A case for virtual guest lecturers: the experience of using practitioners in asynchronous discussion forums with an undergraduate auditing class

Stephen Rowe [HREF1 ], Lecturer, School of Commerce and Management [HREF2] , Southern Cross University [HREF3], P.O. Box 157 Lismore. New South Wales. 2480. srowe@scu.edu.au

Abstract

This paper reports on the adoption of a teaching strategy relying on computer-based technologies to enhance student learning. The use of asynchronous discussion forums (DFs) in an undergraduate Auditing unit at Southern Cross University during semester 2, 2003 is presented. This innovation in the delivery of Auditing utilised DFs for a task designed to link theory with practice by engaging auditing students and practitioners in discussions about current auditing issues. The paper reports the level of activity in two DFs, one moderated by recent graduates and the other by partners working in public practice, to demonstrate the extent of the engagement. Although not the focus of this paper, some content of the DFs is presented to demonstrate the very positive manner in which the DFs showed the relevance of the unit materials to current practice for the students.

Introduction

Instead of fixing the means – such as lectures and courses – the Learning Paradigm fixes the ends, the learning results, allowing the means to vary in its constant search for the most effective and efficient paths to student learning. (Barr and Tagg, 1995)

There have been many calls for accounting education to move from a long-standing content and rule-based (or technical) focus to the development of higher-order skills, or a shift to a non-technical focus.[1] Rebele, et al., (1998a) and Boyce (1999) provide excellent summaries of the accounting literature arising from these calls. They summarise both prescriptive (what educators should be doing) and descriptive (what some educators are doing) literature. This paper is an addition to the descriptive literature.

Recognising the need to develop these skills is one thing, but being able to incorporate that development into education delivery modes is another. Given the intention of this paper to present the benefits of using asynchronous discussion forums (DFs), a narrower focus on the role and use of educational technology in accounting education was identified. Rebele, et al. (1998b), Boyce (1999) and Bryant and Hunton (2000) provide extensive reviews of computer-assisted teaching and learning in accounting and presenting a common thread focusing on potential and cautioning not to lose sight of the educational objectives in the adoption of these educational technologies. Rebele, et al. (1998b, p207) suggested future research was needed to “explore how accounting educators can contribute to the continuing evolution and improvement of accounting education”. Using Rebele et al.’s computer-based learning and other technologies classification, Bryant and Hunton (2000, p131) responded to this challenge by providing an excellent overview of the range of educational technologies available. Their overview is significant to this paper because it highlights that a DF is but one of an extensive range of resources available, just as many of these technologies are available within traditional classroom teaching “spaces”. From a more generic educational technology perspective, Clark (2000) [HREF6] also identifies the DF as but one of many collaboration tools available in what he calls online learning environments (OLEs).

When reviewing distance learning studies, which is the category where a DF resides in their classification, Bryant and Hunton (2000, p146) report “a lack of research encompassing newer technologies such as asynchronous and synchronous (also known as “interactive chat”) web-based delivery.” Clark (2000, p.5) [HREF6] makes a similar plea suggesting that “detailed studies of the various methods described … and their effect upon learning and student satisfaction should be undertaken” ideally for both OLE and FTF (face to face) groups. Similar pleas to eliminate the distinction between the educational experience offered to distance and face to face student cohorts have been made by Owston (1997) and Turoff (1999) [HREF10]. While other studies report this approach in educational settings [2], this paper aims to fill some of the void referred to above by describing the use of a DF in an accounting education setting supporting both on-campus (face to face) and distance (OLE) students. Specifically this paper will add positive support to the suggestion that “computer-assisted learning may also contribute positively to the process of reforming accounting education, by helping to develop … other communication skills, interaction, interpersonal and collaborative skills, … including critical awareness” (Boyce, 1999, p192), in line with the long-standing calls for reform identified at the beginning of this section .

