Through students’ eyes: case study of a critical pedagogy initiative in accounting education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several researchers have decried the marginalization of critical thought in accounting education programs. Initiatives have been taken to make students aware of standpoints other than the traditional, technocratic view of accounting, but of how students reacted to these, little is known. Inspired by the thinking of Paulo Freire and Stephen Brookfield, we investigate an initiative conducted with undergraduates who followed a mandatory course during the 2015–2016 academic year in which critical thinking, from the viewpoint of the critical pedagogy movement, was emphasized. The setting is the School of Accounting at Université Laval (Québec). The following question informed our case study: how do students experience the learning of accounting through critical pedagogy? Our analysis identifies three types of experiences in the learning of accounting through critical pedagogy: dedication (resonance with one's human aspirations), receptiveness (interest in broadening one's horizons), and discomfort (resistance to critical pedagogy on the ground of the field's performance imperatives). Our case study aims to contribute to the accounting education literature on critical thinking and critical pedagogy. Importantly, we found that dedication experiences often resonated with the belief that critical thinking (as articulated in the course) is marginal to the field of performance-based professional practice.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".