Gender and motivational differences in approaches to learning by a cohort of open learning students

Accounting Education

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 431-448

  Lange, Paul de ^a   Mavondo, Felix ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

deep and surface learning; gender; structural equation modelling; student motivation; students' approaches to learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248326751     PISSN: 09639284     EISSN: 14684489     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0963928042000306765     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC). 1990. Objectives of education for accountants: position statement number one. Issues in Accounting Education, 5 (2): 307–12.
2. Albrecht S, Sack R, 2000 Accounting Education: Charting the Course Through a Perilous Future Sarasota FL American Accounting Association Accounting Education Series 16
3. Arbuckle JL, 1996 AMOS Version 3.6. Chicago IL SmallWaters Corporation
4. Atkinson E, Conboy I, Atkinson J, Dodds A, McInnis C, 1996 Evaluation of the Open Learning Initiative: Tertiary Access Through a National Brokerage Agency Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, Melbourne University
5. Bagozzi, RP, and Edwards, JR. 1998. A general approach for representing constructs in organisational research. Organisational Research Methods, 1 (1): 45–87.
6. Bean, JP. 1980. Dropouts and turnover: the synthesis and test of a causal mode of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12: 155–87.
7. Bean, JP. 1982. Student attrition, intentions and confidence: interaction effects in a path model. Research in Higher Education,: 291–320.
8. Bean, JP. 1983. The application of a model of turnover in work organisations to the student attrition process. Review of Higher Education, 6: 129–48.
9. Bean, JP, and Metzner, BS. 1985. A conceptual model of non-traditional undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55 (4): 485–540.
10. Beattie, V, Collins, B, and McInnes, B. 1997. Deep and surface learning: a simple or simplistic dichotomy?. Accounting Education: an international journal, 6 (1): 1–12.
11. Berry, A. 1993. Encouraging group skills in accountancy students: an innovative approach. Accounting Education: an international journal, 2 (3): 169–79.
12. Best, D. 2001. Gender concepts: convergence in cross-cultural research and methodologies. Cross-cultural Research, 35 (1): 23–43.
13. Biggs, JB. 1978. Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48: 266–79.
14. Biggs JB, 1987 Student Approaches to Studying and Learning Research Monograph Melbourne Australian Council for Educational Research
15. Biggs, JB, Kember, D, and Leung, DYP. 2001. The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: RSPQ-2F. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 171 (1): 133–47.
16. Billings, DM. 1988. A conceptual model of correspondence course completion. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2 (2): 23–35.
17. Birkett W, Mladenovic R, 2002 The approaches to learning paradigm: theoretical and empirical issues for accounting education research. Paper presented at AFAANZ Annual Meeting Perth WA, 3–7 July 1 40
18. Booth, P, Luckett, P, and Mladenovic, R. 1999. The quality of learning in accounting education: the impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education: an international journal, 8 (4): 277–300.
19. Busato, VV, Prins, FJ, Elshout, JJ, and Hamaker, C. 1998. Learning styles: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68 (3): 427–41.
20. Campbell, J, and Lewis, W. 1991. Using cases in accounting classes. Issues in Accounting Education, 6 (2): 276–83.
21. Carpenter, VL, Friar, S, and Lipe, MG. 1993. Evidence on the performance of accounting students: race, gender, and expectations. Issues in Accounting Education, 8 (1): 1–17.
22. Chan D, Leung R, Gow L, Hu. S, 1989 Approaches to learning of accountancy students: some additional evidence. In Proceedings of the ASAIHL Seminar on University Education in the 1990's pp. 186–93, 4 7 December Kuala Lumpar Bangi Singapore Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan
23. th Annual Teaching and Learning Forum The University of Western Australia, 3–4 February 76 81
24. Cliff, AF. 2000. Dissonance in first-year students' reflections on their learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XV (1): 49–60.
25. Davidson, RA. 2002. Relationship of study approach and exam performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 20 (1): 29–44.
26. de Lange, PA, and Beaman, I. 1997. Performance assessment of graduate accounting students: A comparative evaluation. Accounting Forum, 21 (3): 283–96.
27. de Lange, PA, Waldmann, E, and Wyatt, K. 1997. Personal characteristics and academic achievement of undergraduate accounting students studying through open learning. Accounting Education: an international journal, 6 (4): 295–306.
28. Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) 2002 Striving for Quality: Learning, Teaching and Scholarship Canberra AGPS
29. Duff, A. 1999. Access policy and approaches to learning. Accounting Education: an international journal, 9 (2): 99–110.
30. Duff, A, Boyle, E, Dunleavy, K, and Ferguson, J. 2004. The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and individual difference, 36 (8): 1–26.
31. English, L, Luckett, P, and Mladenovic, R. 2004. Encouraging a deep approach through curriculum design. Accounting Education: an international journal, 13 (4): 461–87.
32. Entwistle N, Hounsell D, (eds) 1975 How Students Learn. Readings in Higher Education Lancaster: Institute for Research and Development in Post Compulsory Education University of Lancaster
33. Entwistle N, Ramsden P, 1983 Understanding Student Learning London Croom Helm
