Active Learning: An Advantageous Yet Challenging Approach to Accounting Ethics Instruction

This paper relates to higher education. When I mention a student, students, teaching accounting ethics, an accounting ethics instructor, accounting ethics instructors, an accounting ethics course, an accounting ethics class, accounting ethics classes, accounting ethics instruction, or accounting ethics education it is in reference to an accounting ethics course in higher education. Except when specifically mentioned, ethics modules in an accounting course that is not focused on ethics is beyond the scope of the paper. However, much of the discussion in this paper has applicability to ethics modules which are part of an accounting course that is not focused on ethics.

As discussed below, each of these two approaches to teaching accounting ethics use different kinds of “teaching strategies” [see Bonwell and Sutherland (1996, p. 4); also see, e.g., Friedlan (1995, pp. 48, 61), Trigwell and Prosser (2004, p. 413), Lindblom-Ylänne et al. (2006, pp. 285–286); Ramsden et al. (2007, p. 140)].

Also see, e.g., AECC (1990, p. 5); Bonwell and Eison ( 1991, p. iii); Hermanson (1994, p. 301); Bonwell and Sutherland (1996, p. 3); Adler and Milne (1997, p. 198); Loeb (1998, p. 236); Salemi (2002, p. 721); Anderson (2003, p. 190); Wingfield and Black (2005, p. 119).

A number of active learning strategies are mentioned in the literature (see, e.g., Adler and Milne 1997, pp. 195–196; Katula and Threnhauser 1999; Wingfield and Black 2005, pp. 119–120; Heriot et al. 2007, p. 428). Later, I discuss active learning strategies that can be used in teaching accounting ethics including “service-learning,” which is working on a project that addresses a societal need as part of a course requirement (e.g., Bringle and Hatcher 1995, p. 112; also see Bringle and Hatcher 1996, p. 222), and “an internship,” which is working and possibly receiving academic credit for that activity from a supervising faculty member (e.g., Parilla and Hesser 1998, p. 311; Katula and Threnhauser 1999, pp. 247–248). A discussion of the relationship of active learning strategies to a student’s “learning style” (see O’Leary and Stewart 2013, p. 227) in the context of an accounting ethics course is beyond the scope of my paper [see O’Leary and Stewart (2013) for a discussion of this relationship in the context of ethics education in a “course” in “auditing” (p. 226)].

Students listening to a “lecture” is an example of a passive learning strategy (Ryan and Martens 1989, p. 20; also see, e.g., Hermanson 1994, p. 301; Wingfield and Black 2005, p. 120).

Bonwell and Eison (1991, pp. v, 59), e.g., use the words “obstacles” and “barriers” when considering concerns with using active learning strategies. Sutherland (1996, p. 84) uses the term “challenging barriers” when discussing colleague and student concerns with “nontraditional approaches” to education. Salemi (2002, p. 729) suggests that using active learning strategies at times can be in a positive sense a “challenge” and also “challenging.” In this paper, since accounting ethics education is a relatively young subject and in its formative period, I do not use the words “obstacles” or “barriers” (see, e.g., Bonwell and Eison 1991, pp. v, 59), but instead use the words “challenges” and “challenging” when considering concerns with using active learning strategies in accounting ethics education (also see Sutherland 1996, p. 92). Thus, I use the term “challenging” in the title of this paper and the term “challenges” in the abstract of this paper.

In Loeb (2007, pp. 21–22), based on personal experience and using different terminology, I suggest that accounting ethics instructors should use active learning strategies. Others (e.g., Williams and Elson 2010, p. 112; Liu et al. 2012, pp. 679–682), also encourage the use of active learning strategies in teaching accounting ethics.

See, e.g., Spenser and Van Eynde (1986, pp. 291–292), Salemi (2002, p. 730), and Auster and Wylie (2006, p. 347) for discussions of the use of a combination of active and passive learning strategies in a class.

There are papers relating to various disciplines that discuss the advantages and challenges of using of active learning strategies in higher education. For example, see Salemi’s (2002) discussion, including the advantages and challenges, of using active learning strategies in “undergraduate economics courses” (p. 721). Salemi (2002) indicates that his paper is “based on the literature” (p. 721), his teaching experiences (pp. 721, 725), and discussions with other “teachers” on “the benefits of active learning” (p. 725).

In this section, I provide examples of active learning strategies that can be used in an accounting ethics course. My discussion is not exhaustive or in detail. Additional information on using active learning strategies in accounting ethics education can be found, e.g., in Loeb (1990, pp. 287–289; 1998, pp. 242–244; 2007, pp. 17–18) and Massey and Van Hise (2009, pp. 490–492).

Also, see Loeb and Bedingfield (1972, p. 813). The use of a guest speaker is an active learning strategy when the guest speaker encourages class discussion. When I mention guest speakers in this paper, I assume the guest speaker encourages class discussion.

Ravenscroft (1998, pp. 173–184) discusses “a capstone course” focused “on professional responsibility,” which included “service-learning” as part of accounting ethics instruction (p. 173). Ravenscroft (1998, p. 173) notes that the course was part of “a Master’s of Science in Accounting program.”

