Accounting and business students' approaches to learning: A longitudinal study

This study reports the results of an investigation into the learning approaches of undergraduate accounting and business students from three universities in Ireland who were exposed to a learning environment, namely the case study method, which aimed to encourage a deep approach to learning. In order to assess the effectiveness of the intervention, the ASSIST research instrument was used to investigate changes in students’ approaches to learning over time. Consistent with previous research, this study considers whether gender is related to students’ approaches to learning over time and if there are differences between students majoring in accounting or business in their approaches to learning. The results of the study indicate that the case study intervention was successful in some respects. However, contrary to expectations, an overall statistically significant increase in students’ surface approach to learning was found. Additionally, it is reported that changes in students’ approaches to learning over time are not associated with gender or degree program. The results of this study offer insights to accounting educators developing educational interventions to encourage deep approaches to learning.

The perspectives of ‘disengaged’ students in the 14–19 phase on motivations and barriers to learning within the contexts of institutions and classrooms

In addressing educational disengagement, government policy in England focuses primarily on raising the age of educational participation, promoting vocationalism and directing resources at the population of young people not engaged in any education, employment or training (NEETs). However, ‘disengagement’ is a more fluid and dynamic concept than policy allows for and is visible within a wide range of students, even those deemed to be engaged by their presence in education and educational settings. This paper presents students’ accounts of their educational experiences which suggest that the context of the classroom, student–teacher relationships, peer relationships and pedagogical methods used in classrooms are salient factors in understanding engagement.

Failure of a numerical quality assessment scale to identify potential risk of bias in a systematic review: a comparison study

BACKGROUND: Assessing methodological quality of primary studies is an essential component of systematic reviews. Following a systematic review which used a domain based system [United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF)] to assess methodological quality, a commonly used numerical rating scale (Downs and Black) was also used to evaluate the included studies and comparisons were made between quality ratings assigned using the two different methods. Both tools were used to assess the 20 randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials examining an exercise intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain which were included in the review. Inter-rater reliability and levels of agreement were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Influence of quality on pooled effect size was examined by calculating the between group standardized mean difference (SMD).

RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability indicated at least substantial levels of agreement for the USPSTF system (ICC 0.85; 95% CI 0.66, 0.94) and Downs and Black scale (ICC 0.94; 95% CI 0.84, 0.97). Overall level of agreement between tools (ICC 0.80; 95% CI 0.57, 0.92) was also good. However, the USPSTF system identified a number of studies (n = 3/20) as "poor" due to potential risks of bias. Analysis revealed substantially greater pooled effect sizes in these studies (SMD -2.51; 95% CI -4.21, -0.82) compared to those rated as "fair" (SMD -0.45; 95% CI -0.65, -0.25) or "good" (SMD -0.38; 95% CI -0.69, -0.08).

CONCLUSIONS: In this example, use of a numerical rating scale failed to identify studies at increased risk of bias, and could have potentially led to imprecise estimates of treatment effect. Although based on a small number of included studies within an existing systematic review, we found the domain based system provided a more structured framework by which qualitative decisions concerning overall quality could be made, and was useful for detecting potential sources of bias in the available evidence.