The Auditing Unit

During semester 1 of 2003, two advanced accounting units with small enrolments were delivered online for the first time.[3] Following the success of this mode of delivery for the small groups the challenge to attempt online delivery for a larger group was taken. Auditing is a second semester second year unit in the Bachelor of Business and Bachelor of Accounting undergraduate degrees. The unit has been evolving in the online direction for a number of years. All feedback for student self-learning activities have only been available online for three years and a variety of assessment tasks have been online over that period. During semester 2 of 2003, 99 students had final grades submitted, all unit study materials, readings and assessment tasks (other than the final exam) were only available on-line. Table 1 below shows the weighting for each of the assessment tasks in the unit. Notice that if the Optional activity was chosen, the weighting for the final exam was reduced accordingly.

Table 1 –- Weighting for each assessment activity

While not the intention of this paper to evaluate the success or otherwise of this approach, suffice to say that download and printing issues were viewed as constraints and widely discussed and mentioned in student feedback throughout, and at the end of the semester. That said, the overall rating by students for the unit was still 5.1 on a 7 point Likert scale (34% response for a class size of 99). This paper describes the use of DFs for the Optional Discussion Forum Activity in this unit, involving interaction with current professional practitioners.

The Optional Discussion Forum Assessment – an “Experiment in Active Learning”

The intention of the optional assessment task was to offer students the opportunity to actively seek out what happens in practice relative to the concepts they were studying in the unit. This an example of one of the elements in Schulman’s new Table of Learning – engagement- where he asserts that “our institutions of higher education are settings where students can encounter a range of people and ideas and human experiences that they have never been exposed to before. Engagement in this sense is not just a proxy for learning but a fundamental purpose of education”. (2002, p.40). It is an attempt to implement one of Boettcher & Cartwright’s (1997) three dimensions of interactions for web-based courses – student-to-resource.

When the on-campus, face-to-face cohort of students was predominant, guest lecturers had been used to offer such an opportunity to students. With an increasing cohort of external students, and on-campus students distributed over three locations the logistics and cost of facilitating guest lectures has seen the abandonment of their use. The use of a DF with graduates currently in practice was considered worthy of trialling with a large group to assess the potential for potentially cost-effective interaction with all students as advocated by Freeman (1996), Bourne, et.al. (1997) [HREF4], Kumari (2001) [HREF8], Tinker (2002) and Dowling, et.al. (2003). Further, this engagement with graduates was seen as an opportunity for students to identify directly with potential career paths as they near completion of their degrees. For the graduates it was an opportunity to develop their interactive and collaborative skills and promote their firms and profession to emerging professionals.

Table 2, below, shows the proportion of the 99 students who received a final grade in the unit, compared to those who chose to attempt the optional DF activity, across the three campuses for the face-to-face cohort (Lismore, Coffs Harbour and Tweed) and the external (or distance) cohort. The proportions are quite consistent, with opposite variations evident for the Lismore and external cohorts. It is suggested that this contributes some evidence to support the calls by Owsten (1997) and Turoff (1999) [HREF10] that it is possible to eliminate the distinction between the educational experience offered to distance and face to face student cohorts.

Table 2 – Number of students completing the unit and choosing the option per campus location.

So what was involved in this DF activity?

The Optional DF ran from Weeks 5 to 8 of semester, if chosen. The involvement of the lecturer was deliberately minimalist, specifically to allow a focus on monitoring, and to encourage a more self-directed approach by students. Four recent graduates and four partners were invited to moderate separate DFs. The DF was open for initial student questions to recent graduates and partners from 1 September. The recent graduates were asked to contribute during the week 8 – 15 September and partners during the week 15 – 22 September. In addition to an initial question, students were encouraged to pursue any responses by moderators that they required clarification or further details about to take advantage of the expertise at their disposal. The DFs were then closed and students had until 29 September to post a 500 word reflection on perceived benefits to them of the activity. This paper focuses on the DF posting activity during the period.

