Description
The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon and describe the introduction of an articulated
engagement learning and teaching approach to a diverse cohort in a postgraduate management
accounting unit of study.
Accounting Research Journal
Engendering learning engagement in a diverse cohort: a reflection
Gary R. Oliver Rodney Coyte
Article information:
To cite this document:
Gary R. Oliver Rodney Coyte, (2011),"Engendering learning engagement in a diverse cohort: a reflection",
Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 195 - 204
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611111163727
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 21:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 27 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 576 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Astrid Schmulian, Stephen Coetzee, (2011),"Class absenteeism: reasons for non-attendance and
the effect on academic performance", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 178-194 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611111163718
Kamran Ahmed, J ohn Hillier, Elisabeth Tanusasmita, (2011),"R&D profitability, intensity and market-
to-book: evidence from Australia", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 150-177 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611111163691
Kym Butcher, Graeme Harrison, J ill McKinnon, Philip Ross, (2011),"Auditor appointment in
compulsory audit tendering", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 104-149 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611111163682
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Engendering learning
engagement in a diverse cohort:
a re?ection
Gary R. Oliver and Rodney Coyte
Discipline of Accounting, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to re?ect upon and describe the introduction of an articulated
engagement learning and teaching approach to a diverse cohort in a postgraduate management
accounting unit of study.
Design/methodology/approach – A case study, based on the authors’ experiences teaching
diverse cohorts applies Bandura’s social learning theory. Observation and modelling (which shaped
earlier educational experiences and dominate student behaviour and classroom engagement) were
used to overcome passive learning behaviour in diverse cohorts.
Findings – Better preparation for class by students is engendered by showing how study is applied.
High engagement during class time is a combination of careful team construction and a task that has
work relevance. Diversity need not be a constraint on teaching nor a barrier to learning. Diversity can
be harnessed to facilitate learning. Re?ection of the experience of students indicates high engagement,
more con?dent, ?exible and non-scripted student responses and awareness of the value of diversity
in the team.
Originality/value – An articulated engagement learning and teaching approach is described which
caters for diversity, using resourcing problems with alternative recommendation choices, requiring
justi?cation, critique and defence.
Keywords Postgraduates, Australia, Deep learning, Diversity, Shallowlearning, Social learning theory,
Team-based learning
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
In business and professional studies there are ongoing issues in developing
business-related generic graduate attributes in students and ensuring content
relevance (ALTC, 2010). In this case study, we set out to both describe and re?ect upon
our experience in addressing these issues. Our aim was to more closely align the student
experience with the desired business-related graduate outcomes for improved workplace
competences given the diversity of students in typical postgraduate accounting
cohorts[1]. We were guided by Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory (SLT) primarily
because it considers human behaviour in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction
between cognitive, behavioural, and environmental (or external) in?uences. In making
and monitoring the changes we are acutely aware of the limited control we have over
student learning and the ambiguous effects of many variables, including assessment and
student interaction, as shown by the 3P model (originally proposed by Biggs (1979)).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1030-9616.htm
Thanks to the students in MADM, for their willingness to participate in the teams and provide
information about their experiences. Grateful acknowledgement is given to the anonymous
reviewers for their guidance in reshaping the initial discussion of implications and re?ections.
Learning
engagement in a
diverse cohort
195
Accounting Research Journal
Vol. 24 No. 2, 2011
pp. 195-204
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1030-9616
DOI 10.1108/10309611111163727
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
SLT is attractive because it recognises a social element, arguing that people learn by
observing the attitudes and behaviour of others. SLT resonated with our thinking as
we believe that the combination of both affect student learning. While many theorists
have emphasised observational or participative learning (e.g., Vygotsky’s (1978) social
development involving problem solving with capable peers or Lave’s (1988) situational
speci?c learning), Bandura makes a connection to self-ef?cacy (i.e. capability to
successfully execute behaviour) which provides a means to promote self-con?dence
towards learning new and unfamiliar material. SLT gives us four areas to focus on:
(1) gaining student attention at the sensory and emotional levels that is suf?cient
for them to perceive modelled events and learner characteristics;
(2) coding modelled behaviour into words, labels or images to achieve better
retention than simply observing;
(3) engendering engagement through self-observation of reproduction with
feedback; and
(4) providing various kinds of motivation (external, vicarious and self-
reinforcement) for students to accomplish learning.
Our approach to change uses these conditions for effective modelling.
Initially, a misreading of Bandura resulted in a number of separate teaching changes
intended to overcome what appeared to be signs of shallow learning (Marton and Sa¨ljo?,
1997), including students’ over-dependence on memorisation. Further consideration of
SLT suggested student observations in the classroom could be directed toward
modelling instead of information transmittal. This led to the adoption of what we refer to
as an articulated engagement teaching and learning approach using SLTand extending
Michaelsen’s (2004a) team-based learning (TBL) for a diverse cohort. This achieved
better preparation for class, as evidenced by knowledge of the topic displayed in testing
and discussion. In the next section, we describe the context for our changes and detail
the TBL approach to engendering high engagement. The Section 3 outlines the way
we implemented TBL for postgraduate accounting and cohort diversity. In Section 4
we discuss the teaching and learning ?ndings from the changes, while in Section 5 we
re?ect on what we learnt. The ?nal section outlines our conclusions concerning the
impact on graduate attributes and the employability of graduates.
2. TBL and the case background: teaching context and learning challenges
The focus of our case study is an entry level postgraduate unit “Managerial Accounting
and Decision Making” (MADM). The unit has a diverse student cohort, with a
large number of international students. Generally, enrolments result in six to nine
seminar-style classes (streams) each with approximately 45 students taking three hours.
Usually, a total of ?ve staff is allocated each semester. The unit requires a ?nancial
accounting prerequisite and is the ?rst management accounting unit studied. It focuses
on the management accountant’s work as an internal business advisor (Blocher, 2009) in
producing analysis for organisational resource management decisions. The unit covers a
conventional set of topics including cost accounting, pricing, inventory, budgeting and
variances, so there is little room for curriculum variation. The teaching approach and
learning differs from that sought in the ?nancial accounting units of study, where
accounting standards detail both presentation and content. Our MADM students learn
ARJ
24,2
196
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
that problem solving in a business context is not just about quanti?cation. Importantly,
they learn that it requires an understanding of the meaning and implications (in a global
context) of the quanti?cation, and determination of the most important areas to address
for achieving feasible business change and improvement.
Our involvement in the MADM unit as (alternating) unit coordinators spans ?ve
years. Our effort to make improvements startedas individual re?ection eachsemester on
both the achievement of learning outcomes and on the success of the implementation of
the changes as part of an ongoing improvement process. However, although minor
improvements and pockets of engagement could be achieved, these were dependent on
individual instructors and generally dif?cult to sustain through frequent changes in the
three other staff allocated to the unit. In time, as we repeated the coordination role with
new (but similarly diverse) student cohorts we began to collect and compare data on the
effects of changes, including soliciting and documenting students’ views.
