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: 23:05
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Technologies Used in Accounting Education: A
Study of Frequency of Use Among Faculty
Nas Ahadiat
To cite this article: Nas Ahadiat (2008) Technologies Used in Accounting Education: A Study
of Frequency of Use Among Faculty, Journal of Education for Business, 83:3, 123-134, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.83.3.123-134
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.3.123-134
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 66
View related articles
he Association to Advance Col-legiate School of Business Inter-national (AACSB; 2007) demands that business students’ learning experiences include the use of appropriate instruc-tionaltechnologiesbecausetheyinfluence the operations of organizations and their management.Also,theAmericanInstitute ofCertifiedPublicAccountants(AICPA; 2006)suggests,“Individualsenteringthe accounting profession must acquire the necessary skills to use technology tools effectivelyandefficiently”(p.3).
Although in their recent pronounce-mentsAACSBandAICPAusetheterm technology in a fairly general sense, other professional organizations have been more specific in their recom-mendations. For example, the Bedford CommitteeoftheAmericanAccounting Association (AAA; 1986), in a report totheuniversityfaculty,suggestedthat accounting educators should be pre- paredtousecomputer-assistedinstruc-tion. Also, the Accounting Education ChangeCommission(AECC;1990),in itsPositionStatementNo.One,pointed out that because technology has had major impacts on how organizations operate, accounting professionals must betrainedtouseinformationtechnology fortheirwork.Likewise,theInstituteof ManagementAccountants(IMA;1996), initspracticeanalysisproject,identified familiaritywithcomputersoftwareas1 ofthetop-10highestsubjectsrequiring
knowledge,skills,andabilitiesforboth workandentry-levelcompetence.
The termsinstructional technology andtechnology withrelevancetoinstruc- tionincludeawiderangeofmedia,hard-ware, and software such as audio and videoequipment,graphics,images,ani-mation,datatransmissionequipmentfor thedeliveryofcontent,andapplications of knowledge to students in and out of classroom and for other applications of computer technology. Although a few studieshaveaddressedtheeffectiveness of technology in teaching (Hale, 2005; Murray,2002),thereismuchmorethat researchersandeducatorsneedtoknow aboutwhichtechnologiesareappropriate for a variety of educational disciplines andwhetherdifferencesexistamongfac-ultyintheirchoicesoftechnology.
Because of the wide range of tech-nologies with possible applications in education, I designed this study pri-marilytodeterminewhichtechnologies had widespread applications among accountingeducatorsacrossthecountry. Suchinformationcanprovideabasisby which faculty can decide what media are most appropriate for a particular program.Inaddition,Iexamineddiffer- encesinuseoftechnologyamongfac-ultybyseveraldemographicattributes.
ReviewofLiterature
Some evidence has suggested that differences exist in the use of
technol-TechnologiesUsedinAccounting
Education:AStudyofFrequency
ofUseAmongFaculty
NASAHADIAT
CALIFORNIASTATEPOLYTECHNICUNIVERSITY POMONA,CALIFORNIA
T
ABSTRACT.Giventhewiderangeoftechnologiesavailableforuseineducation, theauthortriedtodeterminewhichtech-nologieshavewidespreadapplicationsfor accountingeducators.Thisinformationcan provideabasisonwhichfacultycandeter-minewhichmediaaremoreappropriateor havepracticalapplicationsinaccounting curricula.Inaddition,theauthorinvestigat- edwhetherdifferencesexistamongeduca-torsintheirchoicesoftechnologyandthe extenttowhichtechnologyisused.
Keywords:accounting,collegeeducation, computers,informationtechnology
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
124 JournalofEducationforBusiness ogyamongmenandwomen,olderand youngerpeople,andpeoplewithdiffer- entlevelsofeducation(AmericanAsso-ciation of UniversityWomen [AAUW] Educational Foundation, 1998; Hale, 2005;Qureshi&Hoppel,1995;Robi-chaux, 1994; Shelley, Thrane, & Shul-man,2007;Starr,2003;Whitley,1997). Women,olderpersons,andlesseducat- edindividualsseemtohavealessfavor-able attitude toward technology and thus use it less than do men, younger people,andmoreeducatedindividuals, respectively (Hale; Morris, 1992; Ono & Zavodny, 2004; Shelly et al.; Wil-liams,Winkle,&Matile,1993).Several studies have revealed that men tend to be more interested in computers than arewomenandthatmenusecomputers morethandowomenatayoungerage (Hale;Meunier,1994;Robinson,Levin, &Hak,1998).
According to these studies, family, school,media,androlemodelsarefac-tors that have significant impact on gender differences in technology use. Addressinggenderissuesineducation, the AAUW Educational Foundation (1998)concludedthatalthoughwomen have made serious gains in enrollment andtestscoresinscienceandmathover the past several years, female students seem to demonstrate less interest and moreanxietytowardtheuseofcomput-ersthandomalestudents.
Researchershavesuggestedthatdif-ferences in use of technology between genders, ages, and levels of education maystemfromsocioeconomicandcul- turalissues.Forexample,earlyresearch-ers observed that parents bought com-puters and video games for their sons more so than they did for their daugh-ters (Levin & Gordon, 1989). Some researchers have argued that, perhaps becauseofthenotionthatmenhavetra-ditionally enjoyed more buying power than have women, computer software and games designed for children are essentially targeted to a male audience (Meunier,1994).