Very broad guidelines were offered to the students concerning the type of questions they should ask. Discussion with the moderators led to the decision to be non-prescriptive and to see where the questions led. This agreement to be laissez-faire in the approach led to the naming of the Optional DF as an “Experiment in Active Learning”. This is an example of the paradigm shift from teaching to learning called for by Barr & Tagg (1995) in the opening quote of this paper, and what Hiltz (1998) [ HREF7] describes as collaborative learning where the instruction becomes learner rather than teacher-centred and knowledge is socially constructed so that the role of the teacher becomes that of a facilitating the students’ construction of their own knowledge (the “guide on the side”) rather than simply transferring knowledge (the “sage on the stage”). The broad guidelines offered for the recent graduates’ DF were to explore the types of activities these people are involved with in their daily work; the demands of the CA program; and what they see as important issues from their perspective. The broad guidelines offered for the partners’ DF were to pose questions about risks, liability, professional judgment and independence.

Participant Demographics

Information about the students and graduates who chose to participate in the optional activity is now provided.

Of the 47 students who opted to do the DF activity, there were 29 female and 18 male students. 24 of these students were studying 2 units during the semester, 11 were studying 3 units and 12 were studying a full time load of 4 units. Their age profile is shown in Table 3, below.

Table 3 – Age profile of students participating in the Optional DF Activity.

Given the recent move of the unit to second semester second year, Table 4 is presented to show the variety of stages of completion of their study program. It highlights, in conjunction with the age profile, the variety of previous university experience that students bring to into the unit.

Table 4 – Number of units completed by students participating in the Optional DF Activity .

Given the time constraints to “make this happen”, an unintended bias of male Chartered Accountants occurred. I called on graduates I knew and had been in recent contact with. This included partners with local firms only, with whom I had been involved over a period of time in previous iterations of our course offerings and my own professional development. Of the four (4) recent graduates, 3 studied part time then moved to city firms (big 4), 1 studied full time, worked in city firms (big 4) then moved to country. They are variously involved in audit, business services, internal audit, and insolvency practice work. Of the four (4) partners, 3 are graduates, they are all partners in small – medium regional practices with 2 being audit partners & 2 with very little audit work. The other factor influencing their choice as participants was their willingness to participate during perhaps the busiest time of the year for their work.

Posting activity in the Optional DF

Let’s now look at some of the detail of the actual posting activity within the DF. Table 5, below, sets out the number of postings for each part of the Optional activity. Students had until 1 September to register for this Optional activity. On 1 September a group DF was established, limiting access to those students who had opted to participate. Registered students then had until 8 September to de-register if they decided, for whatever reason, that they did not want to participate. Given the small number of de-registrants (7), their access was not rescinded, and none of them contributed further.

Table 5 – Total postings during the Optional DF Activity.

By further analysing these postings, you can see what happened in each DF moderated by the recent graduates and the partners. This is set out in Table 6, below. It shows the recent graduates were more active in their participation than the partners. While the number of student contributions was fairly consistent to each DF, all 4 recent graduates contributed 3 times as many postings as the 2 participating partners. This probably reflects the earlier concern about the busy time of the year this was conducted, especially for the partners.

Table 6 – Contributions and contributors to each DF.

The following comment from a student summary was typical of their acceptance and recognition of this point:

“It was a little disappointing that we did not get the desired level of activity on the Partners Forum, but I’m sure we all know that busy people do find it difficult to find time for some things (another parallel between university life and the real world perhaps?) And having said that, the responses that we did get were invaluable. It is not often that we get the chance to ask these questions – even those of us who are working in the industry don’t really get the chance to get this sort of information.”

The lack of relative activity in the partner DF led to the decision to focus the remainder of the analysis in this paper to the recent graduate DF activity. Accordingly, what follows is a data showing the validity of the decision to use DFs for this experiment to encourage their engagement in the assessment task. Remember that there were very few constraints placed on the type or nature of questions, or the timing of them, other than a completion date.