Although faculty-prepared student statistics for MADM reported student diversity
in terms of local versus international students, primary language and study major, this
uni-dimensional analysis overlooks other dimensions, which make for important
differences. For example, the apparent predominance of mainland Chinese students
masked substantial diversity amongst them. We explored this with class-administered
surveys which showed that diversity has many more dimensions. Three dimensions
appeared to in?uence student engagement in learning: communication pro?ciency,
cultural orientation and business knowledge (Coyte and Oliver, 2010). Communication
pro?ciency refers to varying English language skills. Cultural orientation refers to the
degree to which authority is an acceptable form of argumentation and evidence.
Business knowledge varies considerably, even where some part-time work has been
undertaken, owing to different contexts and the task focus. Figure 1 shows the range of
cohort diversity across these three dimensions.
TBL[2] refers to a classroom experience in which students arrive at class prepared to
demonstrate the prerequisite knowledge necessary to apply key concepts, theories
and calculative techniques in decision making in an exercise drawn from business.
Figure 1.
Three dimensions of the
diversity of the cohort
Collectivist
Individualist
High
Proficiency
None
Basic
Proficiency
Negligible
Knowledge
Wide
Knowledge
Cultural
Orientation
C
o
m
m
u
n
ic
a
tio
n
P
r
o
fic
ie
n
c
y
B
u
s
in
e
s
s
K
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
Student Diversity
Learning
engagement in a
diverse cohort
197
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
For MADM students this involves resource allocation decisions to improve business
performance. The class activities commence with a multiple choice readiness assurance
test (RAT). Its purpose is to determine whether students have mastered the basics
suf?ciently to con?dently expect to apply their knowledge to successfully address
broader and more complex context-based problems. The test is ?rst completed
individually and then in a team (Watson et al., 1993). Each team uses a “scratch card”
so that as it answers each multiple choice question its members immediately discover
whether or not they have selected the correct answer. An incorrect answer acts as a
prompt for further discussion before they select from the remaining alternatives
(Michaelsen, 2004b). While teams are completing the RAT the instructor is machine
scanning the individual test forms and determining individual performance.
Consideration of both individual and team performance forms the basis of a short
remedial lecture (Michaelsen, 2004b) which acts as a bridge to the next class activity,
a real-world problem presented in a scenario formulated as a managerial decision with
decision options (typically half a dozen) are provided to the students. All the options are
equally plausible so teams are not choosing “the correct” option but have to evaluate
the relative merits of each of the alternatives, given the issues and business context
(Michaelsen, 2004c). The majority of time in the classroom is thus spent demonstrating
the practical uses of knowledge of the topic, with the academic instructor acting as coach
for each team and then the class.
3. What we did
Prior to using SLT and TBL we made a number of incremental changes including
supporting classroom teaching with podcasts, rewriting the lecture slides and spending
additional time in the class explaining answers to homework. That is, we took
responsibility for improving scaffolding of both the content and instruction in trying
to improve transmission of facts or solutions, a practice rejected by Brook?eld and
Preskill (1995). After four semesters the instructors were frustrated by the lack of any
discernable improvement in student knowledge (based on low classroom engagement
and largely unchanged exam performance). Aware of TBL and with a better
understanding of SLT, we began developing materials[3] to introduce an articulated
engagement teaching and learning approach which we commenced in the second
semester of 2009 and is ongoing at the time of writing. Based on SLT, the aim was to
transform student learning by using classroom practices to show students the bene?ts
of making the change to their learning behaviour, and then reinforcing it through
productive team work oriented to professional effectiveness and career readiness. Our
approach combines problem solving and interactive communication, which is a basis
for career progression (ALTC, 2009). It is consistent with the kind of deeper learning
advocated by Marton and Sa¨ljo? (1997), for both technical and generic skills and
attributes (Ramsden, 2003). The classroom process is summarised in Figure 2. It shows
the majority of the class time is now spent in discussion of a business problem they are
likely to encounter in the workplace.
A weekly RAT which focuses on the essential topic knowledge became the starting
point for the class. For each weekly topic we use ten multiple choice questions in four
sections: core concepts/frameworks, manipulation of those concepts, analysis/
calculations, and interpreting the results of the analysis/calculation. By following the
individual RAT with the same task performed as a team, the in-class social processes
ARJ
24,2
198
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
encouraged knowledge sharing, and peer teaching of concepts and their application.
Since the team is able to correct any incorrect answers, Bandura’s (1977, p. 163)
requirement, for immediate feedback that is inherently rewarding, is satis?ed.
Moreover, lapses in knowledge and dif?culties in mastery revealed through feedback
from the individual RAT (as it is marked immediately after completion in class by the
instructor, while the team RAT is in progress) are addressed immediately through
remedial teaching. Consistent with SLT this makes the experience relevant to students
by dynamically communicating the means to overcome dif?culties in learning
(Michaelsen and Knight, 2004).
For our MADM students, we created a sub structure for them to apply their
knowledge to a business scenario (which we called a Business Practical) in four steps.
First, within each team, analysis or calculations are completed and then assessed
progressively by the instructor. This ensures each team has correct calculations on
which to base selection of their preferred choice before they simultaneously reveal their
chosen option. The second stage consists of teams justifying their optionandresponding
to challenges (to defend their choice) from other teams. The third stage requires teams
Figure 2.
Overview of the
classroom activities
H
i
g
h
e
r
O
r
d
e
r
S
k
i
l
l
Business
Practical
(apply
knowledge)
(75%)
Scaffolding: Calculation/Analysis worksheet or schedule
Growth in Learning
Readiness
Assurance
Process
(25%)
Scaffolding: Criteria for managerial decision
Scaffolding: Reflection questions
Key
concepts
Team Task: Reflection
Team Task: Managerial Decision and Persuasion
Team
Individual
Remedial
teaching
Extension
teaching
Key
concept
exercises
Exercise
interpretation
Concept
remediation
Concept
manipulation
remediation
Exercises
remediation
Exercise
interpretation
remediation
Introduction to advanced concepts
Team Task: Analysis and Calculation
Key
concepts
Key concept
manipulation
Key
concept
exercises
Exercise
interpretation
Team Task: Implementation/Change Plan
Scaffolding: Implementation approaches
C
l
a
s
s
T
i
m
e
Key concept
manipulation
Learning
engagement in a
diverse cohort
199
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
to consider how they would implement their preferred option. The fourth stage is where
teams re?ect upon their performance in terms of their learning. Two major advantages
result from this approach. First, students quickly discover that lack of preparation
results in poor individual performance as well as inhibiting team performance.
