Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:12
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Implementation of Assurance of Learning Plans:
An Accounting Program and Individual Course
Analysis
Anne L. Christensen , Andrew J. Judd & Nancy B. Nichols
To cite this article: Anne L. Christensen , Andrew J. Judd & Nancy B. Nichols (2011)
Implementation of Assurance of Learning Plans: An Accounting Program and Individual Course Analysis, Journal of Education for Business, 86:2, 84-91, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.480990 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.480990
Published online: 23 Dec 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 94
View related articles
ISSN: 0883-2323
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.480990
Implementation of Assurance of Learning Plans: An
Accounting Program and Individual Course Analysis
Anne L. Christensen
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA
Andrew J. Judd
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA
Nancy B. Nichols
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA
The authors surveyed faculty at AACSB-accredited schools regarding the learning goals and measures for their accounting programs as well as course objectives for the introductory tax course. They found over 50% of respondents were still developing their learning goals and measures and only 18% of respondents had completed 2 or more rounds of assessment. Whereas most accounting program goals are assessed with direct measures, accreditation program goals typically represent a small subset of the goals specified by professional bodies such as the AICPA. Assessment results have led to numerous changes in accounting programs and courses.
Keywords: AACSB, accounting, accreditation, assurance of learning
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International’s (AACSB) revision of accreditation standards in 2003 emphasized developing and implementing assurance of learning (AOL) plans for business and accounting pro-grams. Of the 596 schools with AACSB accreditation, there are 173 schools with separate accreditation for their account-ing programs (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, 2010). Hence, accounting faculty and the leaders of separately accredited accounting programs also must ensure that they have effective AOL plans. The AACSB’s timetable indicated that by 2007 schools should have developed learn-ing goals, implemented appropriate assessment methods, and used the assessment data to improve their curricula (Martell & Calderon, 2005).
The goals of this article are to first (a) summarize the status of undergraduate accounting programs’ with respect to de-veloping and implementing AOL plans and (b) examine the programs’ learning objectives and the types of assessments used to measure the objectives. Second, we analyze
under-Correspondence should be addressed to Anne L. Christensen, Montana State University, College of Business, P.O. Box 173040, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
graduate introductory tax courses to determine the categories of learning objectives included in such courses, the frequency of each objective, and the various assessment measures used to evaluate each objective. Gaining insight into specific ac-counting course objectives and assessment measures should help faculty understand how one or more course objectives fit with program objectives. Third, we compare the stated jectives for the tax courses with the keys to good course ob-jectives proposed by Mager (1962) to determine if obob-jectives are stated in terms that can be readily observed and measured. Fourth, we examine how program and course objectives mesh with learning outcomes suggested by the American Insti-tute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). To accom-plish these objectives, we surveyed members of the American Accounting Association (AAA), Accounting Program Lead-ers Group (APLG), and the American Taxation Association (ATA) during the summer and fall of 2007. The following literature review provides a background for the study.
Literature Review
Kimmell, Marquette, and Olsen (1998) stated that assess-ment is an accreditation process that leads to improve-ment in student learning. The majority of assessimprove-ment studies
IMPLEMENTATION OF AOL PLANS IN ACCOUNTING 85
related to AACSB standards discuss AOL in the context of business programs rather than separate accounting programs (e.g., Martell, 2007; Martell & Calderon, 2005; Popper, 2005; Stivers & Phillips, 2009). However, several studies provide useful insights for developing AOL plans with an accounting program focus. Calderon (2005) provided a comprehensive overview of much of this literature up to 2005.