A study of 377 students (154 male, 223female)revealedthatmalestudents were more likely than female students to own a computer and to play with computergamesandthatmalestudents tookmorecomputercoursesincollege. Inaddition,malestudentsdemonstrated
greater competence in computer tech-nology than did female students. Fur-thermore,bothmaleandfemalestudents withworkexperienceweremorelikely tousetechnologyandexhibitapositive attitudetowardcomputersthanstudents with no work experience (Williams et al.,1993).Sievert,Albritton,Roper,and Clayton (1988) consistently found that participants’attitudestowardcomputers weredirectlyinfluencedbythenumber ofyearsthattheyhadworked.
Whitley (1997) found that although gender differences in computer use exist, they are based on a variety of attitudinal components. Men see com-puters as more appropriate for them than for women, demonstrate greater competence,anddisplayanoverallpos-authors concluded that gender and gradesignificantlyinfluencedstudents’ attitudestowardcomputers.Theresults showedthatmalestudentsdemonstrated a more positive attitude toward com-puterusethandid femalestudentsand that students’ attitudes were directly correlatedwithgradelevel.
More recently, Hale (2005) studied eighth-grade 13–14-year-old students for their technology achievement. Teachers assigned students a series of self-directed activities in their com-puter class. Then they were randomly paired and given identical instructions. The results from pretest and posttest revealed differences between male and femalestudentsincomputertechnology achievement(Hale).However,theauthor conceded that today’s students may be differentfromtheirearliercounterparts and that although male students may perform better with technical aspects oftechnology,femalestudentsperform betterwithapplicationaspects.
Yet, in a gender study of account-ingstudents,DaigleandMorris(1999) examined whether computer-related attitudinaldifferencesexistamongstu-dents taking accounting courses. In a nonrandomsample,642studentsinfour accountinginformationsystemscourses wereselectedtoparticipateinthestudy. Thecoursesrangedfromfreshmanlevel
to graduate level. Daigle and Morris found that gender differences in atti-tudes toward computers were stronger among students in freshman courses than among students in graduate-level courses.Theresearchersconcludedthat differencesinattitudesdiminishasindi-vidualsgainmoreexperience.
Researchersalsobelievethat,inaddi-tiontotheeffectsofgenderontheuse of computers, individuals’ age, educa- tion,orothercharacteristicsaresignifi-cant factors. Morris (1989) randomly selectedandsurveyed380individualsto investigate relations between computer use and age, education, and other fac-tors.Theparticipants’agesrangedfrom 17to90years.Morrisrevealedthatage andyearsofexperiencestronglycorre-lated with computer use. Furthermore, he found that education played a sig-nificantroleinformingusers’attitudes Zavodny (2004) compared data from several surveys during 1997–2001 to findtrendsintheuseofcomputersand the Internet in the two countries. The results revealed that although gender differencesexistedinbothcountriesin the 1990s, in later years these differ-encessubsidedintheUnitedStates,but remained in Japan. The authors attrib-uted this finding to social and cultural differencesbetweenthetwocountries.
As applications of technology con-tinue to revolutionize business opera-tions,itisimperativethateducatorsand college administrators remain diligent in evaluating the latest technology, its relevance to education, and how it can be integrated into the curriculum, rec-ognizing the complexities of the U.S. educationalsystems.
METHOD
StudyDesign
Thisstudy’sprimarypurposewasto investigatetechnologiespopularamong
accounting faculty. Popularity was measuredbyusingasurveyinstrument for capturing information concerning the extent to which faculty use each technology in accounting education. In addition, I compared the survey responsesbyusingtteststoseewhether differences exist among faculty by (a) teaching area, (b) academic rank, (c) courselevel,(d)AACSBaccreditation, (e)yearsofteachingexperience,(f)age, and(g)gender.
DataCollection
I collected the data for this study during the academic year 2004–2005 by using a questionnaire containing two general sections. The first section includedabriefdescriptionofthegen-eral-purposeinstructionaltechnology.It alsocontainedquestionsconcerningthe extenttowhichtheparticipantwasusing each technology, including its various applications, in the participant’s teach-ing.Participantswereaskedtoindicate the level of use by choosing one of the three responses:never,sometimes, orfrequently. The second section con-tainedquestionssolicitingdemographic information.
To ensure validity and reliability of thequestionnaire,Ipretestedtheinstru- mentbyusingasmallgroupofaccount-ing faculty in Southern California. Using a focus group and interviews, I discovered no major problems. As the result of this pretesting, several ques-tions were added or modified prior to massmailing.
Sampling
The sampling frame contained the university faculty in the 2004–2005 Accounting Faculty Directory (Hassel-back, 2004). Using systematic random design,Idrewasampleof800partici-pants.Thesampleincludedparticipants fromall50statesoftheUnitedStates.
I mailed the questionnaire to each participantthroughtheU.S.postalser-vice. A stamped return envelope was enclosed with each questionnaire to encourage greater participation. To increaseresponserate,asecondmailing was made soon after the first mailing. To measure the probability of none-response bias, statistical tests were
conducted on early and late responses. The results showed no significant dif- ferencesbetweenthetwogroups,lead-ing to the conclusion that the chance of none-response bias was statistically nonexistent,p=.05.
RESULTS
BackgroundInformation
The first mailing produced 209 responses, and the second mailing produced 79 responses. The two mail-ings resulted in a total of 288 usable responses,producingaresponserateof 12% indicated auditing, 7% indicated not-for-profitaccounting,and7%indi-cated accounting information systems (seeFigure1).