Second, students observe the successful functioning of other teams encouraging
modelling and stimulating social learning. Students learn that through active learning
(Michael and Modell, 2003) they can successfully create their own solution rather than
search for an extant solution and the “correct” answer.
4. What we found
By the third week[4] of each semester we begin to observe changes in student
behaviour. As students enter the class they seek out their team members in preference
to friends even though teams were deliberately constructed by the class instructor to
include diversity across the three dimensions of communication pro?ciency, business
knowledge and cultural orientation. Throughout the class there is considerable peer
tutoring as team members draw on each other’s knowledge of topic material and
relevant work understanding and as they discover particular strengths in terms of
knowledge, learn social facilitation and gain bene?ts from brainstorming. We have
also found that after three or four weeks of interaction teams begin to develop a
competitive streak vis-a´-vis other teams.
Overall, active enthusiasm is exhibited toward the task and the other team
members. Student behaviour indicates they recognise that the individual diversity
of their team members can help them. First, when they “re”-solve the RAT as a team.
Second (for the majority of the class time), when they make and defend decisions based
on shared interpretation and analysis of a complex business practice task (designed
around the week’s topic) involving quantitative and qualitative issues as well as ethical
dilemmas. Once the individual RAT is completed (silently in exam conditions) the
classroom erupts into a hive of intense iterative communication around ?rst, the team
RAT and then the Business Practical exercise.
Since in a team RAT students need to demonstrate to each other that they have
prepared suf?ciently to contribute to the Business Practical, the study prior to class and
the answers to the RAT, are both motivational and meaningful. Our approach is to create
a business decision which requires their topic knowledge to be reshaped, applied and
adapted to the context of the Business Practical case (i.e. there is not one ready-made
solution) The instructor imposed team member allocations and the conduct of all team
work in class overcomes the problematic distribution of work among teammembers and
accusations of free riding often found in group work (Livingstone and Lynch, 2000).
It also affects participation (Turner, 2009) reinforcing the value of teammember insights
and replacing the need for leader direction with initiative. Moreover, the teamnegotiates,
evaluates, synthesises and communicates ?nancial and non-?nancial information
without the normal information overload which an individual can experience. In this
context, team diversity has enriched the decision-making process through the variety of
understandings, range of experience and the willingness of team members to engage in
active debate in this process.
In moving around the teams (both coaching as well as listening) we ?nd students
admitting weaknesses and eliciting assistance from other team members. In some
cases a team member who has provided an explanation will ask the instructor
ARJ
24,2
200
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
to “explain it further” saving individual members the embarrassment of knowledge
de?ciencies. MADM instructors comment that they are no longer exhorting students
to learn but instead providing remedial tuition and guidance, drawing the attention of
students to material which they have already studied but have not fully appreciated.
There are bene?ts derived from this collaboration where much of the power remains
with the students as an alternative to cooperation which depends upon instructor
involvement (Strauss and U, 2007). This enables a process of learning with the problem
seen in its own terms instead of trying to ?t a previously used “modelled” solution
applicable for a different problem. After a few weeks of classes of this engaged learning
students come to their own realisation that they cannot simply reproduce modelled
knowledge for business advantage. This is consistent with the social veri?cation
(Bandura, 1977, p. 181) that occurs in discussion between teams as they manage their
learning (Light, 1990).
As instructors spend more time with the team but less time explaining, they are able
to better diagnose learning barriers and key points most bene?cial for discussion either
with a particular team or for discussion with the entire class. This results in some
teams returning to consider the concepts, some teams re-examining the data, still other
teams reconsidering their approach as they determine how they will defend it, and
other teams considering the options that they have discarded. The intensity of the
work on these practical problems eliminates any tendency of other teams to eavesdrop
as time constraints limit such opportunities and a detailed rationale must be built
to use in justifying the team’s recommended solution to the rest of the class. Typical
inter-cultural misunderstandings about task requirements and data interpretation
(often due to nuances of meaning in alternative descriptive terms for the same concept)
are avoided. Team members then determine what, if any, post-class self-instruction
will be purposeful for them. Moreover, an individual student who is privately aware of
their own speci?c weaknesses will be less reliant on asking peers what they should
study (with its attendant risk of inadvertent misguidance) and can become self-guided
in their subsequent study as they have an understanding on how the topic knowledge
is actually used by the end of the class.
5. What we learnt
In re?ecting upon the transformation to learning and its implications we use each
of the four lenses proposed by Brook?eld and Preskill (1995, pp. 29-30) namely
ourselves (autobiography), our students, our colleagues and the scholarly theories. Our
autobiographies as unit coordinators include substantial industry experience and
part-time completion of the PhD. So our memories as learners make us aware of study
constraints. Our second lens is the students. When our initial unit of study Evaluations
(USE) did not improve as we had expected after adopting the articulated engagement
teaching and learning we concluded that the USE was failing to capture other
perspectives so we sought both anonymous “before and after” feedback and speci?c
experiential feedback (e.g. using focus groups). Subsequently, we found that we learnt
more by focusing on learning activities where we had a viewof what had worked well or
not. In doing so, we learnt that we are “observed very closely” (Brook?eld and Preskill,
1995, p. 112) in ways we often did not notice. Our colleagues serve as the third lens of
re?ection[5]. We found this worked in two different ways. Hearing what other
instructors had experienced and how they reacted improved many of the techniques
Learning
engagement in a
diverse cohort
201
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
in class (e.g. that spending a few minutes reading the unfamiliar aspects of the Business
Practical to the class increased the speed of group preparation). Their feedback
somewhat reduced the distortion and denial that might affect our design re?nements
and interpretation of student behaviour and comments. More importantly it allowed us
to see patterns in what appeared to be idiosyncratic problems (e.g. dif?culties with
concepts being a simple grammatical issue). The fourth lens is the in?uence of theory
and scholarly literature on understanding. However, relying on the pedagogical
scholarship centring on SLT and TBL is not suf?cient. We recognised that there are
wider social, economic and political processes which in?uence student learning and
behaviour. We were also mindful that care must be taken to identify new research
literature which illuminates what teaching responses will improve the student learning
experience and highlight which aspects are largely outside teacher control.
One area remains unresolved. While we have disrupted much institutionalised
learning behaviour in our classes, students continue to experience traditional lectures/
homework-oriented activities in other classes and this creates some dif?culties in initial
acceptance (Thompson et al., 2007). While this can be overcome it is as a result of the
instructor paying acute attention to building student engagement in the expectation it
will lead to deeper learning. We also recognise that we need to integrate the topics to
allow students to consider implementation of their decision so they deal with further
complexity, ambiguity, and incomplete and unstructured information.
