Approaches to learning in accounting education

Accounting Education

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 399-407

  Lucas, Ursula ^a   Mladenovic, Rosina ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954507629     PISSN: 09639284     EISSN: 14684489     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0963928042000306783     Document Type: Editorial

References (37)

1. Biggs J, 1987 Student Approaches to Learning and Studying Hawthorn VIC Australian Council for Educational Research
2. Biggs J, 2003 Teaching for Quality Learning at University 2nd edn Buckingham Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press
3. Biggs J, Collis K, 1982 Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome) New York Academic Press
4. Birkett B, Mladenovic R, 2002 The approaches to learning paradigm: theoretical and empirical issues for accounting education research Paper presented at the AAANZ Conference, Perth Australia 7–9 July
5. 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.
6. Boulton-Lewis, G, Wilss, L, and Lewis, D. 2003. Dissonance between conceptions of learning and ways of learning for indigenous Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 28 (1): 79–89.
7. Cliff, A. 2000. Dissonance in first-year students' reflections on their learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XV (1): 49–60.
8. Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K, 2004 Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: a Systematic and Critical Review London Learning and Skills Research Centre
9. Davidson, RA. 2002. Relationship of study approach and exam performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 20 (1): 29–44.
10. Eley, M. 1992. Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23 (3): 231–54.
11. Entwistle N, Ramsden P, 1983 Understanding Student Learning London Croom Helm
12. Gibbs G, 2003 Ten years of improving student learning In C.Rust (ed.) Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice—10 Years On pp. 9–26 Oxford OCSLD
13. 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.
14. Haggis, T. 2003. Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into ‘approaches to learning’ research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 29 (1): 89–104.
15. Kember, D, and Gow, L. 1989. A model of student approaches to learning encompassing ways to influence and change approaches. Instructional Science, 18 (4): 263–88.
16. Lindblom-Ylanne, S. 2003. Broadening an understanding of the phenomenon of dissonance. Studies in Higher Education, 28 (1): 63–77.
17. Lucas, U. 1996. Student approaches to learning–a literature guide. Accounting Education: an international journal, 5 (1): 87–98.
18. Lucas U, Meyer JHF, (forthcoming) Towards a mapping of the student world: the identification of variation in students’ conceptions of, and motivations to learn, introductory accounting The British Accounting Review in press June 2005
19. Marton F, Booth S, 1997 Learning and Awareness Mahwah NJ Lawrence Erlbaum
20. Marton, F, and Saljo, R. 1976a. On qualitative differences in learning. I—outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46: 4–11.
21. Marton, F, and Saljo, R. 1976b. On qualitative differences in learning. II—outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46: 115–27.
22. th February
23. Meyer, JHF, and Boulton-Lewis, G. 1999. On the operationalisation of conceptions of learning in higher education and their association with students' knowledge and experiences of learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 18 (3): 289–302.
24. Meyer, JHF, and Eley, M. 1999. The development of affective subscales to reflect variation in students' experiences of studying mathematics in higher education. Higher Education, 37 (2): 197–216.
25. Meyer, JH, and F and Watson, RM. 1991. Evaluating the quality of student learning II—study orchestration and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 16 (3): 251–75.
26. Meyer, JHF, Parsons, P, and Dunne, TT. 1990. Individual study orchestrations and their association with learning outcomes. Higher Education, 20 (1): 67–89.
27. Prosser M, Trigwell K, 1999 Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education Buckingham The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press
28. Ramsden P, 1984 The context of learning In F. Martonet al The Experience of Learning pp. 144–164 Edinburgh Scottish Academic Press
29. Ramsden P, 2003 Learning to Teach in Higher Education 2nd edn London Routledge
30. Richardson, JTE. 1990. Reliability and replicability of the approaches to studying questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 15 (2): 155–68.
31. Richardson, JTE. 1992. A critical evaluation of a short form of the Approaches to Studying Inventory. Psychology Teaching Review, 1 (1): 34–45.
32. Richardson, JTE. 1997. Meaning orientation and reproducing orientation: a typology of approaches to studying in higher education?. Educational Psychology, 17 (3): 301–311.
33. 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
34. Schmeck R, 1988 Learning Strategies and Learning Styles New York Plenum
35. Tait H, Entwistle NJ, McCune V, 1998 ASSIST: a reconceptualisation of the approaches to studying inventory In C. Rust (ed.) Improving Student Learning: Improving Students as Learners pp. 262–71 Oxford Oxford Centre for Staff Development
36. Tight M, 2003 Researching Higher Education Maidenhead McGraw Hill
37. Webb, G. 1997. Deconstructing deep and surface: towards a critique of phenomenography. Higher Education, 33 (1): 195–212.