Academic ranks of participants included assistant professors (26%), associate professors (38%), and full
professors (31%). Only 5% of the respondents were lecturers. More than half (56%) of the respondents were from schools accredited by AACSB. At the time of this research, among the AACSB-accredited schools, nearly 64%wereaccreditedfortheirbusiness programsonly.Theremaining36%held accreditation for both accounting and businessprograms.
Of all participants, 97% reported using a computer at home. Desktop computerswerethemostpopularcom-puters,usedbymorethantwothirdsof thefaculty.Theremainingonethirdof thefacultyusedlaptopcomputers.
To capture their experience, I asked participants to report their number of yearsofteachinginhighereducation.As showninFigure2,only9%ofrespon-dents had less than 5 years of experi-ence.Theremaining91%reported6or moreyearsofteachingexperience.
UseofInstructionalTechnology Table 1 contains the top 10 appli-cations of technology in accounting
FIGURE1.Respondents’areasofteaching.
126 JournalofEducationforBusiness education. The most frequently used application of technology was e-mail, which faculty used with a frequency of 90.2% for communication with col-leagues. The Internet was the second preferredapplication,chosenbynearly 90% of faculty. The third most popu-lar application was word processing, requiredbymorethan88%ofaccount-ingfacultyforstudentassignments.The nexttwopreferredapplicationsinvolved computerspreadsheets,bothforfaculty to record grades (86% of the respon-dents)andforstudentstodohomework (84%oftherespondents).Also,e-mail for faculty’s individual contacts with studentshadwidespreadappeal,witha frequencyof84%.
Other technologies that accounting facultyhighlyfavoredwerepresentation software (e.g., PowerPoint) and video. Nearlytwothirds(71%)ofparticipants
indicated that they used presentation software for class presentations, and others (62%) used video for teaching. Thelasttwoapplicationsonthetop10 listoffacultychoiceswere(a)thecom-puter lab for class meetings with stu-dentsand(b)dataanalysissoftwarefor faculty’s personal use, which 54% and 53%ofparticipantschose,respectively.
Table 1 demonstrates not only the frequencywithwhichinformationtech-nologieswereappliedintheaccounting curriculum, but also that some faculty did not use those technologies. Nearly 10% of the accounting faculty never used e-mail for communication with colleagues or the Internet for informa-tion retrieval. The percentages of non- usage of other applications of technol-ogywerehigher.
In addition to the top 10 choices, I also identified technologies and
appli-cations that were least favored by the accountingfaculty.Table2showsthese technologiesandapplications.
The technology with little or no applicationinaccountingeducationwas audio.Only16%ofeducatorsusedthat medium for teaching. Distance educa-tion devices and teleconferencing rep-resentedthenexttwotechnologieswith low usage, preferred by only 19% and 24% of the accounting faculty, respec-tively.Another unpopular medium was data analysis software for students’ course assignments, chosen by 19.5% oftherespondents.
Only one quarter of all accounting educators used film in their teaching. Multimedia was not highly popular as a learning tool that faculty assigned to students; only one third of the faculty chosethatmedium.Thelasttwomedia among least favored applications were electroniclistsfordiscussionwithcol-leagues and multimedia for class pre-sentations.Electroniclistswerefavored by 39%, and multimedia for class pre-sentationswasusedby48%.
Analyses
Although the aforementioned results provide a basis on which researchers can determine what technologies are mostpopularamongaccountingeduca- tors,analysisoftheresponsesbydemo-graphics (by using an analysis of vari-ance[ANOVA])candiscloseadditional
Howoftenused(%)
Sometimes Frequently
(lessthan (morethan
Rank Technology Never 50%oftime) 50%oftime) Totaluse
1 E-mailcommunicationswithcolleagues 9.8 34.6 55.6 90.2
2 InformationretrievalviatheInternet 10.1 50.2 39.7 89.9
3 Computerwordprocessingassignedtostudents 11.9 41.3 46.8 88.1
4 Computerspreadsheetstokeepgrades,records,etc. 14.0 15.4 70.6 86.0
5 Computerspreadsheetassignedtostudents 15.7 44.6 39.7 84.3
6 Individualcontactwithstudentsviae-mail 16.0 48.1 35.9 84.0
7 Presentationsoftware(e.g.,PowerPoint)toprepare handouts,transparencies,orpresentationof
instructionalmaterials 28.6 40.4 31.0 71.4
8 Videousedinclassorassignedtostudents 37.5 57.3 5.2 62.5
9 Computerlabforclassmeeting 46.2 45.1 8.7 53.8
10 DataanalysissoftwaresuchasStatistix,SPSS,
LINPRO,SAS,orExcel 74.0 30.5 22.5 53.0
information about whether significant differencesexistamongfaculty’schoic-esoftechnologyby(a)areaofteaching, (b) academic rank, (c) course offer-ing,(d)AACSBaccreditation,(e)work experienceorage,and(f)gender.
