MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3121797424

Sink or Skim: Textbook Reading Behaviors of Introductory Accounting Students

2006· article· en· W3121797424 sur OpenAlexaff
Barbara J. Phillips

Notice bibliographique

RevueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueAccounting Education and Careers
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Saskatchewan
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésReading (process)Mathematics educationClass (philosophy)PsychologyConfusionComprehensionReading comprehensionPedagogyComputer scienceLinguistics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Despite the significant emphasis that most instructors place on textbooks in introductory accounting courses, little research exists to describe how students interact with their textbooks. Using learning journals, 172 undergraduate students provided detailed, real-time accounts of their experiences with 13 chapters of an introductory financial accounting textbook. Using the method of grounded theory, supplemented with quantitative tests of association, this study begins to characterize textbook use from a student perspective. Results indicate that, for students, reading is a motivated behavior, with the specific motives varying across different groups of students and leading to different consequential actions. Academically strong students appear to read with the primary goal of understanding assigned material, as evidenced by their willingness to (a) engage in reading before the related material is covered in class, (b) persist when material becomes difficult, and (c) establish defined action plans that promptly resolve confusion. In contrast, weaker students appear to read with the primary goal of reducing anxiety, by deferring reading and terminating it when comprehension becomes difficult. The findings of this study are used to create instructional guidance that instructors can provide to students and to direct future research by outlining important and interesting questions requiring further investigation. Sink or Skim: Textbook Reading Behaviors of Introductory Accounting Students When you were a student in your first accounting class, did you ever count how many pages were left in the textbook chapter while doing the assigned reading? Did you ever read the textbook while working at a part-time job? Did you ever put off the assigned reading because you thought it would be more effective to complete just before the exam? Understanding how students read textbooks is of critical importance to instructors because educational researchers have observed that higher education institutions rely extensively on textbooks (McFall 2005). Textbooks aim to communicate the content, beliefs, values, and methods of a discipline (Richardson 2002), and influence the structure of courses and knowledge that is built within a particular field (Issitt 2004). A significant barrier that might thwart these goals is that students may not use textbooks in the way they were intended. The existing published research offers little insight into such issues because few empirical studies describe college textbook use (Bessler et al. 1999). The purpose of this study is to develop a multidimensional characterization of how students use their textbooks, so that we can begin to determine whether students’ reading behaviors are likely to prevent textbooks from achieving their intended goals. Several authors have developed normative standards regarding how students should read textbooks. Allen (1999) recommends students preview a chapter to set out a reading purpose, monitor their reading to keep their focus on that purpose, and periodically evaluate how much they are learning. To this process, Barnett (1998) adds the task of revising reading strategies based on self-evaluation and external feedback. In contrast to this reasoned approach, the scant empirical evidence suggests that most students are passive readers who fail to use active strategies (McFall 2005) even when trained to do so through a reading skills workshop (Barnett 1998). Furthermore, reading strategies differ by discipline; 70% of students surveyed in an

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,364
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,797

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,247
Écart entre enseignants0,241 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSSRN Electronic JournalMême sujetAccounting Education and CareersTravaux en français237 207