ACCOUNTING STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES TOWARDS LEARNING STRATEGIES IN UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA TERENGGANU
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46754/umtjur.v2i4.182Keywords:
Accounting students’ preferences, learning strategies, deep approach, surface approachAbstract
Learning preferences among undergraduate accounting students might vary considerably and are still largely unexplored although their findings might be useful for lecturers to improve learning and teaching strategies. Students’ preferences in selecting the appropriate learning strategies can help improve their understanding and lead to improved competency for better academic achievement. This study examined students’ preferences towards learning strategies and the differences in learning strategies among accounting students in Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, between genders. The data were collected using online survey completed by accounting undergraduate students from Year 1 until Year 3 for the academic session 2018/2019. 150 students responded to the online survey, with 32% response rate. Using a revised two-factor version of the Study Process Questionnaire, the survey assessed deep and surface approaches in learning preferred by the students. The results showed that deep learning approach scored a higher mean of 3.36 compared to surface learning and gender was found insignificantly related to the preferred learning approach. This finding suggests that the use of deep approach (for example, active learning or student-centered learning) is to encourage better learning process that would contribute to better academic performance and teaching strategy practices among accounting students.
References
Ariffin, K. (2007). The relationship between learning styles and academic achievements in thesubject of Electromagnetic among first-degree students in UTHM. PSP’s Research Digest, 17-21.
Awang, M. M., Ahmad, A. R., Bakar, N. A., Ghani, S. A., Yunus, A. N. M., Ibrahim, M. A. H., & Abd Rahman, M. J. (2013). Students’ attitudes and their academic performance in nationhood education. International Education Studies, 6 (11), 21-28. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies. v6n11p21
Biggs. J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R - S P Q - 2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-49.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student Aapproaches Llearning Aand Sstudying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 8(1), 7-25.
Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does Open University Press McGraw- Hill Education Berkshire England.
Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The Uuniversity of Llearning. London, England: Kogan Page.
Cano-Garcia, F. C., and Justicia-Justicia, F. J. (1994). Learning strategies, styles and approaches: An analysis of their interrelationships. Higher Educ. 27: 239–260.
Christou, N., & Dinov, I.D. (2010), A study of students’ learning styles, discipline attitudes and knowledge acquisition in technology-enhanced probability and statistics education, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 546-572.
Csapo, N., & Hayen, R. (2006), The role of learning styles in the teaching/learning process, Issues in Information Systems, 7(1), 129-133.
Dembo, M. H., & Howard, K. (2007), Advice about the use of learning styles: a major myth in education. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(2), 101-109.
Entwistle, N. J. (2000). Approaches to studying and levels of understanding: The influences of teaching and assessment. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: handbook of theory and research (Vol. XV) (pp. 156-218). New York: Agathon Press.
Entwistle, N.J. & Entwistle, A. (1991). Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: the student experience and its implications. Higher Education. 22, 205-227.
Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches To Studying And Perceptions Of University Teaching- Learning Environments: Concepts, Measures And Preliminary Findings. Edinburgh : School of Education, University of Edinburgh.
Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 315–345.
Flood, B., & Wilson, R. M. S. (2008). An exploration of learning approaches ofprospective professional accountants in Ireland. Accounting Forum, 32, 225e239.
Fransson, A. (1977). On qualitative differences in learning : iv effect of intrinsic test anxiety on process and outcome. British Journal of Education Psychology. Nov. 47(3), 244-257.
Holmes, A. F., & Rasmussen, S. J (2018), Using pinterest to stimulate studentengagement, interest, and learning in managerial accounting courses, Journal of Accounting Education, 43, 43-56.
Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Maximizing what students get out of college: Testing a learning productivity model. Journal of College Student Development, 44(2), 185–203.
Justice, C., Rice, J. and Warry, W. (2009). Developing Useful and Transferable Skills: Course Design to Prepare Students for a Life of Learning, International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 3(2), Article 9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.20429/ ijsotl.2009.030209
Lashley, C., & Barron, P. (2006), The learning style preferences of hospitality and tourism students: observations from an international and cross-cultural study. Hospitality Management, 25(2), 552-569.
Lindblom-Ylanne, S., Parpala. A. & Postareff, L. (2019). What constitute the surface approach to learning in the light of new empirical evidence?. Studies in Higher Education. 44(12), 2183-2195.
Lublin, J. (2003). Deep, Ssurface and Sstrategic Aapproaches to Llearning. Centre for Teaching and Learning, UCD, Dublin.
Magogwe, J. M., & R. Oliver (2007). The relationship between language learning sStrategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System, 35(2), 338–352.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning: II. The outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127.
Marton, F. (1976). What does it take to learn? Some implications of an alternative view of learning. In N. J. Entwistle (Ed.), Strategies for Research and Development in Higher Education. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1984). Approaches to learning,. Iin Marton, F., Hounsell, D.J., & Entwistle, N. J. (eds.), The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 36-55.
Massey, M. G., Kim, S. H., & Mitchell, C. (2011), A study of the learning styles of undergraduate social work students, Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 8(3), 294-303.
Meyer, J. H. F. (1991). Study orchestration: The manifestation, interpretation and consequences of contextualised approaches to studying. Higher Education, 22, 297-316.
Naik, B. (2003), Learning styles of business students, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute, Washington, DC., USA pp. 22- 25.
Oxford, R. L. (1989), Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17(3), 235–247.
Oxford, R. L. (1995), Patterns of Cultural Identity. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Proctor, B. E., Prevatt, F. F., Adams, K., Hurst, A., & Petscher, Y. (2006). Study skills profiles of normal-achieving and academically-struggling college students. Journal of College Student Development, 47(1), 37–51.
Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1989). The how and what of learning physics, European Journal of the Psychology of Education, 4, 513-528.
Ramsden, P. (1988), Studying learning: improving teaching, in P. Ramsden (Ed.) Improving Llearning: Nnew Pperspectives, London : Kogan Page.
Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35. 453-472.
Scouller, K. M., and M. Prosser. 1994. Students’ Experiences in Studying for Multiple Choice Question Examinations. Studies in Higher Education 19 (3): 267– 279. doi:10.1080/030750794123313818 70.
Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Boston, MA: Anker.
Tang, M., & Tian, J. (2015). Associations between Chinese EFL graduate students’ beliefs and language learning strategies, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(2), 131- 152.
Tuan, L. T. (2011.) Matching and Stretching Learners’ Learning Styles. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 285-294.
Volet, S. E., & Chalmers, D. (1992). Investigation of qualitative differences in university students’ learning goals, based on an unfolding model of stage development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 17-34.