AreaofTeaching
Analysis by teaching area showed that applications of computer technol-ogy were fairly widespread and not limited to accounting information sys-tems (AIS; see Table 3). However, I observed that business law professors used significantly less e-mail for con-tacts with students, computer spread-sheets for students’ assignments, pre-sentation software, and data analysis softwarethandidallotherfaculty(p< .05).Althoughspreadsheetapplications maynotbeappropriateforsolvingbusi-nesslawassignments,itisnotclearwhy e-mail, presentation software, and data analysissoftwarehadlowpopularityin this area. As I expected, the AIS area had a greater need for computer labs than did other areas, such as financial accounting.Also,facultyofgovernment accounting and not-for-profit account-ingshowedsignificantlyhigherinterest indistanceeducationthandidfacultyof otherareas.
AcademicRank
Table4showsfrequenciesoftechnol-ogy use by academic rank. It appears that instructional technology choices for
accounting education are fairly uniform across academic ranks. In only three cases, significant differences were found between the ranks. Lecturers tended to use less e-mail for communication with colleagues than did all other faculty. In addition, lecturers did not highly favor presentation software relative to other technologies.Thisisaremarkablediscov-ery. If accounting educators are to fully complywiththerecommendationsofthe AECC (1990), which call on faculty to teach students good presentation skills, administratorsmustensurethattemporary facultyandlecturersareproperlytrained and supervised in using technology in their classes. The analysis also showed thatassistantprofessorshadahigherpref-erencefordataanalysissoftwarefortheir ownusethandidtheotherranksoffac-ulty,p < .05.This finding is perhaps an indicationthatresearchpressure,andthus affect the choice of instructional tech-nology (Table 5). The overall results tendedtobethesameforgraduateand undergraduatecoursesandshowedlittle or no differences among the technolo-gies that participants rated. An excep-tionwaswithrespecttotheuseofdata analysissoftware,whichwasusedmore extensively by faculty of PhD-granting institutionsthanbyothers.
AACSBAccreditation
Although theAACSB (2007) accredi-tation standards require that appropriate instructionaltechnologybeavailableand usedbythefacultyofaccreditedbusiness schools, we found little or no signifi-cant differences between the accredited andnonaccreditedschoolswithrespectto thechoicesof(a)whichtechnologywas used in accounting curricula and (b) the extenttowhichthattechnologywasused in accounting curricula. The only two applicationswithgreaterdemandamong accredited schools were e-mail for fac-ulty’scommunicationwithstudents(p< .10)anddataanalysissoftwareforfacul-ty’spersonaluse(p<.05).Nosignificant differences existed between the rates of use of other technologies for accredited andnonaccreditedschools(Table6).
TeachingExperienceandAge
Tables7and8showtheanalysesof the degree of faculty’s use of technol-ogy as a function of years of experi-enceandage,respectively.TheANOVA showed significant differences in the useoftechnologyby(a)youngerfacul-grams, and data analysis software than did those faculty with more years of
TABLE2.TechnologiesLeastPopularinAccountingEducation,RankedbyInfrequencyofUse
Howoftenused(%)
Sometimes Frequently
(lessthan (morethan
Rank Technology Never 50%oftime) 50%oftime) Totaluse
1 Audioinclassorassignedtostudent 83.6 15.7 0.7 16.4
2 Distanceeducation 80.6 14.6 4.8 19.4
3 DataanalysissoftwaresuchasStatistix,SPSS,
LINPRO,SASassignedtostudents 80.5 15.0 4.5 19.5
4 Course-specificcomputerteleconferences
orbulletin 76.3 17.4 6.3 23.7
5 Filmusedinclassorassignedtostudents 75.6 23.0 1.4 24.4
6 Multimediaforstudents’individualized
learning 67.0 25.6 7.4 33.0
7 Electroniclistsfordiscussionswithcolleagues 60.6 28.9 10.5 39.4
8 Multimediaforin-classpresentations 52.1 33.9 14.0 47.9
128
Journal
of
Education
for
Business
TABLE3.MeanInstructionalTechnologyUsageScores,byPrimaryTeachingArea
Accounting Goverment Costor information Business Financial (not-for-profit) managerial
systems Auditing law accounting accounting accounting Taxation Other Technology (n=26) (n=49) (n=6) (n=150) (n=26) (n=77) (n=51) (n=8) Audiousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.19 1.24 1.43 1.15 1.19 1.16 1.30 1.18 Filmusedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.23 1.33 1.67 1.30 1.46 1.36 1.22 1.50 Videousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.81 2.04 1.83 1.67 1.77 1.73 1.65 2.00 Multimediaforin-classpresentation 1.92 1.67 1.50 1.60 1.61 1.58 1.65 1.75 Multimediaforstudents’individualizedlearning 1.69 1.57 1.33 1.35 1.23 1.32 1.41 1.50 Distanceeducation* 1.50 1.16 1.00 1.25 1.92 1.21 1.29 1.37
Computerlabforclassmeeting* 2.15 1.67 1.83 1.63 1.65 1.57 1.63 1.87
E-mailasindividualcontactwithstudents* 2.31 2.12 1.83 2.21 2.31 2.17 2.16 2.12
E-mailascommunicationwithcolleagues 2.50 2.53 2.50 2.40 2.35 2.48 2.45 2.75 Course-specificcomputerteleconferencesorbulletin 1.40 1.29 1.17 1.29 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.50 Electroniclistsfordiscussionswithcolleagues 1.69 1.44 1.50 1.46 1.73 1.39 1.53 1.75 InformationretrievalviatheInternet 2.58 2.31 2.33 2.27 2.27 2.23 2.33 2.37 Computerwordprocessingassignedtostudents 2.58 2.47 2.17 2.28 2.58 2.48 2.41 1.37 Computerspreadsheetassignedtostudents* 2.38 2.29 1.83 2.25 2.35 2.38 2.22 2.12
Computerspreadsheetstokeepgrades,records,etc.* 2.77 2.51 2.00 2.48 2.50 2.61 2.53 2.37
Presentationsoftware(e.g.,PowerPoint)toprepare handouts,transparencies,orpresentationof
instructionalmaterials* 2.23 2.14 1.83 1.95 2.00 2.06 2.00 2.02
Dataanalysissoftwareforyourownuse* 2.00 1.73 1.33 1.72 1.61 1.69 1.57 1.37
Dataanalysissoftwareassignedtostudents 1.35 1.20 1.17 1.20 1.15 1.25 1.27 1.25 OverallMrating 1.96 1.93 1.85 1.97 2.11 2.11 2.16 2.23
Note.Scoresrangefrom1(neverused)to3(used50%ormoreofthetime).