Table 7, below, shows the number of postings made by students and recent graduates by day for the duration of the DF. It is worth noting that only 20 of the 147 questions posed by students in this DF were not responded to directly by the recent graduates. Most of the questions not answered were duplicating those already asked, while others were not posted until the last couple of days. The table also shows that the recent graduates chose to begin responding to the questions prior to the specified date of 8 September. It is interesting to see that the Table shows a reasonably even spread of contributions by participants throughout the period of the DF. The extent of engagement across the period is most encouraging and contrary to the usual last minute postings. It is further suggested that this spread was an important contributing factor in the depth of the DF threads considered next.

Table 7 – Number of posts per day by participants in the Recent Graduates DF.

Before focusing specifically on the activity of the recent graduates, Table 8, below, demonstrates the extent to which student questions led to threads of discussion with the graduates. For example, the last column of the Table shows that there was one thread containing 20 posts, while the first column shows that there were 12 threads containing 3 posts.

Table 8 – Number of posts per thread by participants in Recent Graduates DF.

This analysis does not attempt to distinguish the number of contributions to a thread by students or recent graduates. It also does not indicate if a single question is expanded or a number of discrete questions are embedded in the same thread. However, Table 9, below, shows the frequency of posts per student. The first column shows that 7 students made a single posting to the DF, while the last column shows that 2 students made 9 postings to the DF.

Table 9 – Frequency of posts by students.

Focus on the recent graduates

Let’s now turn our attention to the specific activity of the recent graduates. This analysis is more detailed than for students due to the smaller number of participants. Table 10, below, shows the number of contributions per day posted by each graduate. The numbers in brackets in the top line summarise this activity. For e.g., “jb” posted 24 contributions on 8 separate days, while “mw” posted 30 contributions on only 4 separate days.

Table 10 – Number of posts per day by each Recent Graduate.

It is also informative to break the timing of these contributions down further to look at the time of day the postings were contributed. Remembering that this DF was effectively scheduled to run for two weeks, Figure 1 below expands the value of this flexibility by showing the hour of the day (using a 24 hour time frame) that each of the recent graduates contributed their postings. You can see that “hl” and “mc” preferred posting in the evening, while the others tended to post at a wider variety of times during their day. This variety of times strongly supports the flexibility of the DF to contribute around the demands of the individual’s constraints (Bourne, 1998, [HREF5] Kumari, 2001[HREF8] and Tinker 2002)). It is suggested that this data showing the extent of posting activity demonstrates clearly that the participants achieved the objective of engaging in interaction, collaboration and critical awareness by active and regular discourse for the duration of the DF. Further, the flexibility demonstrated by the timing of the posts allowed by using the DF, strongly supports Bourne, et.al’s (1997)[HREF4] alternative acronym for Asynchronous Learning Networks … Anywhere/Anytime Learning Networks.

Figure 1 – Time of day for posts by each Recent Graduate.

One of the other reasons for choosing to try the DF for this task was interaction to foster an exposure to professional practice views. Importantly, the tools allow us to track the number of times that individual postings are read (though not by whom). Table 11, below, demonstrates the interactivity that occurred by showing the minimum, maximum and average number of times the posting of each recent graduate was read. In addition to directly demonstrating the interaction, this provides evidence countering Klemm’s (2002) suggestion that threaded DFs can often disguise a lack of meaningful communication because the volume of messages does not convey the extent to which the messages were (or were not) read. Although not qualitatively analysed in this paper, it is suggested the student summaries included in Appendix 2 provide preliminary evidence of the substance of the content of the DFs.

Table 11 – Number of times posts by each Recent Graduate were read.

What could be improved next time?

One thing I would definitely retain is the optional nature of the activity. This is because it is an important barrier to inane and repetitious questioning. Given the timing of the activity and the time constraints on the moderators, it is important not to be wasting their time unnecessarily, notwithstanding their willingness to handle whatever questions are thrown at them. Other reactions to student experiences include:

• Range and number of moderators: there is potential to adjust the mix of the moderators. For example, mature age graduates, female graduates, CPA qualified graduates. It might also be wise to seek greater commitment from partners, or consider some manager level graduates to provide views on those issues.
  
