Psychological maturity of at-risk juveniles, young adults and adults : implications for the justice system

While the justice system assumes adulthood is reached by the age of 18 and given the increase in the number of juveniles being tried within adult court, it is imperative to understand whether young people are as criminally culpable for their actions as adults and where differences may lie in the maturity of young people and their adult counterparts. Psychological maturity was assessed in order to gain a better understanding of culpability and responsibility in at-risk young people, 18-year-olds and 25-year-olds to determine where psychosocial maturity levels and the propensity to make antisocial decisions differ and, if so, how. At-risk young people and 18-year-olds differed from 25-year-olds in psychological maturity levels, instigating implications for future research and the trial of young people as adults.

Young people and the justice system : consideration of maturity in criminal responsibility

The age of majority determines when a young person is considered adult in the eyes of the law, and in many countries this is set at 18 years. This does not take into account the differing ways and time-frames in which young people mature and develop. In justice systems in which individuals can be awarded leniency due to mental impairment, it becomes apparent that a similar justification can be made for issues surrounding maturity. This is of particular importance due to a growing trend in the Western world for young people to be tried as adults based on their crime, rather than their individual culpability. The aim of this review was to consider the interaction between maturity and criminal culpability.

Accounting students' feedback on feedback in Australian universities: they're are less than impressed

Undergraduate accounting students in Australian universities are dissatisfied with the feedback that they currently receive. Recent evidence from the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ, a national survey of Australian university graduates) suggests that the accounting discipline ranks poorly on assessment feedback when compared to other disciplines. This finding aligns with the results of local university data, which also shows that students appear dissatisfied with feedback. Similar results can be found in other jurisdictions, as noted by the Higher Education Academy in the UK. Given the importance of feedback to enhancing students' learning, these results are of concern to accounting academics and other stakeholders, including professional accounting bodies and graduate employers. To date, few studies have sought to understand in a comprehensive manner the relatively poor performance in feedback scores in the discipline of accounting. This exploratory study seeks to address this gap by investigating the reasons underlying students' dissatisfaction. We report on students' perceptions obtained from a large survey of Australian undergraduate accounting students across 12 universities. Over 2600 students responded to the survey. Our findings indicate that accounting students value feedback that is individualised, detailed, constructive and timely, and that currently they are not receiving feedback with these attributes.

Social moderation, assessment and assuring standards for accounting graduates

Evidencing student achievement of standards is a growing imperative worldwide. Key stakeholders (including current and prospective students, government, regulators and employers) want confidence that threshold learning standards in an accounting degree have been assured. Australia’s new higher education regulatory environment requires that student achievements are benchmarked against intended programme learning outcomes, guided by published disciplinary standards and a national qualifications framework, and against other higher education providers. Here, we report on a process involving academics from 10 universities, aided by professional practitioners, to establish and equip assessors to reliably assure threshold learning standards in accounting that are nationally comparable. Importantly, we are learning more about how standards are interpreted. Based on the premise that meaning is constructed from tacit experiences, social interactions and intentional reflection on explicit information, we report outcomes of three multi-part calibration interventions, situated around judgements of the quality of the written communication skills exhibited in student work and their related assessment tasks. Qualitative data from 30 participants in the calibration process suggest that they perceive that the process both assists them both in developing a shared understanding of the accounting threshold learning standards and in the redesign of assessment tasks to more validly assess the threshold learning standards.