6. Conclusion
As instructors, we took some time to recognise that patterns of learning behaviour that
confront us are the outcome of earlier external in?uences (Bandura, 1977, p. 13),
including ef?cacious social learning experiences. Despite students getting additional
attention from the instructor, both individually and in teams, we now believe that we
have shown them that cohort diversity both bene?ts their learning and makes for
productive in-class team experiences. The most evident outcome demonstrated in the
classroom is enhanced engagement across all class activities. It is essential that those
activities are framed in ways that are similar to the information-rich and manifold
options characteristic of business context. We want our students to realise that ?nancial
and non-?nancial information requires further analysis and that it is inevitable that any
recommendation they make is likely to be vigorously challenged.
There are also wider policy implications. SLT suggests that development of desired
graduate attributes may be prevented by prior social learning even if the learning
activities (such as problem solving and communication) are performed. The current
drive, of the accounting profession and government, for more broadly skilled graduates
with highly developed communication and problem-solving skills is not necessarily
achieved by simply introducing activities which directly involve graduate attributes
such as communication. Our view is that attention is necessary to the secondary skills
such as communication, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
Notes
1. The presence of a high international student enrolment in?uences both the subject matter
requiring attention to intercultural issues as well as the use of broader subject examples
(Montgomery, 2009).
ARJ
24,2
202
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
2. The form of team-based learning adopted is based on Michaelsen (2004a, b, c, pp. 8-12 and
www.teambasedlearning.org/) as summarised by Fink which has been successfully trialled
in business courses where students are given preparatory work on which they are tested and
the bulk of the class time is spent working in teams on an application of their knowledge to a
problem relevant to their learning.
3. Contact the authors for further details on the method, the material used and analysis done.
4. Week 3 also coincides with the university enrolment cut-off and thus provides students with
a sense of stability of the team membership.
5. Normally, instructors remain isolated teaching their allocated stream however
piloting this articulated learning initiative encouraged and facilitated interaction with
collegial spirit.
References
ALTC (2009), Accounting for the Future: More Than Numbers. A Collaborative Investigation into
the Changing Skill Set for Professional Accounting Graduates Over the Next Ten Years and
Strategies for Embedding Such Skills into Professional Accounting Programs, Australian
Learning and Teaching Council, Surry Hills.
ALTC (2010), Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project: Accounting – Academic
Standards Statement (Draft 4), October Report, Australian Learning and Teaching
Council, Surry Hills.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Biggs, J.B. (1979), “Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning
outcomes”, Higher Education, Vol. 8, pp. 381-94.
Blocher, E.J. (2009), “Teaching cost management: a strategic emphasis”, Issues in Accounting
Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Brook?eld, S.D. and Preskill, S. (1995), Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques
for Democratic Classrooms, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Coyte, R. and Oliver, G.R. (2010), “An internationalisation pilot to enhance educational outcomes
in the Master of Professional Accounting”, in Waugh, F. and Napier, L. (Eds),
Internationalising Learning and Teaching in Academic Settings: Engagement,
Collaboration and Sustainability, University of Sydney Press, Sydney, pp. 49-68.
Lave, J. (1988), Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics, and Culture in Everyday Life,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Light, R.J. (1990), The Harvard Assessment Seminar: Explorations with Students and
Faculty about Teaching, Learning and Student Life, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Livingstone, D. and Lynch, K. (2000), “Group project work and student-centred active learning:
two different experiences”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 325-45.
Marton, F. and Sa¨ljo?, R. (1997), “Approaches to learning”, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and
Entwistle, N. (Eds), The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in
Higher Education, Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, pp. 39-58.
Michael, J.A. and Modell, H.I. (2003), Active Learning in Secondary and College Science
Classrooms: A Working Model for Helping the Learner to Learn, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Michaelsen, L.K. (2004a), “Creating effective assignments”, in Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A.B. and
Fink, L.D. (Eds), Team-based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College
Teaching, Stylus, Sterling VA, pp. 51-72.
Learning
engagement in a
diverse cohort
203
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Michaelsen, L.K. (2004b), “Frequently asked questions about team-based learning”,
in Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A.B. and Fink, L.D. (Eds), Team-based Learning:
ATransformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, Stylus, Sterling VA, pp. 209-28.
Michaelsen, L.K. (2004c), “Getting started with team-based learning”, in Michaelsen, L.K.,
Knight, A.B. and Fink, L.D. (Eds), Team-based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small
Groups in College Teaching, Stylus, Sterling VA, pp. 27-50.
Michaelsen, L.K. and Knight, A.B. (2004), “Creating effective assignments: a key component of
effective learning”, in Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A.B. and Fink, L.D. (Eds), Team-based
Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, Stylus, Sterling VA,
pp. 51-72.
Montgomery, C. (2009), “A decade of internationalisation: has it in?uenced students’ views of
cross-cultural group work at university?”, Journal of Studies in International Education,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 256-70.
Ramsden, P. (2003), Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd ed., Routledge, London.
Strauss, P. and U, A. (2007), “Group assessments: dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural
tertiary classrooms”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 147-61.
Thompson, B.M., Schneider, V.F., Haidet, P., Levine, R.E., McMahon, K.K., Perkowski, L.C. and
Richards, B.F. (2007), “Team-based learning at ten medical schools: two years later”,
Medical Education, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 250-7.
Turner, Y. (2009), “Knowing me, knowing you, is there nothing we can do? Pedagogic challenges
in using group work to create an intercultural learning space”, Journal of Studies in
International Education, Vol. 13, pp. 240-55.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978), Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Watson, W.E., Kumar, K. and Michaelsen, L.K. (1993), “Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction
process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups”, Academy of
Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 590-602.
Further reading
Bradley, D. (2008), Review of Higher Education, Australian Government, Canberra.
Goodson, P. (2004), “Working with non-traditional and underprepared students in health
education”, in Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A.B. and Fink, L.D. (Eds), Team-based Learning:
A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, Stylus, Sterling, VA,
pp. 115-23.
Hazelkorn, S. (2008), “Globalisation, internationalization and rankings”, International Higher
Education, Vol. 53, pp. 8-10.
Marginson, S. (2009), “Is Australia overdependent on international students?”, International
Higher Education, Vol. 54, pp. 10-12.
Corresponding author
Gary R. Oliver can be contacted at: [email protected]
ARJ
24,2
204
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Godfrey A. Steele. 2015. New postgraduate student experience and engagement in human communication
studies. Journal of Further and Higher Education 39, 498-533. [CrossRef]
2. Gary R. Oliver. 2013. A micro intellectual capital knowledge flow model: a critical account of IC inside
the classroom. Journal of Intellectual Capital 14:1, 145-162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_286752745.pdf
The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon and describe the introduction of an articulated
engagement learning and teaching approach to a diverse cohort in a postgraduate management
accounting unit of study.