Direct Versus Indirect Assessment
Shaftel and Shaftel (2007) discussed in detail the AACSB’s preference for direct (actual student performance) ver-sus indirect (students, employers or alumni perceptions of students’ capabilities) measures. In 2004, Martell and Calderon (2005) conducted a survey of 179 deans that found most had not made the change to direct assessment mea-sures. Their findings are consistent with DeMong, Lindgren, and Perry (1994), Akers, Giacomino, and Trebbly (1997), Stivers, Campbell, and Hermanson (2000), and Sinning and Dykxhoorn (2001), who described the extensive use of indirect methods to assess learning objectives. Pringle and Michel (2007) conducted a web-based survey of 508 AACSB-accredited business colleges in 2006. The responses from 138 survey participants indicated the use of direct as-sessment measures had increased, but that some institutions continued to employ indirect measures. Martell (2007) noted,
The transition period is now past, and as of this year, this language (reference to the 2004 standards’ reference to al-lowance for a transition schedule) no longer appears in the standards documentation report that is updated each January. AACSB-accredited business schools must have AOL pro-grams in place for each of their degree propro-grams that focus on direct measures of student achievement. (p. 190, italics added)
Notwithstanding this prescription for compliance by 2007, Martell’s 2006 survey found that only 88% of the 154 responses sent to 469 deans at AASCB-accredited schools (and those seeking accreditation) had articulated learning goals for their undergraduate program(s) and of those, only 64% had translated the learning goals into observable behav-iors. Although these results indicate there is still work to do, they also signify substantial progress since 2004 when these responses were 68% and 31% respectively. The results of Martell’s survey indicate that the revised 2003 AACSB stan-dards have resulted in significant changes in the assessment of outcomes in undergraduate business programs.
Education Links to the Accounting Profession
Historically, accounting education leaders have teamed up with practicing accountants to insure that accounting stu-dents develop the knowledge and skills needed to become successful professionals (Calderon, 2005). The Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC; 1990), the AICPA Core Competency Framework (1999), and the AICPA Model
Tax Curriculum (MTC; 2007) are recent examples of this type of collaboration.
Daigle, Hayes, and Hughes (2007) described how their accounting information systems course objectives supported both the AICPA Functional Core Competencies (decision modeling, risk analysis, measurement, reporting, research, and leveraging technology) and their accounting program’s AOL plan for AACSB accreditation purposes. The study de-tailed the information they provided to students, the assess-ment methods, and the resulting improveassess-ments to the course. This course of action resulted in the AACSB reaccrediting their undergraduate accounting program. The study demon-strated how externally identified competencies could be suc-cessfully integrated and assessed in an individual accounting course and how incorporating the external competencies ul-timately strengthened the course outcomes.
In summary, the literature supports establishing learning objectives and assessing learning outcomes for educational programs as a means of measuring their success and pro-viding guidance for improvement (Martell, 2007; Shaftel & Shaftel, 2007). In addition, an effective strategy for achieving desired program outcomes involves mapping specific learn-ing outcomes, and the assessment of those outcomes, to an individual required course within an accounting program. Further, business program learning goals benefit from in-corporating the learning outcomes specified by professional organizations (Daigle et al., 2007).
AASCB and AICPA Guidance
AACSB accreditation standards and AOL. The 2003 AACSB revisions of Standards 15 and 16 specifically re-quires accredited members to develop an AOL plan incor-porating learning goals, assessment of these goals, and the implementation of (as necessary) changes in curricula based on these results.
AICPA MTC framework. Many accounting programs include in their mission statements a focus on developing students to enter the public accounting profession, which requires additional learning outcomes related to this goal. The AICPA has expressed the expectations of the profession through its Core Competency Framework and MTC.
The Core Competency Framework provides guidance for the entire accounting program whereas the MTC applies only to the tax portion of the curriculum. The task force charged with modifications to the MTC (originally adopted in 1996) noted,
The Model Tax Curriculum (MTC) provides recommen-dations for designing the tax component of the accounting curriculum so that the AICPA’s vision and its tax section’s mission can be maximized. The MTC’s recommendations are intended to adequately prepare students for entering the accounting profession and to aid in the design and assessment of accounting curricula that will serve to attract students to careers in taxation. (AICPA, 2007, p. 1)
A student completing the tax component of the body of knowledge for entry into the accounting profession should have the ability to:
• Comprehend the rationale for tax laws by differentiating the ty pes of tax
bases and weighing the multiple objectives tax policymakers consider when developing tax law
• Apply analytical reasoning tools to assess how taxes affect economic
decisions for all taxpaying entities (including individuals, partnerships,
Subchapters C and S corporations):
o Through the amount and timing of income recognition and deductions
o Related to property transactions that generate recognized, deferred or no
taxable gains or losses
o Related to organizational form decisions
• Analyze how taxes affect financial reporting including:
o Comparing and contrasting book and tax differences and how they impact tax-based and financial reporting-based income statements and balance sheets
o Detecting FAS 109 issues including applying the accounting standards for determining deferred tax assets and liabilities
o Developing an awareness of internal control issues related to tax
reporting
• Develop a fundamental understanding of the components of taxable income
determination across taxable entities so that the student builds a foundation for effectively learning future tax laws in order to implement future tax compliance and planning strategies
• Draw supportable conclusions regarding tax issues by using research skills
(including accessing and interpreting sources of authoritative support) to identify and evaluate strengths, weaknesses and opportunities
• Communicate tax conclusions and recommendations in a clear and concise
manner to relevant stakeholders
• Appreciate the professional and ethical obligations as well as community
service opportunities for tax service providers
• Enhance his or her interpersonal skills
• Develop technological skills necessary to undertake tax planning, compliance
and research strategies
Excerpt from AICPA Model Tax Curriculum available online at
http://ceae.aicpa.org/Resources/Education+and+Curriculum+Development/Model+Tax+Curriculum/tables
FIGURE 1 AICPA model tax curriculum learning outcomes.