• Reward greater student interactivity – qualitative focus: this is an assessment challenge to develop the deeper learning and critical thinking skills of students by following up ideas of other students and moderators so that issues are more directly explored rather than seen as discrete questions and answers.
  
• Offshore moderators: in the current era of internationalisation the potential to be able to utilise graduates who are developing their professional careers offshore is enticing to provide a first hand view of the impacts, opportunities and views that exist in other countries.

Student questions, summaries and content analysis

While the focus of the paper has been on the level of activity within the DF, it would be incomplete without some indication of the content of the DF in terms of the benefits the students derived from the activity. Indeed, a potential for further research that has emerged from this paper is the opportunity to undertake a content analysis to determine the depth of learning that has taken place by the students. However, in an effort to provide some anecdotal evidence of the perceived value of the DF to their learning Appendices 1 and 2 are presented.

Appendix 1 provides examples of the range of questions posed in each of the DFs. It is suggested that both the range and quality of the questions far surpasses anything this lecturer had been able to achieve in previous face-to-face guest lecture settings, and directly supports the claims of Turoff (1999, p.4) [HREF10] who argues that technical functionality “allows the class to accomplish learning objectives that cannot be possible in the face to face mode” and Kumari (2001, p.55) [HREF8] who provides evidence that this approach to using DFs in a graduate teaching program “can be better than the version possible in a traditional class”. It also vindicated the decision of the practitioners to allow a “laissez-faire” approach in the sense that a wide range of issues were raised and explored.

Appendix 2 contains some extracts from student summaries. Those included are indicative of the reflections posted by students, and are noteworthy by virtue of their consistency concerning the significance of the dialogue to show how relevant the unit material is to their study of the unit. In particular, there is one included that suggested the valuable content of the DF should be opened for viewing to those students who did not opt to participate. This was done, and highlights to the author the collegiate thinking generated by this type of activity, and the potential to exploit other aspects of dynamic learning communities (Wilson & Ryder, 2001) [HREF11].

Conclusion

This paper has reported the level of activity achieved following the adoption of asynchronous discussion forums (DFs) in an undergraduate Auditing unit. This innovation allowed an explicit linking of theory with practice in an effort to make auditing education more relevant to the current business environment. To this end it contributes to filling the void referred to by Bryant and Hunton (2000, p146) who report “a lack of research encompassing newer technologies such as asynchronous and synchronous (also known as “interactive chat”) web-based delivery.” The level of activity and the extracts from content of the discussions demonstrates the very positive manner in which the DFs achieved the aim of engaging students and practitioners to show the relevance of the unit materials to current practice. This in turn adds support to the suggestion that “computer-assisted learning may also contribute positively to the process of reforming accounting education, by helping to develop … other communication skills, interaction, interpersonal and collaborative skills, … including critical awareness” (Boyce, 1999, p192), in line with the long-standing calls for reform in accounting education.

Footnotes

[1] See for example Jordan (2003), Smith (2001), Albrecht & Sack (2000). These calls are not new … Francalanza (1997) suggests that the “accounting revolution” was actually foretold 20 years ago, while Rousch & Stevenson Smith (1997) provide a detailed summary of calls for reform by the AICPA dating from 1952 and also highlight calls in countries other than the US.

[2] Kumari (2001) [HREF8] reports results from a very similar activity between (primarily) K-12 teachers undertaking a graduate program and active practising teachers who had successfully integrated technology into their programs. Similarly, McLoughlin & Luca (1999) [HREF9] say their forum was established to “provide a learning environment where participants could share knowledge, discuss ideas and contribute to each others’ understandings of important issues in the management of multimedia development”. Rowe & Vitartas (2003) present a description of the activity in DFs used over a two year period in Accounting Theory as an integral part of the assessment requirements.

[3] For a full description of this delivery and the variety of activities that were incorporated into the offerings see Rowe (2003).