Accounting Research Journal
Engendering learning engagement in a diverse cohort: a reflection
Gary R. Oliver Rodney Coyte
Article information:
To cite this document:
Gary R. Oliver Rodney Coyte, (2011),"Engendering learning engagement in a diverse cohort: a reflection",
Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 195 - 204
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611111163727
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 21:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 27 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 576 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Astrid Schmulian, Stephen Coetzee, (2011),"Class absenteeism: reasons for non-attendance and
the effect on academic performance", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 178-194 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611111163718
Kamran Ahmed, J ohn Hillier, Elisabeth Tanusasmita, (2011),"R&D profitability, intensity and market-
to-book: evidence from Australia", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 150-177 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611111163691
Kym Butcher, Graeme Harrison, J ill McKinnon, Philip Ross, (2011),"Auditor appointment in
compulsory audit tendering", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 104-149 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611111163682
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Engendering learning
engagement in a diverse cohort:
a re?ection
Gary R. Oliver and Rodney Coyte
Discipline of Accounting, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to re?ect upon and describe the introduction of an articulated
engagement learning and teaching approach to a diverse cohort in a postgraduate management
accounting unit of study.
Design/methodology/approach – A case study, based on the authors’ experiences teaching
diverse cohorts applies Bandura’s social learning theory. Observation and modelling (which shaped
earlier educational experiences and dominate student behaviour and classroom engagement) were
used to overcome passive learning behaviour in diverse cohorts.
Findings – Better preparation for class by students is engendered by showing how study is applied.
High engagement during class time is a combination of careful team construction and a task that has
work relevance. Diversity need not be a constraint on teaching nor a barrier to learning. Diversity can
be harnessed to facilitate learning. Re?ection of the experience of students indicates high engagement,
more con?dent, ?exible and non-scripted student responses and awareness of the value of diversity
in the team.
Originality/value – An articulated engagement learning and teaching approach is described which
caters for diversity, using resourcing problems with alternative recommendation choices, requiring
justi?cation, critique and defence.
Keywords Postgraduates, Australia, Deep learning, Diversity, Shallowlearning, Social learning theory,
Team-based learning
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
In business and professional studies there are ongoing issues in developing
business-related generic graduate attributes in students and ensuring content
relevance (ALTC, 2010). In this case study, we set out to both describe and re?ect upon
our experience in addressing these issues. Our aim was to more closely align the student
experience with the desired business-related graduate outcomes for improved workplace
competences given the diversity of students in typical postgraduate accounting
cohorts[1]. We were guided by Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory (SLT) primarily
because it considers human behaviour in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction
between cognitive, behavioural, and environmental (or external) in?uences. In making
and monitoring the changes we are acutely aware of the limited control we have over
student learning and the ambiguous effects of many variables, including assessment and
student interaction, as shown by the 3P model (originally proposed by Biggs (1979)).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1030-9616.htm
Thanks to the students in MADM, for their willingness to participate in the teams and provide
information about their experiences. Grateful acknowledgement is given to the anonymous
reviewers for their guidance in reshaping the initial discussion of implications and re?ections.
Learning
engagement in a
diverse cohort
195
Accounting Research Journal
Vol. 24 No. 2, 2011
pp. 195-204
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1030-9616
DOI 10.1108/10309611111163727
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
SLT is attractive because it recognises a social element, arguing that people learn by
observing the attitudes and behaviour of others. SLT resonated with our thinking as
we believe that the combination of both affect student learning. While many theorists
have emphasised observational or participative learning (e.g., Vygotsky’s (1978) social
development involving problem solving with capable peers or Lave’s (1988) situational
speci?c learning), Bandura makes a connection to self-ef?cacy (i.e. capability to
successfully execute behaviour) which provides a means to promote self-con?dence
towards learning new and unfamiliar material. SLT gives us four areas to focus on:
(1) gaining student attention at the sensory and emotional levels that is suf?cient
for them to perceive modelled events and learner characteristics;
(2) coding modelled behaviour into words, labels or images to achieve better
retention than simply observing;
(3) engendering engagement through self-observation of reproduction with
feedback; and
(4) providing various kinds of motivation (external, vicarious and self-
reinforcement) for students to accomplish learning.
Our approach to change uses these conditions for effective modelling.
Initially, a misreading of Bandura resulted in a number of separate teaching changes
intended to overcome what appeared to be signs of shallow learning (Marton and Sa¨ljo?,
1997), including students’ over-dependence on memorisation. Further consideration of
SLT suggested student observations in the classroom could be directed toward
modelling instead of information transmittal. This led to the adoption of what we refer to
as an articulated engagement teaching and learning approach using SLTand extending
Michaelsen’s (2004a) team-based learning (TBL) for a diverse cohort. This achieved
better preparation for class, as evidenced by knowledge of the topic displayed in testing
and discussion. In the next section, we describe the context for our changes and detail
the TBL approach to engendering high engagement. The Section 3 outlines the way
we implemented TBL for postgraduate accounting and cohort diversity. In Section 4
we discuss the teaching and learning ?ndings from the changes, while in Section 5 we
re?ect on what we learnt. The ?nal section outlines our conclusions concerning the
impact on graduate attributes and the employability of graduates.
2. TBL and the case background: teaching context and learning challenges
The focus of our case study is an entry level postgraduate unit “Managerial Accounting
and Decision Making” (MADM). The unit has a diverse student cohort, with a
large number of international students. Generally, enrolments result in six to nine
seminar-style classes (streams) each with approximately 45 students taking three hours.
Usually, a total of ?ve staff is allocated each semester. The unit requires a ?nancial
accounting prerequisite and is the ?rst management accounting unit studied. It focuses
on the management accountant’s work as an internal business advisor (Blocher, 2009) in
producing analysis for organisational resource management decisions. The unit covers a
conventional set of topics including cost accounting, pricing, inventory, budgeting and
variances, so there is little room for curriculum variation. The teaching approach and
learning differs from that sought in the ?nancial accounting units of study, where
accounting standards detail both presentation and content. Our MADM students learn
ARJ
24,2
196
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
that problem solving in a business context is not just about quanti?cation. Importantly,
they learn that it requires an understanding of the meaning and implications (in a global
context) of the quanti?cation, and determination of the most important areas to address
for achieving feasible business change and improvement.
Our involvement in the MADM unit as (alternating) unit coordinators spans ?ve
years. Our effort to make improvements startedas individual re?ection eachsemester on
both the achievement of learning outcomes and on the success of the implementation of
the changes as part of an ongoing improvement process. However, although minor
improvements and pockets of engagement could be achieved, these were dependent on
individual instructors and generally dif?cult to sustain through frequent changes in the
three other staff allocated to the unit. In time, as we repeated the coordination role with
new (but similarly diverse) student cohorts we began to collect and compare data on the
effects of changes, including soliciting and documenting students’ views.