Figure 1 includes the learning outcomes identified in the MTC.
Although the MTC also provides a matrix that maps the learning outcomes to the AICPA Core Competencies, we only address the survey respondents’ introductory tax course learning objectives as they relate to the MTC.
METHOD
The ATA Undergraduate Assessment and Curriculum Is-sues Committee developed a web-based survey to assess
the progress accounting programs have made in developing and implementing AOL plans for undergraduate accounting programs. The questionnaire also requested information on learning objectives and the measurement of those learning objectives for the introductory tax class. The questionnaire was then reviewed by the Ernst & Young Quantitative, Eco-nomic, and Statistics team.
In order to examine undergraduate accounting programs’ status with regard to AOL plans and the programs’ learn-ing objectives and assessment methods, the survey included questions to elicit the following:
IMPLEMENTATION OF AOL PLANS IN ACCOUNTING 87
1. How long it took the department to develop the learn-ing objectives and formal assessment measures for the undergraduate accounting program,
2. The program’s specific learning objectives and how they were assessed, and
3. How many complete rounds of the assessment process had been completed.
To obtain the information necessary to analyze the under-graduate introductory tax course, the survey included ques-tions to elicit the following information:
1. How the learning objectives and assessment measures for the class were developed;
2. Whether the learning objectives were articulated to the students and, if so, how they were communicated; 3. The specific learning objectives for the course and how
they were assessed; and
4. How the assessment data were used and any changes motivated by the results.
The questionnaire was posted on SurveyMonkey and e-mail messages with links to the questionnaire and requests for participation were sent to members of the Accounting Programs Leadership Group (APLG) and members of the ATA. At the time of the survey, respective memberships for the APLG and ATA were 322 and 721. We estimate that valid
e-mail addresses were available for approximately 90% of these individuals. In an effort to increase the sample size, a follow-up e-mail was sent two months later.
We analyzed the data using the report provided by Sur-veyMonkey. A total of 174 individuals responded to the questionnaire, with 118 indicating they were familiar with the accounting AOL plan and 48 completing the program goals and objectives grid and indicating the methods used to assess each of the objectives. The questionnaire employed skip logic, so individuals could complete accounting pro-gram information or tax course information, or both. Among the respondents, 92.6% indicated that their school offered undergraduate business degrees with a major or option in accounting. A total of 34 individuals provided the learn-ing objectives for the tax course and indicated how they assessed those objectives. In addition, 25 individuals (74% of the 34 respondents) provided both the objectives for the tax course and the learning goals for the accounting program. As a result of surveying both accounting program leaders and tax course instructors most of the respondents answered ei-ther the program-related questions or the tax-course-related questions. We analyzed all data provided, whether the ques-tionnaires were complete and indicated in each table the number of respondents to each portion of the questionnaire. Table 1 presents the profile of the respondents and their institutions.
