بررسی ساختار دانش در آموزش حسابداری: استفاده از شبکه های انجمنی ردیاب
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|10350||2003||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 3870 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Accounting Education, Volume 21, Issue 3, 3rd Quarter 2003, Pages 185–195
Knowledge structure, or the way in which individuals organize knowledge, is a separate and distinct learning outcome. Extensive prior research supports the contention that knowledge structure is a primary determinant of expertise in any professional field. Assessments of structural development can provide instructors and students with unique feedback regarding progress toward the development of appropriate knowledge structure and the effectiveness of training, yet such assessments are seldom employed in accounting education. This paper presents a structural assessment technique, Pathfinder, which is easily implemented in an instructional setting to measure the development of students’ structural knowledge. This paper describes Pathfinder and presents results from two studies conducted to evaluate the appropriateness of employing Pathfinder in accounting education. Results indicate that Pathfinder measures of structural assessment improved in response to instruction in accounting and pre-instructional differences in knowledge of accounting influenced the post-instructional quality of knowledge structure. Most importantly, data produced by Pathfinder enhanced the prediction of performance-related outcomes relevant to professional practice, beyond that provided by more traditional measures of student learning. Finally, knowledge structure measures were positively associated with domain-specific self-efficacy. Combined, these results confirm the convergent, discriminant and predictive validity of the measure and demonstrate that structural assessment can provide valuable feedback regarding instructional effectiveness.
Current thinking in cognitive science suggests that both the quantity and organization of knowledge stored in memory are important to learning and performance (Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993). First introduced to the accounting literature by Weber (1980), the concept of knowledge structure is based on the premise that people organize information into patterns that reflect relationships among concepts and the features that define them. A number of researchers have discussed the significance of knowledge structure to accountant expertise (Bedard & Graham, 1994, Nelson et al., 1995, Vera-Muñoz, 1998 and Waller & Felix, 1984). Empirical studies show that accurate or high quality knowledge structures facilitate the identification and encoding of relevant information, the retrieval of applicable knowledge from long-term memory, and the activation of appropriate problem-solving strategies in the performance of accounting tasks (Choo, 1996 and Libby, 1985). Performance advantages notwithstanding, superior knowledge structures also have the benefit of enhancing subsequent learning and retention (Bonner, 1997 and Maletta et al., 1999). Conceptual and practical distinctions between knowledge structure and other types of knowledge presuppose different strategies of assessment. Although structural assessment (SA) methods for evaluating an individual's knowledge structure are widely used in studies of accountant expertise (Choo & Curtis, 2000), SA has not been adopted as a mainstream classroom learning assessment technique. For example, recent reviews of assessment in accounting education exclude any discussion of SA techniques (Apostolou et al., 2001 and Harwood & Cohen, 1999). This omission may be due, in part, to a general lack of familiarity with and understanding of SA approaches. This paper describes the application and value of a commercially available SA tool, Pathfinder Associative Networks,1 which is easy to use and requires relatively little development time. We illustrate the use of Pathfinder with two classroom samples, and present data from these samples to support the convergent, discriminant and predictive validity of the tool for classroom use. The paper concludes with specific recommendations for incorporating SA as a tool in the “portfolio of classroom assessment techniques” (Harwood & Cohen, 1999) designed to improve student learning.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In a recent monograph on accounting education, PricewaterhouseCoopers, (2003, p. 29) encourages educators to move beyond an emphasis on creating “technical problem-solvers” to helping students become “disciplined and creative problem-solvers.” Organization of knowledge is identified as one dimension of the accounting curriculum necessary to achieve this transformation. To aid accounting educators in the development of methods for improving student knowledge organization and in assessing the results of those methods, this paper demonstrates the use of a software tool, Pathfinder, for the assessment of student knowledge organization. The tool provides for the elicitation of student knowledge structures and the evaluation of those structures, relative to a standard or preferred structure. Results demonstrate that Pathfinder C scores improve with exposure to instruction, correlate with other measures of learning, and relate uniquely to performance indicators. This last characteristic is central to any claim for the usefulness of Pathfinder in the classroom because it supports the argument that Pathfinder provides distinctive information about student learning, specifically the organization of accounting knowledge. A key issue is how an accounting professor can use this information to improve student learning.