Although faculty-prepared student statistics for MADM reported student diversity
in terms of local versus international students, primary language and study major, this
uni-dimensional analysis overlooks other dimensions, which make for important
differences. For example, the apparent predominance of mainland Chinese students
masked substantial diversity amongst them. We explored this with class-administered
surveys which showed that diversity has many more dimensions. Three dimensions
appeared to in?uence student engagement in learning: communication pro?ciency,
cultural orientation and business knowledge (Coyte and Oliver, 2010). Communication
pro?ciency refers to varying English language skills. Cultural orientation refers to the
degree to which authority is an acceptable form of argumentation and evidence.
Business knowledge varies considerably, even where some part-time work has been
undertaken, owing to different contexts and the task focus. Figure 1 shows the range of
cohort diversity across these three dimensions.
TBL[2] refers to a classroom experience in which students arrive at class prepared to
demonstrate the prerequisite knowledge necessary to apply key concepts, theories
and calculative techniques in decision making in an exercise drawn from business.
Figure 1.
Three dimensions of the
diversity of the cohort
Collectivist
Individualist
High
Proficiency
None
Basic
Proficiency
Negligible
Knowledge
Wide
Knowledge
Cultural
Orientation
C
o
m
m
u
n
ic
a
tio
n
P
r
o
fic
ie
n
c
y
B
u
s
in
e
s
s
K
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
Student Diversity
Learning
engagement in a
diverse cohort
197
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
For MADM students this involves resource allocation decisions to improve business
performance. The class activities commence with a multiple choice readiness assurance
test (RAT). Its purpose is to determine whether students have mastered the basics
suf?ciently to con?dently expect to apply their knowledge to successfully address
broader and more complex context-based problems. The test is ?rst completed
individually and then in a team (Watson et al., 1993). Each team uses a “scratch card”
so that as it answers each multiple choice question its members immediately discover
whether or not they have selected the correct answer. An incorrect answer acts as a
prompt for further discussion before they select from the remaining alternatives
(Michaelsen, 2004b). While teams are completing the RAT the instructor is machine
scanning the individual test forms and determining individual performance.
Consideration of both individual and team performance forms the basis of a short
remedial lecture (Michaelsen, 2004b) which acts as a bridge to the next class activity,
a real-world problem presented in a scenario formulated as a managerial decision with
decision options (typically half a dozen) are provided to the students. All the options are
equally plausible so teams are not choosing “the correct” option but have to evaluate
the relative merits of each of the alternatives, given the issues and business context
(Michaelsen, 2004c). The majority of time in the classroom is thus spent demonstrating
the practical uses of knowledge of the topic, with the academic instructor acting as coach
for each team and then the class.
3. What we did
Prior to using SLT and TBL we made a number of incremental changes including
supporting classroom teaching with podcasts, rewriting the lecture slides and spending
additional time in the class explaining answers to homework. That is, we took
responsibility for improving scaffolding of both the content and instruction in trying
to improve transmission of facts or solutions, a practice rejected by Brook?eld and
Preskill (1995). After four semesters the instructors were frustrated by the lack of any
discernable improvement in student knowledge (based on low classroom engagement
and largely unchanged exam performance). Aware of TBL and with a better
understanding of SLT, we began developing materials[3] to introduce an articulated
engagement teaching and learning approach which we commenced in the second
semester of 2009 and is ongoing at the time of writing. Based on SLT, the aim was to
transform student learning by using classroom practices to show students the bene?ts
of making the change to their learning behaviour, and then reinforcing it through
productive team work oriented to professional effectiveness and career readiness. Our
approach combines problem solving and interactive communication, which is a basis
for career progression (ALTC, 2009). It is consistent with the kind of deeper learning
advocated by Marton and Sa¨ljo? (1997), for both technical and generic skills and
attributes (Ramsden, 2003). The classroom process is summarised in Figure 2. It shows
the majority of the class time is now spent in discussion of a business problem they are
likely to encounter in the workplace.
A weekly RAT which focuses on the essential topic knowledge became the starting
point for the class. For each weekly topic we use ten multiple choice questions in four
sections: core concepts/frameworks, manipulation of those concepts, analysis/
calculations, and interpreting the results of the analysis/calculation. By following the
individual RAT with the same task performed as a team, the in-class social processes
ARJ
24,2
198
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
encouraged knowledge sharing, and peer teaching of concepts and their application.
Since the team is able to correct any incorrect answers, Bandura’s (1977, p. 163)
requirement, for immediate feedback that is inherently rewarding, is satis?ed.
Moreover, lapses in knowledge and dif?culties in mastery revealed through feedback
from the individual RAT (as it is marked immediately after completion in class by the
instructor, while the team RAT is in progress) are addressed immediately through
remedial teaching. Consistent with SLT this makes the experience relevant to students
by dynamically communicating the means to overcome dif?culties in learning
(Michaelsen and Knight, 2004).
For our MADM students, we created a sub structure for them to apply their
knowledge to a business scenario (which we called a Business Practical) in four steps.
First, within each team, analysis or calculations are completed and then assessed
progressively by the instructor. This ensures each team has correct calculations on
which to base selection of their preferred choice before they simultaneously reveal their
chosen option. The second stage consists of teams justifying their optionandresponding
to challenges (to defend their choice) from other teams. The third stage requires teams
Figure 2.
Overview of the
classroom activities
H
i
g
h
e
r
O
r
d
e
r
S
k
i
l
l
Business
Practical
(apply
knowledge)
(75%)
Scaffolding: Calculation/Analysis worksheet or schedule
Growth in Learning
Readiness
Assurance
Process
(25%)
Scaffolding: Criteria for managerial decision
Scaffolding: Reflection questions
Key
concepts
Team Task: Reflection
Team Task: Managerial Decision and Persuasion
Team
Individual
Remedial
teaching
Extension
teaching
Key
concept
exercises
Exercise
interpretation
Concept
remediation
Concept
manipulation
remediation
Exercises
remediation
Exercise
interpretation
remediation
Introduction to advanced concepts
Team Task: Analysis and Calculation
Key
concepts
Key concept
manipulation
Key
concept
exercises
Exercise
interpretation
Team Task: Implementation/Change Plan
Scaffolding: Implementation approaches
C
l
a
s
s
T
i
m
e
Key concept
manipulation
Learning
engagement in a
diverse cohort
199
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
to consider how they would implement their preferred option. The fourth stage is where
teams re?ect upon their performance in terms of their learning. Two major advantages
result from this approach. First, students quickly discover that lack of preparation
results in poor individual performance as well as inhibiting team performance.