34. Fransson, A. 1977. On qualitative differences in learning, IV—effects of intrinsic motivation and test anxiety on process and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47: 244–57.
35. Gow, L, Kember, D, and Cooper, B. 1994. The teaching context and approaches to study of accountancy students. Issues in Accounting Education, 9 (1): 118–30.
36. Hall, M, Ramsay, A, and Raven, J. 2004. Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students. Accounting Education: an international journal, 13 (4): 489–505.
37. st Century Task Force Sydney ICAA
38. Kember, D. 1989. An illustration, with case studies, of a linear process model of drop-out from distance education. Distance Education, 10 (2): 196–211.
39. Kember D, 1995 Open Learning Courses for Adults: A Model of Student Progress Englewood Cliffs NJ Educational Technology Publications
40. Kember, D, and Harper, G. 1987. Implications for instruction arising from the relationship between approaches to studying and academic outcomes. Instructional Science, 16 (1): 35–52.
41. Koh, YK, and Koh, CH. 1999. The determinants of performance in an accountancy degree programme. Accounting Education: an international journal, 8 (1): 13–29.
42. Kolb DA, 1984 Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall
43. Laurillard, D. 1979. The processes of student learning. Higher Education, 8: 395–409.
44. Lipe, MG. 1989. Further evidence on the performance of female versus male accounting students. Issues in Accounting Education, 4 (1): 144–52.
45. Lucas, U. 2000. Worlds apart: students' experiences of learning introductory accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 11 (4): 479–504.
46. Lucas, U. 2001. Deep and surface approaches to learning within introductory accounting: a phenomenographic study. Accounting Education: an international journal, 10 (2): 161–184.
47. th Biennial conference Padova, August
48. Malin, JT, Bray, JH, Dougherty, TW, and Skinner, WK. 1980. Factors affecting the performance and satisfaction of adult men and women attending college. Research in Higher Education, 13: 115–30.
49. Marriott, P. 2002. A longitudinal study of undergraduate accounting students' learning style preferences at two UK universities. Accounting Education: an international journal, 11 (1): 43–62.
50. Marsh, HW, Hau, KT, Balla, JR, and Grayson, D. 1998. Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 33: 181–220.
51. Marton, F, and Saljo, R. 1976. On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46: 4–11.
52. Marton F, Saljo R, 1984 Approaches to learning. In F. Marton et al. (eds). Edinburgh Scottish Academic Press
53. Meyer, JHF. 1995. Gender-group differences in the learning behaviour of entering first-year university students. Higher Education, 29: 201–15.
54. Meyer, JHF. 2000. The modelling of ‘dissonant’ study orchestration in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XV (1): 5–17.
55. Meyer, JHF, Dunne, TT, and Richardson, JTE. 1994. A gender comparison of contextualised study behaviour in higher education. Higher Education, 27: 469–85.
56. Mutchler, JF, Turner, JH, and Williams, DD. 1987. The performance of female versus male accounting students. Issues in Accounting Education, 2 (2): 103–11.
57. Naser, K, and Peel, MN. 1998. An exploratory study of the impact of intervening variables on student performance in a principles-of-accounting course. Accounting Education: an international journal, 7 (3): 209–223.
58. Open Learning Handbook2001 MelbourneOpen Learning Agency of Australia Pty Ltd
59. Pask, G. 1976. Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46: 4–11.
60. Ramsden P, 1992 Learning to Teach in Higher Education London Routledge
61. Ramsden, P, and N., Entwistle. 1981. Effects of academic departments on students' approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51: 368–83.
62. Reehling, JE. 1980. They are returning: but are they staying?. Journal of College Student Personnel, 21: 491–97.
63. Richardson JTE, 2000 Researching Student Learning: Approaches to Studying in Campus-based and Distance-education Buckingham The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press
64. Richardson, JTE, and King, E. 1998. Adult student in higher education: burden or boom?. Journal of Higher Education, 69: 65–8.
65. Severiens, SE, and ten Dam, GTM. 1997. Gender and gender identity differences in learning styles. Educational Psychology, 17 (1–2): 79–93.
66. Severiens, SE, and ten Dam, GTM. 1998. Gender and learning: comparing two theories. Higher Education, 35: 329–50.
67. Sharma, DS. 1997. Accounting students' learning conceptions, approaches to learning, and the influence of the learning-teaching context on approaches to learning. Accounting Education: an international journal, 6 (2): 125–46.
68. Spady, W. 1970. Dropouts from higher education: an interdisciplinary review and synthesis. Interchange, 1: 64–85.
69. Sweet, R. 1986. Student dropout in distance education: an application of Tinto's model. Distance Education, 7 (2): 201–13.
70. Tinto, V. 1975. Dropout from higher education: theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45: 109–21.
71. Tinto V, 1993 Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition 2nd edn Chicago IL The University of Chicago Press
72. Trigwell, K, and Prosser, M. 1991. Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Education Psychology, 61: 265–75.
73. Vandenberg, RJ, and Lance, CE. 2000. A review and synthesis of measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organisational research. Organisational Research Methods, 3 (1): 4–69.
74. Waldmann, E, and de Lange, P. 1996. Performance of business undergraduates studying through open learning: a comparative analysis. Accounting Education: an international journal, 5 (1): 25–33.