*p<.05
TABLE4.MeanInstructionalTechnologyUsageScores,byAcademicRank
Assistant Associate
Lecturer professor professor Professor
Technology (n=13) (n=69) (n=103) (n=83)
Audiousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.15 1.16 1.12p 1.26
Filmusedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.23 1.23 1.30 1.25
Videousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.54 1.62 1.77 1.70
Multimediaforin-classpresentation 1.46 1.57 1.77 1.52
Multimediaforstudents’individualizedlearning 1.38 1.48 1.43 1.33
Distanceeducation 1.31 1.33 1.26 1.16
Computerlabforclassmeeting 1.69 1.59 1.74 1.54
E-mailasindividualcontactwithstudents 2.15 2.42 2.19 2.07
E-mailascommunicationwithcolleaguesa 2.00 2.59 2.48 2.42
Course-specificcomputerteleconferencesorbulletin 1.15 1.42 1.33 1.23
Electroniclistsfordiscussionswithcolleagues 1.46 1.51 1.49 1.57
InformationretrievalviatheInternet 2.15 2.48 2.23 2.25
Computerwordprocessingassignedtostudents 2.38 2.51 2.34 2.31
Computerspreadsheetassignedtostudents 2.23 2.32 2.27 2.17
Computerspreadsheetstokeepgrades,records,etc. 2.46 2.83 2.54 2.41
Presentationsoftware(e.g.,PowerPoint)toprepare handouts,transparencies,orpresentationof
instructionalmaterials* 1.61 2.13 2.11 1.95
Dataanalysissoftwareforyourownuse* 1.31 2.16 1.76 1.50
Dataanalysissoftwareassignedtostudents 1.15 1.34 1.21 1.23
OverallMrating 1.66 1.87 1.80 1.71
Note.Scoresrangefrom1(neverused)to3(used50%ormoreofthetime).
ap<.10. *p<.05.
TABLE5.MeanInstructionalTechnologyUsageScores,byBusinessDegreeOffered
Masters PhD
Baccalaureate (MSorMBA) (DBA) Other
Technology (n=157) (n=163) (n=98) (n=12)
Audiousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.15 1.18 1.14 1.33
Filmusedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.24 1.24 1.25 1.58
Videousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.72 1.70 1.60 2.00
Multimediaforin-classpresentation 1.63 1.64 1.62 1.58
Multimediaforstudents’individualizedlearning 1.43 1.47 1.29 1.50
Distanceeducationdevices 1.27 1.32 1.21 1.08
Computerlabforclassmeeting 1.62 1.59 1.57 2.08
E-mailasindividualcontactwithstudents 2.24 2.25 2.38 2.25
E-mailascommunicationswithcolleagues 2.53 2.50 2.57 2.42
Course-specificcomputerteleconferencesorbulletin 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.25
Electroniclistsfordiscussionswithcolleagues 1.54 1.55 1.66 1.67
InformationretrievalviatheInternet 2.29 2.32 2.45 2.17
Computerwordprocessingassignedtostudents 2.41 2.37 2.33 2.58
Computerspreadsheetassignedtostudents 2.28 2.26 2.23 2.67
Computerspreadsheetstokeepgrades,records,etc. 2.55 2.58 2.68 2.67
Presentationsoftware(e.g.,PowerPoint)toprepare handouts,transparencies,orpresentationof
instructionalmaterials 2.00 2.10 2.19 2.33
Dataanalysissoftwareforyourownuse* 1.70 1.72 2.09 1.92
Dataanalysissoftwareassignedtostudents 1.22 1.24 1.36 1.58
OverallMrating 1.79 1.80 1.83 1.92
Note.Scoresrangefrom1(neverused)to3(used50%ormoreofthetime).
*p<.05.
130 JournalofEducationforBusiness experienceandolderfaculty.Thefind-ingsofthisresearchareconsistentwith those reported by Morris (1989), who discovered that age was inversely cor-relatedwithattitudestowardcomputers (i.e., younger individuals have a more positiveattitudethandoolderpeople).
Gender
The present analysis indicated that accounting faculty’s choice of technol-ogies was not significantly correlated withtheirgender.Bothfemaleandmale facultymemberssharedsimilarattitudes intheirselectionsofthecommoncore of technology and its applications that are appropriate for accounting educa-tion (see Table 9). Thep values were derivedusingttests.