TABLE 1
Profile of Survey Respondents
n % Min. Max. M SD
Panel A: Profile of Educational Institution, Accreditation and Degrees (n=174) Possess separate AACSB accounting
Accreditation
96 (14 applying)
Degrees offered:
BS/BA with accounting major or option 163 MBA with accounting concentration 54
Master’s of accounting 115
Master’s of taxation 10
Ph.D. in accounting and/or business 55
Panel B: Profile of Educational Institution, Students & Faculty (n=43–57)
Number of undergraduates at university 800 80,000 16,614 14,641
Number of undergraduate business students 150 7,000 2,232 1,636
Number of undergraduate accounting students 25 2,000 377 349
Number of accounting BS/BA granted in year 3 1,000 124 169
Number of graduate accounting students 0 214 51 49
Number tenure-track accounting faculty 2 21 9.1 4.4
Number full-time non tenure-track faculty 0 20 3.4 3.3
Total years university level teaching experience 1 40 17.9 9.6 Total years college administrative experience 0 25 3.8 5.3
Panel C: Profile of Respondents’ Rank (n=55)
Full professor 34.5
Associate professor 38.2
Assistant professor 21.8
Instructor 5.5
TABLE 2
Accounting Program Learning Goals (n=55)
% of programs with learning goal using specific method of assessment
Learning goal n
Course-embedded measures (%)
Student surveys (%)
Employer surveys (%)
Alumni surveys (%)
CPA exam (%)
Other standardized
tests (%)
Technical accounting competency 48 77 17 19 21 40 25
Written communication 45 89 22 22 18 2 9
Oral communication 38 84 24 26 16 0 8
Technology competency/skills 41 88 27 20 2 7 17
Critical thinking 39 87 23 21 13 3 5
Analytical and problem solving skills 41 88 17 20 15 5 5
Ethical behavior/judgment 40 80 18 18 13 0 5
Teamwork/interpersonal skills 25 80 32 28 12 0 4
Lifelong learning 12 58 42 42 42 0 8
International/global 18 78 11 17 17 0 28
Other 8 50 50 38 25 25 25
RESULTS
Accounting Program Results
Establishing the learning objectives and formal assessment measures was often a time consuming task for the accounting programs. Approximately 44% of the respondents were still in the process of developing assessment measures for the program’s learning objectives. Of the respondents who had completed the process, 62.5% indicated that it took more than one year to complete.
As indicated in Table 2, survey respondents identified the most common program learning goals as technical account-ing competency, written communication skills, technology competency, analytical and problem-solving skills, ethical behavior and judgment, critical thinking skills, and oral com-munication skills. These goals and their related objectives were predominately measured by direct methods (course embedded measures, standardized tests, or in the case of technical accounting competency, the CPA exam). Lifelong
learning, a goal of only 22% of respondents, was the only goal that many programs measured indirectly through surveys of students, employers, and alumni.
Introductory Tax Course Results and Evaluation of Course Objectives
The survey instrument also requested that respondents en-ter their learning objectives for the introductory tax course. A total of 34 individuals responded, providing 144 learn-ing objectives. The number of course objectives ranged from one to seven with an average of 4.2 objectives (SD=2.01). Six respondents (18% of 34) reported only one objective for the tax course. One author (A.L.C.) reviewed these learning objectives and classified them into categories. Both coau-thors (A.J.J., N.B.N.) then reviewed these classifications for consistency. Table 3 lists the learning objectives and the fre-quency of each objective.
All 34 respondents included a learning objective focused on students understanding fundamental tax concepts, a tax
TABLE 3
Learning Objectives, First Tax Course (n=34)
Learning objective Frequency A B C D E F G H I J
Understand fundamental concepts 34 20 14 8 1 3 1 7 1 9 1
Identify issues impact on decisions 18 12 8 6 1 4 1 2 1
Compute taxable income/prepare returns 18 6 9 7 1 2 4 1 14
Research skills 17 2 3 7 14 1 2 1 1 1
Integrate planning into decisions 14 9 10 1 3 6 4 3 1
Use analytical tools to solve problems 12 7 8 3 1 1 2 1 3
Communication skills 10 1 7 4 2 1 2 1
Critical thinking/tax financial 7 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 2
Ethics 6 4 2 1 1 1
Use technology 5 1 2 1 1 1
Note.A=Multiple choice test questions; B=test questions, not multiple choice; C=written assignments; D=spreadsheet assignments; E=research projects; F=presentations; G=class participation; H=case studies; I=tax returns; J=pre–post test.
IMPLEMENTATION OF AOL PLANS IN ACCOUNTING 89
Learning objectives are statements that denote the knowledge and skills the learner should possess when s/he completes the learning experience. Stating well-specified learning objectives in observable terms, with measureable attributes, will assist faculty in determining if students have achieved the desired course outcomes. These objectives not only provide a basis for evaluating a course, they guide the selection of appropriate materials, course content, and instructional methods.