For example, both Mintz (2006) and Massey and Van Hise (2009) discuss an accounting ethics course in which students, at times, are involved in an active learning strategy that includes reflective learning. For further discussion of the use of reflective learning in teaching accounting ethics see, e.g., Mintz (2006) and Massey and Van Hise (2009). I am indebted to a reviewer for this journal for suggesting that I consider reflective learning.

See, e.g., Beets (1993, p. 53) and Loeb (1990, p. 289; 1998, p. 244).

In Mayer-Sommer and Loeb (1981, pp. 128–129), we suggest that there are possible limits to the “durability” (p. 129) of school-related “socialization” (p. 128). However, in Mayer-Sommer and Loeb (1981, pp. 129–133) we suggest approaches, which involve or could involve active learning strategies, that may increase the durability of school-related socialization.

See Loeb (1998, p. 239). Student input to learning in other accounting courses are discussed in Beets (1993, p. 53) and Adler and Milne (1997, pp. 197–201).

Also see, e.g., Beets (1993, p. 55) and Bonwell (1996). Bonwell (1996, p. 33), e.g., refers to a class which includes both “short” lectures and “active learning events” as “an enhanced lecture” (italics in original).

See, e.g., AICPA (2013, ET Sections 56, 201, 202, 291) for information about the prescription that a public accounting practitioner be competent.

See, e.g., AICPA (2013, ET Sections 55, 100-1, 101, 102, 191, 291, 391) for information about the prescription relating to external audit independence.

Sutherland (1996, p. 86) suggests students may “not feel comfortable with” active learning strategies. Dodd (2007, p. 6) mentions the possibility of student “discomfort” when discussing an active learning strategy. Grauerholz and Copenhaver (1994, p. 322) include in their paper a student communication which expresses “‘discomfort’” with an active learning strategy.

When an instructor uses active learning strategies and cedes some control to students, that instructor is no longer the only source for all information relating to the accounting ethics course (see, e.g., November 1997, p. 293). Further, when ceding some control, the instructor at times becomes, in essence, a “facilitator” (e.g., Adler and Milne 1997, p. 194; November 1997, p. 290).

Others (e.g., Bonwell and Eison 1991, pp. 59–61; Cook and Hazelwood 2002, p. 298; Salemi 2002, pp. 725, 730; Auster and Wylie 2006, p. 347) mention the issue of topic coverage when using active learning strategies and provide suggestions as to how an instructor using active learning strategies can deal with that specific challenge.

Others (e.g., Bonwell and Eison 1991, pp. v, 62; Cook and Hazelwood 2002, p. 298) also mention the challenge of instructors having a sufficient variety of assets to allow the use of active learning strategies. However, when using active learning strategies in an accounting ethics course, I have not found the availability of assets (e.g., facilities, materials), to be a limiting factor. Also, Bonwell and Eison (1991, p. 62) suggest that a number of active learning strategies are not too costly.

For example, Ravenscroft (1998, pp. 177–179) reports students having mixed reaction to service-learning.

The approach of introducing students to active learning strategies and subsequently reinforcing the introduction discussed in this paragraph, the preceding paragraph, the earlier discussion of instructional-related risks and difficulties, and in later sections of my paper is based in part on the approaches described in Adler and Milne (1997, pp. 197–198) and Sutherland (1996, p. 86).

A further discussion of the issue of how to assign grades when using active learning strategies to teach accounting ethics is outside the scope of my paper. However, I agree with both reviewers for this journal who suggested that the issue of grading in such circumstances needs additional consideration.

Norman et al. (2004, pp. 5–13) provide suggestions as to how to approach the possibility of varied performance by different group members and summarize selected papers that consider this challenge.

Students working in a community service-learning activity benefit from a learning experience that by its nature is ethics-related (see Ravenscroft 1998, pp. 170–172). McCoskey and Warren (2003, pp. 407–408, 409) and Strupeck and Whitten (2004, p. 106), e.g., suggest that students can learn about ethics issues during accounting-related service-learning experiences.

A discussion of coordinating accounting ethics education with “field-based student consulting” (Heriot et al. 2007, p. 428) or “cooperative education” (Katula and Threnhauser 1999, p. 244; also, see Southard, 1988, p. 158) is beyond the scope of my paper. Also, an accounting ethics course that is coordinated with an internship or service-learning project should include content other than class discussions and written assignments related to the work-related activity (see Condlin 1983, pp. 337–338).

Cf. Sims (2002, pp. 400–401). Additionally, an accounting ethics instructor should plan whether to mention in class his or her own “personal” matters that relate to an issue under consideration (see, e.g., Jacobs 1998, e.g., p. 226; Sims 2002, p. 401).

Not mentioning all advantages and challenges is a limitation of this paper as are the limitations mentioned in Footnotes 1, 4, 26, and 29. I thank a reviewer for this journal for suggesting the possible need for such comments.

See Salemi (2002, pp. 721–722, 730) and Footnote 7.