Retrieve 1

Accounting & Finance 60 (2020) 2099–2143
Accounting students’ perceptions of effective teaching

and approaches to learning: impact on overall student
satisfaction
Belete J. Bobe , Barry J. Cooper

Department of Accounting, Deakin Business School, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC,
Australia
Abstract
This study is concerned with the ways to improve the quality of learning
experiences of accounting students. Drawing on the effective teaching and
student approach to learning literature, we hypothesise that effective teaching
and students’ approach to learning (deep versus surface learning) are two
important predictors of the quality of the learning experience. The hypotheses
were tested using survey data of second-year undergraduate students enrolled
in two core accounting subjects at an Australian university. The data were
analysed using the partial least-squares structural equation modelling
approach. The study aims to make a useful contribution to theory and
teaching practice.
Key words: Effective teaching; Approach to learning; Learning outcome; Two-

factor revised SPQ; Accounting education
JEL classification: M41
doi: 10.1111/acfi.12364
We would like to thank the participants of the Department of Accounting, Deakin

University 2016 seminar series for their helpful comments. We are greatly indebted to
Professor Paul de Lange, Mr John Donald and Professor Alemayehu Molla for their
useful comments in the early version of the article. We are grateful to Department of
Accounting, Deakin Business School, Deakin University, for funding the data collection
for this project.
Please address correspondence to Belete J. Bobe via email: bj.bobe@deakin.edu.au
© 2018 AFAANZ
2100 B. J. Bobe, B. J. Cooper/Accounting & Finance 60 (2020) 2099–2143
1. Introduction
In the current corporatised and rapidly changing higher education landscape

in Australia and other Western countries, the competition is fiercer than ever to
meet the needs of the student ‘customer’ (Parker and Guthrie, 2010; Parker,
2011; Christie, 2017). The quality of the learning experience in a unit/course1 of
study as perceived by the student has become one of the critical success factors
for higher education institutions. Hence, it is a key performance indicator for
academic managers and academics as the ‘customer service providers’. Student
perception of satisfaction with their educational experience is one of the
measures widely used in Australian universities for a range of purposes. These
include monitoring the universities’ own performance for benchmarking
purposes; facilitating the assessment and evaluation of institutional operations;
providing information for external quality assurance audits; and providing
information to the government for accountability and reporting purposes
(Rowe, 2004, cited in Chalmers, 2008, p. 3). A recent survey of Deputy Vice
Chancellors and Pro-Vice Chancellors, with learning and teaching portfolios,
of 15 of the 40 Australian universities, found that student engagement and
satisfaction [emphasis added] was one of the top three learning and teaching
challenges in higher education (Christie, 2017). Hence, a study of the key
factors that contribute towards better student satisfaction is worthwhile not
only from a research perspective but also from its practical significance.
The accounting education literature indicates that investigations of how
students approach their learning can provide a guide to the teaching strategies
needed to improve their learning (Gow et al., 1994) and the quality of the
learning outcome2 (Byrne et al., 2002). Accounting educators are also
concerned by research findings that accounting students are inclined to adopt
a learning approach that may not provide a high-quality learning experience
compared to students of other disciplines (Eley, 1992; Lucas, 1996; Booth
et al., 1999; English et al., 2004). Research also shows that accounting
educators can influence the learning approaches adopted by accounting
students through changes in the learning environment, such as improved
teaching and assessment methods (English et al., 2004; Hall et al., 2004).
1
Unit of a study refers to a single subject a student enrols in an educational program, for
example a bachelor degree in accounting programme. It can also be referred to as a
course of study although a course may refer to the entire programme of study. In this
study, we use ‘unit of study’ to refer to a single university subject.
2
Learning outcome and student satisfaction are not the same although they may be
highly related as the latter could be one of the predictors of the former. In this study, we
are interested in the quality of the learning experience as perceived by the student and
measured as student satisfaction. More details are provided on this point later in the
article.
© 2018 AFAANZ
B. J. Bobe, B. J. Cooper/Accounting & Finance 60 (2020) 2099–2143 2101
Two streams of accounting education research have independently examined