Second, students observe the successful functioning of other teams encouraging
modelling and stimulating social learning. Students learn that through active learning
(Michael and Modell, 2003) they can successfully create their own solution rather than
search for an extant solution and the “correct” answer.
4. What we found
By the third week[4] of each semester we begin to observe changes in student
behaviour. As students enter the class they seek out their team members in preference
to friends even though teams were deliberately constructed by the class instructor to
include diversity across the three dimensions of communication pro?ciency, business
knowledge and cultural orientation. Throughout the class there is considerable peer
tutoring as team members draw on each other’s knowledge of topic material and
relevant work understanding and as they discover particular strengths in terms of
knowledge, learn social facilitation and gain bene?ts from brainstorming. We have
also found that after three or four weeks of interaction teams begin to develop a
competitive streak vis-a´-vis other teams.
Overall, active enthusiasm is exhibited toward the task and the other team
members. Student behaviour indicates they recognise that the individual diversity
of their team members can help them. First, when they “re”-solve the RAT as a team.
Second (for the majority of the class time), when they make and defend decisions based
on shared interpretation and analysis of a complex business practice task (designed
around the week’s topic) involving quantitative and qualitative issues as well as ethical
dilemmas. Once the individual RAT is completed (silently in exam conditions) the
classroom erupts into a hive of intense iterative communication around ?rst, the team
RAT and then the Business Practical exercise.
Since in a team RAT students need to demonstrate to each other that they have
prepared suf?ciently to contribute to the Business Practical, the study prior to class and
the answers to the RAT, are both motivational and meaningful. Our approach is to create
a business decision which requires their topic knowledge to be reshaped, applied and
adapted to the context of the Business Practical case (i.e. there is not one ready-made
solution) The instructor imposed team member allocations and the conduct of all team
work in class overcomes the problematic distribution of work among teammembers and
accusations of free riding often found in group work (Livingstone and Lynch, 2000).
It also affects participation (Turner, 2009) reinforcing the value of teammember insights
and replacing the need for leader direction with initiative. Moreover, the teamnegotiates,
evaluates, synthesises and communicates ?nancial and non-?nancial information
without the normal information overload which an individual can experience. In this
context, team diversity has enriched the decision-making process through the variety of
understandings, range of experience and the willingness of team members to engage in
active debate in this process.
In moving around the teams (both coaching as well as listening) we ?nd students
admitting weaknesses and eliciting assistance from other team members. In some
cases a team member who has provided an explanation will ask the instructor
ARJ
24,2
200
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
to “explain it further” saving individual members the embarrassment of knowledge
de?ciencies. MADM instructors comment that they are no longer exhorting students
to learn but instead providing remedial tuition and guidance, drawing the attention of
students to material which they have already studied but have not fully appreciated.
There are bene?ts derived from this collaboration where much of the power remains
with the students as an alternative to cooperation which depends upon instructor
involvement (Strauss and U, 2007). This enables a process of learning with the problem
seen in its own terms instead of trying to ?t a previously used “modelled” solution
applicable for a different problem. After a few weeks of classes of this engaged learning
students come to their own realisation that they cannot simply reproduce modelled
knowledge for business advantage. This is consistent with the social veri?cation
(Bandura, 1977, p. 181) that occurs in discussion between teams as they manage their
learning (Light, 1990).
As instructors spend more time with the team but less time explaining, they are able
to better diagnose learning barriers and key points most bene?cial for discussion either
with a particular team or for discussion with the entire class. This results in some
teams returning to consider the concepts, some teams re-examining the data, still other
teams reconsidering their approach as they determine how they will defend it, and
other teams considering the options that they have discarded. The intensity of the
work on these practical problems eliminates any tendency of other teams to eavesdrop
as time constraints limit such opportunities and a detailed rationale must be built
to use in justifying the team’s recommended solution to the rest of the class. Typical
inter-cultural misunderstandings about task requirements and data interpretation
(often due to nuances of meaning in alternative descriptive terms for the same concept)
are avoided. Team members then determine what, if any, post-class self-instruction
will be purposeful for them. Moreover, an individual student who is privately aware of
their own speci?c weaknesses will be less reliant on asking peers what they should
study (with its attendant risk of inadvertent misguidance) and can become self-guided
in their subsequent study as they have an understanding on how the topic knowledge
is actually used by the end of the class.
5. What we learnt
In re?ecting upon the transformation to learning and its implications we use each
of the four lenses proposed by Brook?eld and Preskill (1995, pp. 29-30) namely
ourselves (autobiography), our students, our colleagues and the scholarly theories. Our
autobiographies as unit coordinators include substantial industry experience and
part-time completion of the PhD. So our memories as learners make us aware of study
constraints. Our second lens is the students. When our initial unit of study Evaluations
(USE) did not improve as we had expected after adopting the articulated engagement
teaching and learning we concluded that the USE was failing to capture other
perspectives so we sought both anonymous “before and after” feedback and speci?c
experiential feedback (e.g. using focus groups). Subsequently, we found that we learnt
more by focusing on learning activities where we had a viewof what had worked well or
not. In doing so, we learnt that we are “observed very closely” (Brook?eld and Preskill,
1995, p. 112) in ways we often did not notice. Our colleagues serve as the third lens of
re?ection[5]. We found this worked in two different ways. Hearing what other
instructors had experienced and how they reacted improved many of the techniques
Learning
engagement in a
diverse cohort
201
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
in class (e.g. that spending a few minutes reading the unfamiliar aspects of the Business
Practical to the class increased the speed of group preparation). Their feedback
somewhat reduced the distortion and denial that might affect our design re?nements
and interpretation of student behaviour and comments. More importantly it allowed us
to see patterns in what appeared to be idiosyncratic problems (e.g. dif?culties with
concepts being a simple grammatical issue). The fourth lens is the in?uence of theory
and scholarly literature on understanding. However, relying on the pedagogical
scholarship centring on SLT and TBL is not suf?cient. We recognised that there are
wider social, economic and political processes which in?uence student learning and
behaviour. We were also mindful that care must be taken to identify new research
literature which illuminates what teaching responses will improve the student learning
experience and highlight which aspects are largely outside teacher control.
One area remains unresolved. While we have disrupted much institutionalised
learning behaviour in our classes, students continue to experience traditional lectures/
homework-oriented activities in other classes and this creates some dif?culties in initial
acceptance (Thompson et al., 2007). While this can be overcome it is as a result of the
instructor paying acute attention to building student engagement in the expectation it
will lead to deeper learning. We also recognise that we need to integrate the topics to
allow students to consider implementation of their decision so they deal with further
complexity, ambiguity, and incomplete and unstructured information.