DISCUSSION
Inthisageofinformationandincreas-ing use of technology, market
expecta- tionsforaccountinggraduatesarechang-ing rapidly. Traintionsforaccountinggraduatesarechang-ing future accountants who are fit for the technology-based work market is more challenging for academiathaneverbefore.
To meet this challenge, a number of professional organizations have called for a change in accounting education (AECC, 1990; AAA, 1986; AICPA, 2006; AACSB, 2007; IMA, 1994). A commonthemehasbeengreaterempha-sis on the use of technology and on general and information technology, in particularforinstructionalpurposes.For example,theAECC’sPositionStatement No. One advocates the use of informa-tiontechnologyasacorerequirementof anaccountingeducation.
In the present study, I examined the extent to which accounting academics have adopted the use of technology in theirinstruction.AsIexpected,themost frequentlyusedtechnologyinaccount-ing education is information technol-ogy,whereasaudiotechnologyisrarely
usedinthisdiscipline.Themostpopular applications of information technology andcomputersaree-mail,theInternet, word processing, spreadsheets, presen-tations,anddataanalysis.Inadditionto computer technology, video is popular amongaccountingeducators.
Ifurtheranalyzedtheresultsbyusing demographics to find significant dif-ferences among faculty in their use of technology. Although on the whole thereseemstobesomelevelofconcur-renceamongaccountingfacultyintheir choicesoftechnology,somedifferences are also evident. For example, I found that in some accounting courses, such asbusinesslaw,theuseoftechnologyis less common than in other accounting courses.Also,lecturerstendtoprefera lower level of information technology thandootherfaculty.
As technology improves and has greater impact on the conduct of business activities, gathering infor-mation about which technologies and
TABLE6.MeanInstructionalTechnologyUsageScores,byAssociationtoAdvanceCollegiateSchools ofBusinessInternational(AACSB)Accreditation
AACSB
accredited AACSB
NotAACSB inbusiness accredited
accredited programs inaccounting
Technology (n=117) (n=129) (n=74)
Audiousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.15 1.18 1.20
Filmusedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.30 1.22 1.24
Videousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.77 1.59 1.66
Multimediaforin-classpresentation 1.61 1.65 1.66
Multimediaforstudents’individualizedlearning 1.42 1.40 1.45
Distanceeducationdevices 1.19 1.34 1.28
Computerlabforclassmeeting 1.74 1.58 1.52
E-mailasindividualcontactwithstudentsa 2.00 2.36 2.40
E-mailascommunicationwithcolleagues 2.34 2.56 2.65
Course-specificcomputerteleconferencesorbulletin 1.21 1.41 1.41
Electroniclistsfordiscussionswithcolleagues 1.39 1.62 1.66
InformationretrievalviatheInternet 2.18 2.39 2.46
Computerwordprocessingassignedtostudents 2.32 2.38 2.49
Computerspreadsheetassignedtostudents 2.25 2.24 2.26
Computerspreadsheetstokeepgrades,records,etc. 2.48 2.61 2.73
Presentationsoftware(e.g.,PowerPoint)toprepare handouts,transparenciesorpresentationof
instructionalmaterials 1.92 2.12 2.15
Dataanalysissoftwareforyourownuse* 1.58 1.90 1.96
Dataanalysissoftwareassignedtostudents 1.19 1.30 1.32
OverallMrating 1.72 1.82 1.86
Note.Scoresrangefrom1(neverused)to3(used50%ormoreofthetime).
ap<.10. *p<.05.
January
/F
ebruary
2008
131
TABLE7.MeanInstructionalTechnologyUsageScores,byYearsofTeachingExperience
1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 31or years years years years years years moreyears Technology (n=23) (n=47) (n=58) (n=54) (n=44) (n=24) (n=14) Audiousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.09 1.11 1.14 1.26 1.14 1.12 1.43 Filmusedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.39 1.17 1.15 1.33 1.34 1.21 1.28 Videousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.48 1.60 1.79 1.67 1.70 1.75 1.86 Multimediaforin-classpresentation 1.43 1.64 1.67 1.76 1.54 1.37 1.57 Multimediaforstudents’individualizedlearning 1.39 1.40 1.40 1.44 1.36 1.21 1.43 Distanceeducation 1.17 1.32 1.36 1.13 1.25 1.08 1.36 Computerlabforclassmeeting 1.43 1.70 1.67 1.59 1.79 1.42 1.50 E-mailasindividualcontactwithstudents* 2.61 2.36 2.22 2.17 2.02 2.00 2.00
E-mailascommunicationswithcolleagues* 2.61 2.68 2.48 2.46 2.34 2.25 1.86
Course-specificcomputerteleconferencesorbulletin 1.39 1.30 1.74 1.17 1.23 1.12 1.36 Electroniclistsfordiscussionswithcolleagues 1.61 1.70 1.33 1.55 1.45 1.46 1.43 InformationretrievalviatheInternet 2.68 2.30 2.38 2.20 2.18 2.12 2.21 Computerwordprocessingassignedtostudents 2.52 2.55 2.34 2.37 2.20 2.29 2.14 Computerspreadsheetassignedtostudents 2.39 2.23 2.36 2.18 2.25 2.00 2.07 Computerspreadsheetstokeepgrades,records,etc. 2.91 2.66 2.67 2.55 2.31 2.37 2.29 Presentationsoftware(e.g.,PowerPoint)to
preparehandouts,transparencies,orpresentation
ofinstructionalmaterials* 2.22 2.11 2.14 2.07 1.70 1.71 2.07
Dataanalysissoftwareforyourownuse* 2.30 2.04 1.86 1.57 1.56 1.25 1.50
Dataanalysissoftwareassignedtostudents 1.35 1.19 1.34 1.17 1.20 1.17 1.43 OverallMrating 1.89 1.84 1.83 1.76 1.70 1.60 1.71
Note.Scoresrangefrom1(neverused)to3(used50%ormoreofthetime).