Mager (1962) described meaningful objectives as ones that clearly indicate what the learner will do to demonstrate his/her knowledge. He states the key to writing good course objectives is to:
1. Identify the desired terminal behavior by name; you can specify the kind of behavior that will be accepted as evidence that the learner has achieved the objective.
2. Define the desired behavior by describing conditions under which the behavior will be expected to occur.
3. Specify the criteria of acceptable performance by describing how well the learner must perform to be considered acceptable. (1962, 12)
Step 3 often takes the form of a rubric that indicates different levels of student performance, serving as the basis for determining whether the performance meets, does not meet, or exceeds expectations in relationship to the specified learning objective.
When writing learning objectives, avoid vague words like know, understand, and appreciate, as they are difficult to observe. Instead, using explicit words such as students will be able to write, identify, differentiate, solve, construct, list, compare and contrast will result in observable, measurable student outcomes. The Chartered Financial Analysts’ (2009) website refers to words used in learning outcome statements as “command words” and provides an extensive list of these words (see http://www.cfainstitute.org/cfaprog/courseofstudy/commandwords.html). Focusing on observable behaviors and using appropriate descriptors should lead to clear, comprehensible learning objectives.
FIGURE 2 How to write well-specified learning objectives.
knowledge objective. Any learning objective that involved understanding tax concepts was included in this category. As expected, all the introductory tax courses included an objective focused on obtaining conceptual tax knowledge. This course objective supports the program level technical accounting competency learning goal.
The next most frequent objectives were to (a) identify tax issues and their impact on decisions and (b) compute taxable income (which includes the preparation of tax returns). Each of these objectives was included in 18 of the 34 responses (53%). These objectives could support the program learning goals of critical thinking and analytical and problem-solving skills. Fourteen of the 18 responses (77%) specified tax-able income computation used in tax return preparation for assessing the students’ achievement of this objective. Seven-teen responses (50%) included a development of tax research skills objective.
Respondents identified the remaining objectives in less than half of the courses. Integrating planning into decision making was included in 14 courses (41%); applying analyt-ical reasoning tools to solve problems was included in 12 courses (35%); communication skills in was included in 10 courses (29%); critical thinking, including comparing tax ac-counting to financial acac-counting, was included in 7 courses (21%); ethics was included in 6 courses (18%); and develop-ing technology skills was included in 5 courses (15%). Thus, there was less of a focus on the learning goals of analytical
reasoning, communication skills, critical thinking, and ethics in the tax course than the learning goals related to technical tax knowledge.
Comparing course objectives for the tax course with the keys to good course objectives proposed by Mager (1962; see Figure 2) revealed that 50% were not stated in terms that would be easy to measure. For example, objectives such as “become familiar with the basic sources of infor-mation on the tax law” or “students will know the ba-sic concepts of taxation” do not describe what the student will be able to do to demonstrate his or her knowledge. Figure 2 contains guidelines for writing effective course objectives.
Comparison to MTC Learning Outcomes
Because MTC revisions were made in 2007 (the same year the survey was conducted), survey respondents would not have had sufficient time to evaluate the new MTC and ad-just course objectives to reflect the revisions. Even though the MTC changed, we compared the current tax course ob-jectives and the revised MTC learning outcomes to identify differences between the two that tax faculty will need to address in future years.
The tax course objectives appear to address the two MTC learning outcomes focused on (1) developing “fundamental understanding of the components of taxable income” and (2)
“applying analytical reasoning to assess how tax affects eco-nomic decisions” (AICPA, 2007, p. 2). However, not all the courses specifically address all taxable entities as required in both MTC learning outcomes. The introductory course may cover all taxable entities, but it is not obvious from the respon-dents’ listed objectives. In addition, a number of programs require two tax courses, so it is possible that the knowledge regarding all taxable entities could be achieved across the two undergraduate courses or in a graduate program.
The MTC includes a learning outcome for “differentiat-ing the types of tax bases and weigh“differentiat-ing the multiple objec-tives tax policymakers consider when developing tax law” (AICPA, 2007, p. 2). Only a few respondents provided a spe-cific objective addressing differing tax bases or tax policy. Most introductory tax textbooks cover this information in the first chapter and faculty likely cover these topics during the first few class sessions. In this instance, the learning outcome is probably being met, but it is not reflected in the course ob-jectives and, therefore, not being specifically assessed.