6. Conclusion
As instructors, we took some time to recognise that patterns of learning behaviour that
confront us are the outcome of earlier external in?uences (Bandura, 1977, p. 13),
including ef?cacious social learning experiences. Despite students getting additional
attention from the instructor, both individually and in teams, we now believe that we
have shown them that cohort diversity both bene?ts their learning and makes for
productive in-class team experiences. The most evident outcome demonstrated in the
classroom is enhanced engagement across all class activities. It is essential that those
activities are framed in ways that are similar to the information-rich and manifold
options characteristic of business context. We want our students to realise that ?nancial
and non-?nancial information requires further analysis and that it is inevitable that any
recommendation they make is likely to be vigorously challenged.
There are also wider policy implications. SLT suggests that development of desired
graduate attributes may be prevented by prior social learning even if the learning
activities (such as problem solving and communication) are performed. The current
drive, of the accounting profession and government, for more broadly skilled graduates
with highly developed communication and problem-solving skills is not necessarily
achieved by simply introducing activities which directly involve graduate attributes
such as communication. Our view is that attention is necessary to the secondary skills
such as communication, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
Notes
1. The presence of a high international student enrolment in?uences both the subject matter
requiring attention to intercultural issues as well as the use of broader subject examples
(Montgomery, 2009).
ARJ
24,2
202
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
2. The form of team-based learning adopted is based on Michaelsen (2004a, b, c, pp. 8-12 and
www.teambasedlearning.org/) as summarised by Fink which has been successfully trialled
in business courses where students are given preparatory work on which they are tested and
the bulk of the class time is spent working in teams on an application of their knowledge to a
problem relevant to their learning.
3. Contact the authors for further details on the method, the material used and analysis done.
4. Week 3 also coincides with the university enrolment cut-off and thus provides students with
a sense of stability of the team membership.
5. Normally, instructors remain isolated teaching their allocated stream however
piloting this articulated learning initiative encouraged and facilitated interaction with
collegial spirit.
References
ALTC (2009), Accounting for the Future: More Than Numbers. A Collaborative Investigation into
the Changing Skill Set for Professional Accounting Graduates Over the Next Ten Years and
Strategies for Embedding Such Skills into Professional Accounting Programs, Australian
Learning and Teaching Council, Surry Hills.
ALTC (2010), Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project: Accounting – Academic
Standards Statement (Draft 4), October Report, Australian Learning and Teaching
Council, Surry Hills.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Biggs, J.B. (1979), “Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning
outcomes”, Higher Education, Vol. 8, pp. 381-94.
Blocher, E.J. (2009), “Teaching cost management: a strategic emphasis”, Issues in Accounting
Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Brook?eld, S.D. and Preskill, S. (1995), Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques
for Democratic Classrooms, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Coyte, R. and Oliver, G.R. (2010), “An internationalisation pilot to enhance educational outcomes
in the Master of Professional Accounting”, in Waugh, F. and Napier, L. (Eds),
Internationalising Learning and Teaching in Academic Settings: Engagement,
Collaboration and Sustainability, University of Sydney Press, Sydney, pp. 49-68.
Lave, J. (1988), Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics, and Culture in Everyday Life,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Light, R.J. (1990), The Harvard Assessment Seminar: Explorations with Students and
Faculty about Teaching, Learning and Student Life, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Livingstone, D. and Lynch, K. (2000), “Group project work and student-centred active learning:
two different experiences”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 325-45.
Marton, F. and Sa¨ljo?, R. (1997), “Approaches to learning”, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and
Entwistle, N. (Eds), The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in
Higher Education, Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, pp. 39-58.
Michael, J.A. and Modell, H.I. (2003), Active Learning in Secondary and College Science
Classrooms: A Working Model for Helping the Learner to Learn, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Michaelsen, L.K. (2004a), “Creating effective assignments”, in Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A.B. and
Fink, L.D. (Eds), Team-based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College
Teaching, Stylus, Sterling VA, pp. 51-72.
Learning
engagement in a
diverse cohort
203
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Michaelsen, L.K. (2004b), “Frequently asked questions about team-based learning”,
in Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A.B. and Fink, L.D. (Eds), Team-based Learning:
ATransformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, Stylus, Sterling VA, pp. 209-28.
Michaelsen, L.K. (2004c), “Getting started with team-based learning”, in Michaelsen, L.K.,
Knight, A.B. and Fink, L.D. (Eds), Team-based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small
Groups in College Teaching, Stylus, Sterling VA, pp. 27-50.
Michaelsen, L.K. and Knight, A.B. (2004), “Creating effective assignments: a key component of
effective learning”, in Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A.B. and Fink, L.D. (Eds), Team-based
Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, Stylus, Sterling VA,
pp. 51-72.
Montgomery, C. (2009), “A decade of internationalisation: has it in?uenced students’ views of
cross-cultural group work at university?”, Journal of Studies in International Education,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 256-70.
Ramsden, P. (2003), Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd ed., Routledge, London.
Strauss, P. and U, A. (2007), “Group assessments: dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural
tertiary classrooms”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 147-61.
Thompson, B.M., Schneider, V.F., Haidet, P., Levine, R.E., McMahon, K.K., Perkowski, L.C. and
Richards, B.F. (2007), “Team-based learning at ten medical schools: two years later”,
Medical Education, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 250-7.
Turner, Y. (2009), “Knowing me, knowing you, is there nothing we can do? Pedagogic challenges
in using group work to create an intercultural learning space”, Journal of Studies in
International Education, Vol. 13, pp. 240-55.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978), Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Watson, W.E., Kumar, K. and Michaelsen, L.K. (1993), “Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction
process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups”, Academy of
Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 590-602.
Further reading
Bradley, D. (2008), Review of Higher Education, Australian Government, Canberra.
Goodson, P. (2004), “Working with non-traditional and underprepared students in health
education”, in Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A.B. and Fink, L.D. (Eds), Team-based Learning:
A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, Stylus, Sterling, VA,
pp. 115-23.
Hazelkorn, S. (2008), “Globalisation, internationalization and rankings”, International Higher
Education, Vol. 53, pp. 8-10.
Marginson, S. (2009), “Is Australia overdependent on international students?”, International
Higher Education, Vol. 54, pp. 10-12.
Corresponding author
Gary R. Oliver can be contacted at: [email protected]
ARJ
24,2
204
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Godfrey A. Steele. 2015. New postgraduate student experience and engagement in human communication
studies. Journal of Further and Higher Education 39, 498-533. [CrossRef]
2. Gary R. Oliver. 2013. A micro intellectual capital knowledge flow model: a critical account of IC inside
the classroom. Journal of Intellectual Capital 14:1, 145-162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_286752745.pdf