*p<.05.
132 JournalofEducationforBusiness
applicationsarepopularamongeduca- torsinthedesignanddeliveryofcol-lege curricula is of vital importance. Such information can help account-ing faculty and others to determine which technologies and applications are appropriate for the delivery of various kinds of accounting courses. However, integration of technology into the curriculum requires proper planning, skills, and disposition. In theirreviewofresearchrelatedtothe useoftechnologyinaccounting,Bry-antandHunton(2000)comment:
Rapidlyexpandingtechnologicaladvanc-es are driving a new instructional para-digm—the transition from physical to virtual learning environments. If educa-torsaretokeeptheinstructionalwallsof higher education from crumbling down altogether,itisimperativethattheylearn toharnesstheenormouspowerandpoten-tialofinstructionaltechnology.(p.156)
Although faculty may choose technol-ogy for their use on the basis of their personal preferences, its appropriate-nessandrelevancetothecurriculaisof paramountimportance.
TABLE8.MeanInstructionalTechnologyUsageRatings,byAge
25–34 35–44 45–54 55years
years years years orolder
Technology (n=8) (n=70) (n=133) (n=60)
Audiousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.00 1.13 1.19 1.20
Filmusedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.25 1.29 1.16 1.25
Videousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.75 1.67 1.69 1.75
Multimediaforin-classpresentation 1.37 1.38 1.59 1.64
Multimediaforstudents’individualizedlearning 1.37 1.53 1.38 1.32
Distanceeducation 1.37 1.27 1.23 1.23
Computerlabforclassmeeting 1.50 1.67 1.66 1.58
E-mailasindividualcontactwithstudents* 2.62 2.44 2.18 1.95
E-mailascommunicationswithcolleagues* 2.62 2.66 2.45 2.27
Course-specificcomputerteleconferencesorbulletin 1.62 1.39 1.28 1.23
Electroniclistsfordiscussionswithcolleagues 1.62 1.60 1.47 1.45
InformationretrievalviatheInternet 2.62 2.44 2.31 2.03
Computerwordprocessingassignedtostudents 2.75 2.51 2.32 2.24
Computerspreadsheetassignedtostudents 2.25 2.31 2.24 2.19
Computerspreadsheetstokeepgrades,records,etc. 2.75 2.71 2.60 2.32
Presentationsoftware(e.g.,PowerPoint)toprepare handouts,transparencies,orpresentationof
instructionalmaterials* 2.37 2.09 2.02 1.97
Dataanalysissoftwareforyourownuse* 2.25 2.10 1.71 1.44
Dataanalysissoftwareassignedtostudents 1.50 1.31 1.19 1.24
OverallMrating 1.92 1.86 1.76 1.68
Note.Scoresrangefrom1(neverused)to3(used50%ormoreofthetime).
*p<.05.
TABLE9.MeanInstructionalTechnologyUsageRatings,byGender
Female Male
Technology (n=90) (n=178)
Audiousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.18 1.17 Filmusedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.25 1.27 Videousedinclassorassignedtostudents 1.63 1.72
Multimediaforin-classpresentation 1.66 1.61
Multimediaforstudents’individualizedlearning 1.48 1.37
Distanceeducation 1.29 1.22
Computerlabforclassmeeting 1.68 1.61
E-mailasindividualcontactwithstudents 2.44 2.10 E-mailascommunicationswithcolleagues 2.64 2.39 Course-specificcomputerteleconferencesorbulletin 1.36 1.28 Electroniclistsfordiscussionswithcolleagues 1.52 1.50 InformationretrievalviatheInternet 2.45 2.24 Computerwordprocessingassignedtostudents 2.43 2.34 Computerspreadsheetassignedtostudents 2.30 2.22 Computerspreadsheetstokeepgrades,records,etc. 2.73 2.48 Presentationsoftware(e.g.,PowerPoint)toprepare
handouts,transparencies,orpresentationof
instructionalmaterials 2.14 1.98
Dataanalysissoftwareforyourownuse 1.92 1.69 Dataanalysissoftwareassignedtostudents 1.22 1.25
OverallMrating 1.85 1.75
Note.Scoresrangefrom1(neverused)to3(used50%ormoreofthetime).
NOTES
Dr. Nas Ahadiat’s research interests are accounting education, financial reporting, cost accounting,andcorporatemanagerialreporting.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Nas Ahadiat, Professor of Accounting,CaliforniaStatePolytechnicUniver-sity,AccountingCollegeofBusiness,3801West TempleAvenue,Pomona,CA91768.
E-mail:nahadiat@csupomona.edu
REFERENCES
Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC). (1990).Objectives of education for accountants:PositionStatementNo.One. Sara-sota,FL:AmericanAccountingAssociation. AmericanAccountingAssociation(AAA).(1986).
Futureaccountingeducation:Preparingforthe expanding profession.Issues in Accounting Education,3,168–195.
American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation. (1998).