Six respondents reported an objective addressing ethi-cal issues. It is unlikely that other accounting courses cover ethical issues related to tax practice. Most introductory tax textbooks include a section on ethics in tax practice and examples of ethical issues throughout the book. Although only six respondents include a specific objective regarding ethics, it is likely that many more professors cover ethical considerations in their classroom. This may be another in-stance in which programs are meeting the MTC learning outcome, but the objective is neither formally articulated nor assessed.
As previously mentioned, the mean number of learning objectives for the tax course was 4.2 (SD=2.01). It appears that many introductory tax courses do not specify a compre-hensive list of learning objectives on the same scale as the MTC (nine learning outcomes). This finding may be miti-gated to the extent MTC learning outcomes are measured in a second tax course. Additionally, many of the MTC learning outcomes are topics common to introductory tax textbooks, so they may receive some coverage even though they are not specified learning objectives.
Similar to the MTC’s nine learning outcomes, the AICPA lists 16 separate core competencies plus leveraging technol-ogy to support functional, personal, and broad business per-spectives competencies. Thus, whereas tax course learning objectives support a number of the AICPA Core Competen-cies, many of the competencies are not directly supported by one course. Of the 16 Core Competencies, tax course learning objectives usually support three competencies (re-porting, measurement, and legal or regulatory perspectives) and some courses provide support for five others (prob-lem solving, critical thinking, research, communication, and leveraging technology). These results are similar to the find-ings of Abraham and Karns (2009) that business schools of-ten do not emphasize the compeof-tencies that businesses find important.
DISCUSSION
Limitations
The survey has several limitations related to the individuals receiving the survey and the respondents. First, we selected the individuals who received the survey based on member-ship in either the APLG or the ATA. A more comprehen-sive approach would be to survey all accounting program directors and tax faculty. A second limitation involved the lack of random selection of accounting programs. Survey re-spondents were self-selected based on the individuals who responded to the survey. This is not uncommon in survey re-search; however, it introduces bias and potentially skews the results of the study. In addition, due to the AACSB’s rolling schedule of reaccreditation visits following the adoption of the revised standards, some respondents were more familiar with the AOL process than others.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of this study provide information on accounting programs’ progress toward creating AOL plans consistent with AACSB requirements. This study indicates accounting programs have made significant progress in adopting direct measures of assessment for the 4–10 learning outcomes sug-gested by the AACSB. However, not all institutions have completed the entire five-step assessment process outlined by the AACSB, suggesting that accounting programs are collectively behind the AACSB’s implementation timetable. Determining whether accounting programs have closed this gap and the extent to which repeated AOL outcomes lead to program design and course content modifications require further research.
The learning objectives for the introductory tax course for each of the respondents included at least one technical tax knowledge objective, supporting the program’s technical competency learning objective. However, less than 50% of the courses included objectives focused on analytical rea-soning, communication skills, critical thinking, and ethics. An introductory tax course can be structured to include and assess any of these four program learning objectives. It ap-pears that some programs may not be far enough along in the assessment process to have completed the mapping of specific course objectives to the program objectives. All the respondents used course-embedded measures to assess their learning objectives, consistent with the AACSB’s preference for direct student measures. Comparing the stated objectives for the introductory tax course to Mager’s (1962) keys to good course objectives, revealed that many of the objectives were not stated in terms that described what the student would be able to do to demonstrate that he or she had achieved the objective.
Given the MTC revision in the same year as the survey, not enough time had passed for the MTC learning outcomes
IMPLEMENTATION OF AOL PLANS IN ACCOUNTING 91
to be included as tax course objectives. However, the mean number of tax course objectives was 4.2, far fewer than the MTC’s nine objectives. Further research is needed to deter-mine if and where the revised MTC learning objectives are being included and assessed in accounting programs. Some objectives could be included and assessed in tax courses be-yond the introductory course and some may be included and assessed in nontax accounting courses or a combination of courses. Assessing all nine MTC objectives in a single tax course could prove daunting.
