of jargon and concepts. Thus there is also animplicit risk that, by the failure to actualise the building conception and aninadvertent focus on the learning of the technique, lecturers may in fact bereinforcing students' negative preconceptions of accounting and theirpredisposition to experience accounting as the learning of a technique.Given the expressed need to develop conceptual understanding, the form ofthis attempt to `win students over' may comprise a potentially damagingparadox at the heart of the world of introductory accounting.

This paradox is less powerful within the travelling and growingconceptions since they open up the subject area for a broader explorationand encourage students to think about their role in relation to accounting.Whilst those lecturers expressing the travelling and growing conceptionsalso struggled with the identi®cation of a broad conceptual framework, theyrecognised and shared (to an extent) the problem with the students. Theemphasis on the macro (or broader) view of accounting, which is lackingwithin the shaping conception, would appear to arise naturally within thetravelling and growing conceptions of teaching. The exploration of macroconcepts such as accountability, probity and control raise issues about theevaluative nature of accounting information and its role in judging theperformance of organisations and individuals. For lecturers who expressedthe travelling and growing conceptions of teaching, this willingness toengage with the student is part and parcel of the territory. Their emphasis isnot so much on winning the students over, as encouraging students to viewaccounting in a wider, and possibly more relevant, context.

These ®ndings reveal several areas where further research is required,particularly in the area of assessment. Research into the relationshipbetween conceptual understanding and the learning of the technique would,of necessity, be closely linked with research into assessment practice. Thereis a substantial body of research within science education that could formthe basis for further study. It is of interest that Linder (1992, 1993) arguesthat the linking of the ability to solve scienti®c problems with conceptualunderstanding may be a doubtful pedagogical assumption.

The pedagogic value of these ®ndings lies in the way in which they revealthe teaching of introductory accounting to be an area of education thatwould bene®t from further re¯ection and discussion. We do not necessarilyneed to know why lecturers experience their teaching in this way. The maincontribution of this type of research may be to provide lecturers with thestimulation for a further exploration of the nature of teaching withinaccounting. As Entwistle et al. (2000) argue:

One of the most intractable problems both in teaching education, and in staffdevelopment in higher education, is how best to utilise theoretical constructsand research evidence. [ . . . ] Categorizations offered by researchers providea conceptual framework through which teachers and lecturers, whatevertheir experience, can more readily re¯ect on their experiences of teaching . . .(p. 24).


It may be suf®cient for lecturers to re¯ect on their teaching and considerwhat might be appropriate approaches to teaching for particular courses.For example, Linder (1992) has argued that unacknowledged teacherepistemology may be a source of conceptual dif®culty within courses.Similarly Prosser (1993) and Prosser and Trigwell (1997) show howconfronting both students and lecturers with the variety of conceptions held,and assisting them in identifying for themselves their own conceptions, canbe of value in teaching and learning.

It would not be appropriate on the basis of these ®ndings to argue thatthere are `right' or `wrong' conceptions of teaching within introductoryaccounting. Nor is it possible, from this research, to determine whether ornot there is a developmental trajectory to these conceptions. Instead, it isargued that, rather than judge these conceptions in terms of developmentalsophistication, one should evaluate their appropriateness within the contextin which teaching takes place. The teaching of introductory accounting isrevealed as a world where much is taken for granted and wherecontradictions and uncertainties remain unquestioned.

NOTES

1. Subsequent studies (van Driel et al., 1997; Entwistle et al., 2000) support hiscategorisation.

2. Kember (1997) discusses the terminology used within the 13 studies. The mostcommonly used term is conceptions of teaching, but the terms belief and theory are also usedby researchers.

3. Husserl (1970) used the term `lifeworld' to describe the world as encountered and lived ineveryday life. Spurling (1977) describes it as follows: `The Lebenswelt or life-world is thesetting of our common-sense, daily activities; it is the world of familiar objects, routinetasks and mundane concerns. In the natural attitude we live in the life-world, and yet,under the in¯uence of scienti®c presuppositions, we apprehend it as ``objective'' andexternal to us, existing independently of our actions and interests.' (p. 9).

4. Just one lecturer taught on an introductory course designed exclusively for accountingstudents. However, this course did not vary substantially from those taught by the otherlecturers.

5. The transcript number refers to the lecturer number and the numbered unit from whichthe quotation is extracted.

REFERENCES

Ashworth, P.D. & Lucas, U. (1998). `What is the ``world'' of phenomenography?',Scandanavian Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), pp. 417--433.

Ashworth, P. & Lucas, U. (2000). `Achieving empathy and engagement: a practical approachto the design, conduct and reporting of phenomenographic research', Studies in HigherEducation, 25(3), pp. 295--308.

Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying, Melbourne, Australia:Australian Council for Educational Research.

U. LUCAS202

Biggs, J.B. (1989). Àpproaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching', Higher EducationResearch & Development, 8(1), pp. 7--25.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham: SRHE/OpenUniversity Press.

Dewing, I.P. & Russell, P.O. (1998). Àccounting education and research: Zeff's warningsreconsidered', British Accounting Review, 20(3), pp. 291--312.

Entwistle, N.J. (1984). `Contrasting perspectives on learning'. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell& N. Entwistle (eds.), The Experience of Learning, pp. 1--18. Edinburgh: Scottish AcademicPress.

Entwistle, N.J. (1997). Ìntroduction: phenomenography in higher education', HigherEducation Research & Development, 16(2), pp. 127--134.

Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D. & Orr, S. (2000). `Conceptions and beliefs about``Good Teaching'': an integration of contrasting research areas', Higher Education Research& Development, 19(1), pp. 5--26.

Fisher, R. & Murphy, V. (1995). À pariah profession? Some student perceptions ofaccounting and accountancy', Studies in Higher Education, 20(1), pp. 45--58.

Fox, D. (1983). `Personal theories of teaching', Studies in Higher Education, 8(2), pp. 151--163.Friedman, A.L. & Lyne, S.R. (2001). `The beancounter stereotype: towards a general model

of stereotype generation', Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12, pp. 423--451.Gow, L., Kember, D. & Cooper, B. (1994). `The teaching context and approaches to study

of accounting students', Issues in Accounting Education, 9, pp. 118--130.Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage.Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology,

Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Kember, D. (1997). À reconceptualisation of the research into university academics'

conceptions of teaching', Learning and Instruction, 7(3), pp. 255--275.Linder, C.J. (1992). Ìs teacher re¯ected epistemology a source of conceptual dif®culty in

physics?' International Journal of Science Education, 14, pp. 111--121.Linder, C.J. (1993). À challenge to conceptual change', Science Education, 77, pp. 293--300.Lucas, U. (1998). Perceptions of Learning and Teaching Accounting: a Phenomenographic Study.

Unpublished PhD thesis, Shef®eld Hallam University, pp. 1--296.Lucas, U. (1999). `Beyond categories of description: a further role for phenomenographic

research in education'. In C. Rust (ed.), Improving Student Learning Outcomes, Oxford:The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, pp. 202--215.

Lucas, U. (2000). `Worlds apart: students' experiences of learning introductory accounting',Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 11, pp. 479--504.

Lucas, U. (2001). `Deep and surface approaches to learning within introductory accounting:a phenomenographic study', Accounting Education, 10(2), pp. 1--24.

Marton, F. (1975). Òn non-verbatim learning: I. Level of processing and level of outcome',Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 16, pp. 273--279.

Marton, F. (1976). Òn non-verbatim learning II: The erosion effect of a task-inducedlearning algorithm', Scandinavian Journal of Educational Psychology, 17, pp. 41--48.

Marton, F. (1981). `Phenomenography: describing conceptions of the world around us',Instructional Science, 10, pp. 177--200.

Marton, F. (1994). `Phenomenography'. In T. Husen & T.N. Postlethwaite, (eds),International Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 8, second edn, New York: Pergamon,pp. 4424--4429.

Meyer, J.H.F., Parsons, P. & Dunne, T.T. (1990). Ìndividual study orchestrations and theirassociation with learning outcomes', Higher Education, 20, pp. 67--89.

Mladenovic, R. (2000). Àn investigation into ways of challenging introductoryaccounting students' negative perceptions of accounting', Accounting Education 9(2),pp. 135--154.

Pratt, D.A. (1992). `Conceptions of teaching', Adult Education Quarterly, 42, pp. 203--220.


Prosser, M. (1993). `Phenomenography & the principles & practices of learning', HigherEducation Research & Development, 12, pp. 21--31.

Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1997). Ùsing phenomenography in the design of programsfor teachers in higher education', Higher Education Research & Development, 16(1), pp.41--54.

Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching: the Experience inHigher Education, Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education andOpen University Press.

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K. & Taylor, P. (1994). À phenomenographic study of academics'conceptions of science learning and teaching', Learning & Instruction, 4, pp. 217--231.

Ramsden, P. (1984). `The context of learning'. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle(eds), The Experience of Learning, pp. 144--164. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Ramsden, P. & Entwistle, N.J. (1981). Èffects of academic departments on students'approaches to studying', British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, pp. 368--383.

Rebele, J.E., Stout, D.E. & Hassell, J.M. (1991). À review of empirical research inaccounting education 1985--1991', Journal of Accounting Education, 9, pp. 167--231.

Rebele, J.E., Apostolou, B.A., Buckless, F., Hassell, J.M., Paquette, L.R. & Stout, D.E.(1998a). Àccounting Education Literature Review (1991--1997), Part II: Students,Educational Technology, Assessment, and Faculty Issues', Journal of AccountingEducation, 16(2), pp. 179--245.

Rebele, J.E., Apostolou, B.A., Buckless, F., Hassell, J.M., Paquette, L.R. & Stout, D.E.(1998b). Àccounting education literature review (1991--1997), Part I: curriculum andinstructional approaches', Journal of Accounting Education, 16(1), pp. 1--51.

Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J.D. (1992). `Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers',Higher Education, 24, pp. 93--111.

Sheppard, C. & Gilbert, J. (1991). `Course design, teaching method and studentepistemology', Higher Education, 22, pp. 229--249.

Spurling, L. (1977). Phenomenology & the social world, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.Thomas, W.I. (1951). Social behavior and personality, New York, Social Science Research

Council.Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Taylor, P. (1994). `Qualitative differences in approaches to

teaching ®rst year university science', Higher Education, 27, pp.75--84.Van Driel, J.H., Verloop, N., Van Werven, H.I., & Dekkers, H. (1997). `Teachers' craft

knowledge and curriculum innovation in higher engineering education', Higher Education,34, pp. 105--122.

Zeff, S. (1989a). `Does accounting belong in the university curriculum?', Issues in AccountingEducation, 4, pp. 203--210.

Zeff, S.A. (1989b). `Recent trends in accounting education and research in the USA: someimplications for UK academics', British Accounting Review, 21, pp. 159--176.

contradictions and uncertainties: lecturers' conceptions of teaching introductory accounting

Documents