Literature Review: Game Based Pedagogy in Accounting Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this study is to provide the comprehensive literature review in the nexus of accounting games (manual and digital). Students’ expectation for learning concepts is rapidly changing and their concentration levels are decreasing drastically. Students are exposed to various levels of games and activities right from childhood and their expectation of games extended to the education as well. Now, it is the turn of educators to adopt the various concepts of teaching and learning in the mode of activities rather traditional method/s. The discipline of accounting is not an exception to this radical change. Accounting students wants to learn concepts with the help of games, activities either manual or digital. Some researchers developed and executed games in accounting education. Unfortunately, most of the games are not popular and predictable to the accounting educators. It may not be possible to an educator to invent a game for all the concepts all the time to present in the class. The current study explores all articles on Accounting games pedagogy (manual and digital) published in prominent A*, A and B category Accounting journals of ABDC (2019) list (53 Accounting Journals) during 15-year period i.e. from 2005-2019. Articles from these journals are categorized into five sections corresponding to traditional knowledge bases: (1) Curriculum and instruction (2) Instruction by content area (3) Educational Technology (4) Students (5) Faculty. We aim to support the Accounting educators to take a quick reference of our article to get an insight on available games before going to the class. We tried our best to present the details of games & activities as much deeper as possible for the ready reference but in case educators look for more information, they can always refer the original published paper.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".