References

Albrecht, W. S. & Sack, R. J. (2000). Accounting Education: Charting the Course through a Perilous Future. Accounting Education Series, Volume No. 16. A Joint Project of: American Accounting Association, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Institute of Management Accountants, Arthur Andersen, Deloitte Touche, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Barr, R.B. & Tagg, J. (1995). “From Teaching to Learning – A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education” in Change, November/December, 13 – 25.

Bourne, J.R., McMaster, E., Rieger, J. and Campbell, J.O. (1997). “Paradigms for On-Line Learning: A Case Study in the Design and Implementation of an Asynchronous Learning Networks (ALN) Course” in Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Volume 1, Issue 2. Available online at [HREF4]

Bourne, J.R. (1998). “Net-Learning: Strategies for On-Campus and Off-Campus Network Enables Learning” in Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Volume 2, Issue 2. Available online at [HREF5]

Boyce, G. (1999). “Computer-assisted teaching and learning in accounting: pedagogy or product?” in Journal of Accounting Education, 17, 191-220.

Boettcher, J.V. & Cartwright, C.G. (1997). “Designing and supporting courses on the web” in Change. September. 29(5), 62-66.

Bryant, S. M. & Hunton, J. E. (2000). “The use of technology in the delivery of instruction: Implications for accounting educators and education researchers” in Issues in Accounting Education. 15(1), 129-162.

Clark, J. (2000). “Collaboration Tools in Online Learning Environments” in Asynchronous Learning Networks Magazine. Volume 4, Issue 1, October. Available at [HREF6].

Dowling, C., Godfrey, J.M. & Gyles, N. (2003). “Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods improve accounting students’ learning outcomes?” in Accounting Education. December. 12(4). 373-391.

Francalanza, C. A. (1997). “Accounting education and change in financial accounting” in Journal of Accounting Education (Winter), 15, 109-122.

Freeman, M. (1996). “The role of the Internet in teaching large undergraduate classes”. Innovations in teaching and learning discussion paper, no 2, Faculty of Business University of Technology. Sydney.

Hiltz, R. (1998). “Collaborative Learning in Asynchronous Learning Networks: Building Learning Communities”. Invited address at “WEB98” Orlando. Florida. November. [ HREF7]

Jordan, M. (2003). “Business Reloaded” in CA Charter, July, 34-35.

Klemm, W.R. (2002). “Extending the Pedagogy of Threaded-Topic Discussions” in Technology Source. September/October.

Kumari, D.S. (2001). “Connecting Graduate Students To Virtual Guests Through Asynchronous Discussions – Analysis OF Experience” in Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Volume 5, Issue 2. Available at [HREF8]

McLoughlin, C. & Luca, J. “Lonely Outpourings or Reasoned Dialogue? Analysis of text-based conferencing as a tool to support learning”. Paper presented at ASCILITE 1999. Brisbane. Australia. Available at [HREF9]

Owsten, R.D. (1997). “The World Wide Web: A Technology to Enhance Teaching and Learning?” in Educational Researcher. March. Volume 26, number 2. 27-33.

Rebele, J. E., Apostolou, B. A., Buckless, F. A., Hassell, J. M., Paquette, L. R., & Stout, D. E. (1998a). “Accounting Education Literature Review (1991-1997), Part I: Curriculum and Instructional Approaches” in Journal of Accounting Education, 16 (Winter), 1-51.

Rebele, J. E., Apostolou, B. A., Buckless, F. A., Hassell, J. M., Paquette, L. R., & Stout, D. E. (1998b). “Accounting Education Literature Review (1991-1997), Part II: Students, Educational Technology, Assessment, and Faculty Issues” in Journal of Accounting Education, 16 (Spring), 179-245.

Rousch, M. L. & Stevenson Smith, G. (1997). “Consultative Teaching: International Examples”. Unpublished working paper. Southern Cross University.

Rowe, S. (2003) “Working in a Virtual Classroom: What you CAN do to enrich the learning experience”. Paper presented at the NAWeb 2003. The Ninth North American Web Conference, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada.

