Determinants of Accounting Students’ Competency: Kuwait University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kuwait University is the only state university with accounting education that has commenced in 1966. So far, accounting education is offered by the College of Business Administration – CBA- as a full degree of 4 years span, in addition to some other private universities that started recently. CBA periodically reviews the accounting program particularly after earning AACSB accreditation in the late 90’s, which has pressed for more academic excellence. CBA has introduced an exit exam process in 2009 since inception. Results revealed some areas of concern such as the shallow technical background of graduates, ill-use of advanced accounting systems and software, and inadequate research ability. One would add to these, student's tendency toward the classical type of learning or “spoon feeding”, which questions their ability in the judgmental type of cases as well as their self-expression.The purpose of this research is to explore factors associated with accounting student’s competencies at Kuwait University and subsequently to suggest remedy policies. A survey has been conducted through out the period from April 2018 till August 2018 exploring factors affecting accounting student’s competency. Multiple factors that influence student's competencies were entrenched within a statistical model which later resulted in comparable results. Moreover, stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to analyse the relationships between students' competency and the independent variables. Results expose that students lean heavily on in- class materials and do less reading in advance. Also, learning techniques used and practices by students are well classical as it depends primarily on lecturer delivering the materials. Finally, this study provides evidence that GPA earned by accounting students at CBA is the most important variable associated with their overall performance upon graduation. Other variables such as MGPA, external assistance (EA), in-class assignments (ICA), students' personal and technical abilities (PFT), and other financial and social factors (FT) have lesser degree of significance on their performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".