MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937227785 · doi:10.1108/medar-03-2018-0303

A narrative on integrating research and theory into undergraduate accounting curriculum

2019· article· en· W2937227785 on OpenAlexaff
Ron Baker, Sara Wick

Bibliographic record

VenueMeditari Accountancy Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting Education and Careers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingOriginalityCurriculumCertificationValue (mathematics)NarrativeAccounting researchMathematics educationPedagogyPsychologySociologyComputer scienceQualitative researchPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to describe an effort to integrate accounting research and theory into an undergraduate accounting education program through the development and delivery of a fourth-year course. Informing ideas for the course design and content are discussed, and feedback from the students and instructor is provided. Design/methodology/approach This paper takes the form of a commentary and offers the authors’ opinion based on the experience of designing and teaching the course. An in-class survey was conducted in three separate offerings of the course. Findings Student response to the course and material was more positive than anticipated, indicating that undergraduate accounting students are receptive to learning about research and theory, even when it is not required for entrance into a professional certification program. Also, many students often went above and beyond the course requirements in the work they submitted. This indicates that there is an appetite for engaging with material that presents accounting as a social phenomenon rather than solely as a technical activity. Research limitations/implications While the data were collected over multiple years, the survey was conducted at a single university. These findings have implications for the design of undergraduate accounting education programs and, potentially, for addressing the gap between accounting research and practice. Originality/value This review contributes to the discourse on integrating research into undergraduate accounting education as recommended by the AAA Pathways Commission. It describes one method of doing so and identifies the literature that informed the approach taken. This paper also contributes to the accounting education literature by providing evidence of student reaction to a course that uses research and theory as a subject matter rather than a pedagogical tool. This evidence may also inform the teaching –research nexus discourse.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.020
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeditari Accountancy ResearchSame topicAccounting Education and CareersFrench-language works237,207