Rowe, S., & Vitartas, P. (2003). “An assessment of contributions to an online discussion forum in Accounting Theory”. Paper presented at the AusWeb 2003. The Ninth Australian World Wide Web Conference, Hyatt Sanctuary Cove, Gold Coast.

Shulman, L.S. (2002). “Making Differences: A Table of Learning” in Change. November/Deccember. 34(6). 37-44.

Smith, P. A. (2001). “Understanding self-regulated learning and its implications for accounting educators and researchers” in Issues in Accounting Education, 16(4), 663-700.

Tinker, T. (2002). “Critical Research in the United States” in Critical Perspectives in Accounting 13, 517-526.

Turoff, M. (1999). “An End To Student Segregation: No more separation between distance learning and regular courses”. Plenary session, Telelearning 99 Symposium. Montreal. Canada. Available at [HREF10]

Wilson, B. & Ryder, M. (2001). “Dynamic Learning Communities: An Alternative to Designed Instructional Systems”. Available at [HREF11]

Hypertext References

HREF1

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/comm/staff/srowe/index.html

HREF2

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/comm/

HREF3

http://www.scu.edu.au/

HREF4

http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v1n2/v1n2_bourne.asp

HREF5

http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v2n2/v2n2_bourne.asp

HREF6

http://www.aln.org/publications/magazine/v4n1/clark.asp

HREF7

http://eies.njit.edu/~hiltz/

HREF8

http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_kumari.asp

HREF9

http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane99/papers/papers.htm

HREF10

http://eies.njit.edu/~turoff/Papers/canadapres/segregation.htm

HREF11

http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/dlc.html

 

Appendices

APPENDIX 1

Sample of questions/issues students asked of the practitioners.

Reasons for move from city to country or vice versa.

How does an auditor deal with fraud?

Has demand for audits from small and medium-sized entities increased post Enron and HIH?

Impact of recent collapses on risk assessment practices for auditors.

The impact of ethics and your life experience on professional work.

CPA v CA program demands.

CPA v CPA influence on career options.

Numbers of, and opportunities for, women graduates.

Paradox of teamwork v. staff competition.

Pressure to overlook dubious client practices.

Effectiveness of the audit process.

Client willingness to make adjustments and change auditors.

Audit issues for small entities – has demand increased post major collapses?

Confidentiality and the integrity of your clients.

Different work environments in city v. country and smaller v. larger practices

APPENDIX 2

Extracts from Summaries of Discussion Forums with Auditing practitioners.

* These are taken from the Summaries in order to provide some indication of the benefits the students expressed they gained from the activity. This is an opportunity to also record the author’s gratitude for their willingness to participate in the experiment and thereby contribute to my improvement as a teacher, and their development as potential professionals.

1. “ … I would like to thank participants for their help and time. I found that a lot of my questions have been answered in regards to my CA/CPA queries. I have decided that I will still complete the CPA at the end of my degree as I am a mature age student with no desire to move to Sydney or Brisbane and the firm that I work for has a majority of CPA qualified accountants. I have passed on some of the discussion points raised in the forum regarding the perceived differences between these two professional bodies, which in turn raise further interesting discussion within our practice!!! (Made for an interesting debate?)

   If I had any doubts as to the relevance of the study material at the start of this unit those doubts have disappeared after the discussion with the graduates and comments from Partner. It seems clear that what we are learning is very applicable to the workplace. The input from the graduates and partner has provided a real-world view of auditing and accounting that could not be gained from the study (text) material.”

2. “This assessment gave the opportunity to ask questions that we would not normally get to. By getting feedback from questions that the participants saw as important matters. …
   
   The main point that was addressed by this forum has been attaching theory to practice. The forum allowed us to ask people who are working in the real life situations questions that have allowed us to view the subject from an entirely different viewpoint. One that normally doesn’t get observed with other subjects. I would like to thank the recent graduates and partners that took time out of their busy schedules to respond in the discussions and for giving us an insider perspective.”
   