The results suggest a more challenging issue—the man-ner in which accounting programs reconcile the AACSB’s 4–10 learning outcomes with the AICPA’s Core Competen-cies and MTC. It is apparent that accounting programs have incorporated elements of the AICPA’s Core Competencies into the AASCB learning outcomes assessment, but there does not appear to be a systematic approach that ensures the achievement of AICPA competencies. We are concerned that the AICPA’s specification of such a large number of specific learning outcomes may be creating a compliance dilemma for accounting programs seeking to assess learning outcomes for both the accrediting agency and the professional organi-zation. With limited resources, programs may be unable to assess the learning objectives for both groups. The AICPA may need to reconsider the number of specific outcomes it identifies. At a minimum, it is our opinion that programs need additional guidance and training before they can in-tegrate the learning outcomes for both organizations into a single assessment program.
REFERENCES
Abraham, S. E., & Karns, L. A. (2009). Do business schools value the competencies that businesses value?Journal of Education for Business, 85, 350–356.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2010). Ac-credited institutions. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation /AccreditedMembers.asp
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International Ac-creditation Coordinating Committee and International AcAc-creditation Quality Committee. (2007). AACSB assurance of learning standards: An interpretation. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/ papers/AOLPaper-final-11–20–07.pdf
Accounting Education Change Commission. (1990).Objectives of educa-tion for accountants educaeduca-tion. Posieduca-tion statement no. 1. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
Akers, M. D., Giacomino, D. E., & Trebbly, J. P. (1997). Designing and implementing an accounting assessment program.Issues in Accounting Education,12, 259–280.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1999).AICPA core competency framework. Retrieved from http://ceae.aicpa.org/Resources/ Education+and+Curriculum+Development/Core+Competency+
Framework+and+Educational+Competency+Assessment+Web+Site/ American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2007). Model tax curriculum (MTC). Retrieved from http://ceae.aicpa.org/Resources/ Education+and+Curriculum+Development/Model+Tax+Curriculum/ Calderon, T. G. (2005). Assessment in the accounting discipline: Review
and reflection. In K. Martell & T. Calderon (Eds.),Assessment of student learning in business schools: Best practices each step of the way(pp. 187–206). Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research. Charted Financial Analyst Institute. (2009) CFA program command
words. Retrieved from http://www.cfainstitute.org/cfaprog/courseofstudy /commandwords.html
Daigle, R. J., Hayes, D. C., & Hughes, K. E. II. (2007). Assessing student learning outcomes in the introductory accounting information systems course using the AICPA’s core competency framework.Journal of Infor-mation Systems,21, 149–169.
DeMong, R. F., Lindgren, J. H., & Perry, S. E. (1994). Designing an as-sessment program for accounting.Issues in Accounting Education,9, 11–27.
Kimmel, S. L., Marquette, R. P., & Olsen, D. H. (1998). Outcomes as-sessment programs: Historical perspective and state of the art.Issues in Accounting Education,13, 851–868.
Mager, R. F. (1962).Preparing instructional objectives. Belmont, CA: Fearon.
Martell, K. (2007). Assessing student learning: Are business schools making the grade?Journal of Education for Business,82, 189–195.
Martell, K., & Calderon, T. (2005). Assessment in business schools: What it is, where we are, and where we need to go now. In K. Martell & T. Calderon (Eds.),Assessment of student learning in business schools: Best practices each step of the way(Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 1–26). Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research.
Popper, E. T. L. (2005). Learning goals: The foundation of curriculum devel-opment & assessment. In K. Martell & T. Calderon (Eds.),Assessment of student learning in business schools: Best practices each step of the way (Vol. 1, Issue 2, pp. 1–23). Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research.
Pringle, C., & Michel, M. (2007). Assessment practices in AACSB-accredited business schools. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 202–211.
Shaftel, J., & Shaftel, T. (2007). Educational assessment and the AACSB. Issues in Accounting Education,22, 215–232.
Sinning, K. E., & Dykxhoorn, H. J. (2001). Processes implemented for AACSB accreditation and the degree of faculty involvement.Issues in Accounting Education,16, 181–204.
Stivers, B. P., Campbell, J. E., & Hermanson, H. M. (2000). An assessment program for accounting: Design, implementation, and reflection.Issues in Accounting Education,15, 553–581.
Stivers, B., & Phillips, J. (2009). Assessment of student learning: A fast-track experience.Journal of Education for Business,85, 258–262.