the quality of accounting students’ learning outcome from two perspectives –
quality of student learning and quality of teaching. The quality of student
learning perspective focuses on factors and strategies that may influence
approaches to learning and hence contribute to the quality of the educational
experience and leaning outcomes (Booth et al., 1999; Cooper, 2004; English
et al., 2004; Abraham, 2006). On the other hand, the quality of accounting
teaching perspective concentrates on ascertaining the drivers/attributes of
effective accounting teaching (Wygal et al., 2014; Alfraih and Alanezi, 2016).
For example, some research in this area has identified and documented the best
practices of accounting teachers considered as ‘master or ideal teachers’ (Keeley
et al., 2006; Helterbran, 2008; Saville et al., 2010).
Building on the above two streams of accounting education research, this
study aims to contribute to the literature by investigating teaching and learning
variables that impact on accounting students’ satisfaction with their study by
adapting Biggs’ (1991) ‘3P model’. The model conceptualises the student
learning in three phases – presage, process and product. The presage phase
contains student characteristics and teaching context; the process phase
contains approach to task [learning approaches]; and the product phase
represents the learning outcome. In this study, we are interested in the student
perception of the quality of the learning experience as measured by satisfaction
in the unit of study, rather than learning outcome per se as a product in the 3P
model. More specifically, we examine teaching context (attributes of effective
teaching) from the presage phase and the learning approaches from the process
phase, to understand how they are related to overall student satisfaction in the
product phase. Normally, accounting education researchers do not combine
these two perspectives to provide a holistic explanation of what influences the
quality of accounting students’ learning experience (c.f. Trigwell and Prosser,
1991; Lizzio et al., 2002).
Notwithstanding the importance of studying the student learning approach
and the attributes of effective teaching independently, it is also important to
link these two perspectives in a single study. Exploring the link between
teaching and learning and their individual and combined impact on the quality
of student learning experience in a single study provides a unique insight in
understanding the interplay of teaching and learning on the quality of the
learning experience. Therefore, this study combines insights from both the
quality of accounting learning and teaching perspectives, in order to address
the very important question of how to improve the quality of the learning
experiences of accounting students. In order to achieve the above primary
research aim, this study employs the attributes of effective teaching and the
student learning approach frameworks to formulate three hypotheses. A survey
research method is used to gather survey data, using instruments published in
the literature, from second-year undergraduate accounting students enrolled in
a large metropolitan Australian university. The data were analysed using the
© 2018 AFAANZ
PLS-SEM statistical technique. The results of the PLS-SEM structural model

support several of our hypotheses – effective teaching is positively and
significantly related to the deep approach to learning and overall student
satisfaction; and the surface approach to learning is negatively and significantly
related to the overall student satisfaction. The data were also split into different
subsamples to assess the effects of gender and cultural background on the
relationships. We have also divided the data by subject, that is financial
accounting versus management accounting subsamples, to assess whether the
nature of the two accounting disciplines makes a significant difference in the
hypothesised relationships.
This study aims to make a number of contributions to theory and practice.
First, it extends prior accounting education research by proposing and testing a
single research model that links effective teaching with students’ choice of a
deep or surface approach to learning and the quality of the learning experience
within the context of cultural and gender differences, as detailed in the
conceptual model described in Figure 1. We acknowledge that ‘there is no
simple, one-size-fits-all method to assess the effect of teaching on learning’
(Angelo, 1996, p. 58). However, examination of the association between
effective teaching and the student approach to learning can provide valuable
insights into the importance of teacher effectiveness. This can then lead to the
design and implementation of teaching interventions to enhance student
satisfaction with the quality of their learning experience. As will be shown later
in the study, prior research findings have been inconsistent. For example,
Booth et al. (1999) found a significant negative correlation between higher
surface approach scores and academic performance measures as expected but
no significant correlation between performance measures and the deep
approach to learning. This suggests that we need more research such as this
Student satisfaction
Effective Learning
with learning
teaching approach
experience
Gender and
cultural
background
Figure 1 Overview of the conceptual model.
© 2018 AFAANZ
study to provide more empirical evidence on this key teaching and learning
topic. Second, this study extends the small body of research on the attributes of
effective accounting teachers, by exploring its potential in encouraging a
desired approach to learning, which in turn leads to a better student learning
experience. Third, similar prior studies use some measure of learning outcome
(e.g. grade) as their dependent variable (e.g. Ramsden, 1992; Abraham, 2006).
However, our dependent variable measures the quality of the learning outcome,
that is satisfaction with learning experience, which we argue is broad and
captures multiple aspects of learning and teaching activities.
An additional contribution is that this study contributes to accounting
teaching practice by highlighting the attributes of effective teaching that are
associated with a deep approach to learning, which will lead to better student
learning experience. The study will also be of interest to academic managers,
such as vice chancellors, deans and heads of departments/schools, in designing
staff development programmes to improve teaching and student satisfaction.
This is becoming especially important as both student recruitment and student
retention are increasingly becoming a critical success factor in the current
highly competitive higher education landscape, as discussed above. In
particular, international university rankings are perceived as critical for
attracting good students, as argued by both Marginson (2007) and Taylor
and Braddock (2007). Finally, the study makes a methodological contribution
by applying PLS-SEM structural equation modelling to accounting education
research. Such an approach permits the simultaneous testing of the complete
teaching, learning approach and student satisfaction relationships instead of a
separate examination of the variables, which are not possible in a traditional
regression-based analysis (e.g. OLS).
The remainder of this study is structured as follows. The next section reviews
the literature and develops the hypotheses. The third section describes the
research methodology followed by the results and discussion in the fourth
section. The fifth section concludes the study.
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
To lay out the conceptual foundation for our investigation, we start with a
review of the key constructs examined in this research – student satisfaction
with their learning experience, qualities of effective teaching and the student
approaches to learning framework.
2.1. Student satisfaction with their learning experience
Student learning outcome in higher education is a complex and