3. “This assignment put theory into a real world context. It was disappointing that so few partners answered questions, perhaps this is a reflection on their workload which those who desire a life outside work would do well to heed! …
   
   Overall, this assignment was a great learning experience and hopefully the archived forums will be opened up at a later date for all non-participants to view also.”
   
4. “I have enjoyed this component of the assessment criteria immensely. Primarily because it provided me with an opportunity to obtain answers from a very relevant, contemporary, and direct source (graduates and partners), an opportunity not always afforded in the context of business/accounting studies (which is very much textbook orientated). Also, the feedback provided confirmation or substantiation of the material in the text book.
   
   In addition, my experience was enhanced by the input of my fellow students. As we were restricted to some extent in regards to question quantity, I personally found that the question quality was quite good.”
   
5. “I also found it fantastic how most comments made by both the partners and graduates was consistent with what we were reading in our texts. I have found throughout my study of other subjects that at times I have scratched my head and thought "why are they teaching us this, its not what happens in real life" but with the feedback we have received this has reinforced that all the material is relevant. …

This has been a great learning experience, and i would recommend Steve continue with this style of assessment as it is beneficial in letting people with no real life experience get information first hand and re-iterates the subjects we are studying.”


6. “Another thing that came across fairly strongly to me was that these guys (I know, I know, no girls!) do seem to be applying the bulk of the course material. Maybe this shouldn’t be a surprise, maybe it’s a little naïve on my part but to hear that it is used is reassuring. …
   
   I did like the interrelatedness of all this, the unit content is actually applied in the real world, and the standards are used. And I guess the recent grads gave us a few things to think about in terms of the impaact[sic] of career choices.”
   
7. “This assessment, in my opinion, definitely achieved what it was entitled - “Active Learning Experiment”. That is, it was active learning and it was an experiment. I have noticed that some students are very disappointed at the “lack” of responses from the partners (although at the same time they have acknowledged that it was probably due to the partners’ busy work schedules) however, I would just like to remind them that it was an “experiment”.
   
   However, having said that, I found the assessment both interesting and beneficial. The most surprising part I came across was how both the graduates and the partners’ comments were consistent with our readings and the textbook. As I stated in the forum, I found it very refreshing to know that the material we are presently learning can be used in the “real” world.”
   
8. “For me, this would have to be the most interesting component of our assessment for this unit. I believe that our university is supposed to assist us in our working lives. This assessment has allowed that – what better way to show us how the unit relates to the real world than to have those who work in the industry tell us? More than once there were comments that the Recent Graduates’ and Partners’ answers were “just like the text” – Corporations Law, Quality Control and Minimisation of Risk were just a couple of examples.
   
   It was a little disappointing that we did not get the desired level of activity on the Partners Forum, but I’m sure we all know that busy people do find it difficult to find time for some things (another parallel between university life and the real world perhaps?) And having said that, the responses that we did get were invaluable. It is not often that we get the chance to ask these questions – even those of us who are working in the industry don’t really get the chance to get this sort of information.”
   
9. “When the graduates made a couple of detailed responses to my questions my interest in the assessment was heightened. It was a challenge to then reply with a new level of questions, as well as to avoid asking things others had already broached. …
   
   My overall impression of the assessment was that it was very worthwhile; I actually have saved some of the postings to a disk to keep for future reference (mainly in the area of what the CPA and CA workload is like). It was a challenge to test our knowledge of auditing, and indeed try to expand it, with professionals in the area. As I said earlier linking the theory to practice is something we don’t get to do a great deal. It was very kind of these professionals to give their time to aid our learning, understandably some of them found it difficult to fit this in to their schedule.”

Copyright

Stephen Rowe, © 2004. The authors assign to Southern Cross University and other educational and non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to Southern Cross University to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web and on CD-ROM and in printed form with the conference papers and for the document to be published on mirrors on the World Wide Web.