Gender gap:Where schools still fail our chil-dren.Washington,DC:AmericanInstitutesfor Research.
American Institute of Certified Public Accoun-tants(AICPA).(2006).AICPAcorecompetency framework for entry into the accounting pro-fession. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from http://www.aicpa.org/edu/corecomp.htm Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business International (AACSB). (2007). Eli-gibilityproceduresandaccreditationstandards for business accreditation. Received Novem-ber 30, 2007, from http://www.aacsb.edu/ accreditation/process/documents/AACSB_ STANDARDS_Revised_Jan07.pdf
Bryant,S.M.,&Hunton,J.E.(2000).Theuseof technologyinthedeliveryofinstruction:Impli-cationsforaccountingeducatorsandeducation researchers.Issues in Accounting Education, 1,127–162.
Daigle, R. J., & Morris, P. W. (1999). Gender differences in accounting student attitudes and experience towards computers.Review of AccountingInformationSystems,3,75–84.
Hale,K.V.(2005).Genderdifferencesincomput-ertechnologyachievement.Meridian,8,1–4. Hasselback,J.R.(2004).PrenticeHall2004–2005
accounting faculty directory. Upper Saddle River,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). (1996).The practice analysis of management accounting. Montvale,NJ:InstituteofManage-mentAccountants.
Levin,T.,&Gordon,C.(1989).Effectsofgender and computer experience on attitudes toward computers.JournalofEducationalComputing Research,4,69–81.
Meunier, L. E. (1994). Native genderlects and their relation to gender issues in second lan-guageclassrooms:Thesexofourstudentsasa sociolinguisticvariable.InC.Klee(Ed.),Faces inacrowd:Theindividuallearnerinmultisec-tion courses (pp. 47–77). Boston: Heinle & Heindle.
Morris, D. C. (1989).A survey of age and atti-tudes toward computers.Journal of Educa-tionalTechnologySystems,17,73–78. Morris, M. (1992). The effects of an
introduc-torycomputercourseontheattitudesofolder adults towards computers.SIGCSE Bulletin, 24,72–75.
Murray, C. (2002, October 22).Webcast probes meaning of “scientifically-based research.”
Retrieved November 30, 2007, from http:// www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index
.cfm?i=34767&CFID=789159&CFTOKEN= 15187880
Ono,H.,&Zavodny,M.(2004,January).Gender differences in information technology usage: A U.S.–Japan comparison. (Federal Reserve Bank ofAtlanta Working Paper No. 2004–2). Atlanta,GA:FederalReserveBankofAtlanta. Qureshi,S.,&Hoppel,C.(1995).Profilingcom-puter predispositions.Journal of Professional ServicesMarketing,12(7),73–83.
Robichaux, B. P. (1994). Sex and beliefs about computer-based information systems: An examinationofgroupsupportsystems.OMEGA InternationalJournalofManagementScience, 3,381–389.
Robinson,J.P.,Levin,S.,Hak,B.(1998).Com-putertime.AmericanDemographics,20,1–6.
Sexton,D.,King,N.,Albridge,J.,&Goodstadt-Killoran, I. (1999). Measuring and evaluat-ing early childhood prospective practitioners’ attitudes toward computers.Family Relations, 48,277–285.
Shelley, M. C., Thrane, L., & Shulman, S. W. (2007).Generationaldifferenceininformation-al technology use and politic(2007).Generationaldifferenceininformation-al involvement.
ACMPortal,262,1–2.
Sievert,M.E.,Albritton,R.L.,Roper,P.,&Clay-ton,N.(1988).Investigatingcomputeranxiety inanacademiclibrary.InformationTechnology andLibraries,7,243–252.
Starr, L. (2003).Encouraging teacher technology use. Retrieved December 18, 2007, from http:// www.education-world.com/a_tech/tech159.shtml Whitley,B.E.,Jr.(1997).Genderdifferencesincom- puter-relatedattitudesandbehavior:Ameta-analy-sis.ComputersinHumanBehavior,13,1–22. Williams, S., Winkle, O., & Matile, S. (1993).
Gender roles, computer attitudes, and dyadic computer interaction performance in college students.SexRoles,29,515–526.
Managing Editor Journal of Education for Business
�������������������
�����������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������
Journal of Education for Business is introducing Professional
Perspectives—a new section—beginning with the 2006 volume
year. Professional Perspectives aims to supplement JEB objectives by providing practitioners’ perspectives on current issues in the business fi eld. Changes in today’s business world and in the business professions fundamentally infl uence the competencies that business graduates need. Thus, JEB offers a forum for authors addressing those areas or proposing new theories and analyses of controversial issues. The section will address current issues facing the business community today such as diversity, discrimination, marketing strategies, ethics in leadership, accounting restraints, globalization, outsourcing, downsizing, and recruiting.
Submissions for Professional Perspectives should include: an overview of the issue being addressed; historical perspectives on the issue; current workplace examples of the issue; potential outcomes in terms of impacts on personnel, costs, legal matters, and other parameters; impact of proposed business models on creativity and innovation; how the proposed model relates to trends in industry or business in general; and recommendations to business faculty as to what they may do to assist in resolving the issue. The submission must be between 1500 to 2500 words.
If you are interested in submitting to Professional Perspectives, please visit http://mc.manuscriptcentral .com/heldref/jebs. Please refer to the instructions to authors on the login page or at http://www .heldref.org/jebmanu.php for further information.