multidimensional construct. It may refer to an outcome at a subject,
programme, university or sector level. Martin (2016) identifies 15 learning
outcomes most commonly used in Australian universities, classified into
© 2018 AFAANZ
two categories: 10 cognitive and 5 affective learning outcomes. The

cognitive learning outcomes include discipline knowledge, discipline-related
skills; oral and written communication; cultural differences; diversity in
work and social contexts; understanding of professional ethics; critical
analysis and thinking; application of information and computer technology
(ICT) to solve problems and in leaning tasks; solving real-world problems;
and developing and applying international perspectives in a discipline (p.
158). The affective learning outcomes include learning collaboratively by
participating as team members; learning independently in a self-directed
manner; analysing capabilities and creating one’s own professional devel-
opment opportunities; and evaluating one’s own learning and performance
in tasks (p. 158). The above learning outcomes may be assessed using
different mechanisms. For example, a discipline knowledge cognitive
learning outcome may be assessed using tests and examinations and then
reported as individual or aggregated marks on assessments, letter grades or
average grade point (GPA). Another example is that learning collabora-
tively from the affective learning outcomes may be assessed using self-
reflection, through assessing how effective a team was in achieving the task
it was assigned to accomplish.
In this study, we are interested in what Booth et al. (1999) describes as ‘a
measure of quality of student learning experience’ rather than the learning
outcomes per se. This measure is student satisfaction with learning experience
in a unit (a subject) of study. We argue that student satisfaction with a unit of
study best measures the qualities of the learning experience of the student than
any of the above specific learning outcomes. Student satisfaction with teaching
also has practical significance. It is one of the measures used in Australian
universities for various purposes including to evaluate teaching for bench-
marking universities across the sector and region (Chalmers, 2008). Australia’s
Department of Education and Training’s ‘Quality Indicators for Learning and
Teaching’ (QILT) are designed to share the quality of the learning experiences
of recent students and graduates. Its website (https://www.qilt.edu.au/)
categorises the quality indicators for learning and teaching into three areas:
student experience, graduate satisfaction and graduate employment. The
student experience category has six components. These include overall quality
of educational experience; teaching quality; learner engagement; learning
resources; student support; and skills development. Hence, our measure of
‘overall satisfaction with a unit of study’ is an element of the ‘overall quality of
educational experience’. We wish to make clear that our measure is at a unit/
subject level, whereas QILT is at a university-level measure. However, the two
are closely related in that the unit-/subject-level satisfaction has an impact on
the students’ university-level satisfaction. Arguably, university-level satisfac-
tion can be considered as a reflection of student satisfaction in their experience
with units of studies in their course.
© 2018 AFAANZ
2.2. Qualities of effective teaching
There is no universal consensus on the exact definition of ‘effective teaching’

(Devlin and Samarawickrema, 2010, p. 112), nor is there a single model of
‘good teaching’ (Hinton, 2013). Teaching is multidimensional (Parpala et al.,
2010), and ‘what is good teaching’ is perceived differently by students and
teachers (Buskist et al., 2002; Simendinger et al., 2009). Even among students,
prior research has found that effective teaching is perceived differently,
depending on a student’s field of education (Parpala et al., 2010). In the current
study, we adopt Simendinger et al. (2009) definition. This definition states that
‘. . ..an effective teacher is one who has mastered his or her field of expertise to
the point that he or she can explain difficult concepts with clarity giving
numerous examples and inviting questions and discussion, because as a
successful teacher he or she is interested in cultivating an enjoyable student
learning environment’ (p. 114).
Despite the absence of a universal agreement on the meaning of effective
teaching, researchers in the area have identified a number of attributes3 from
students’ and teachers’ perspectives. For example, Simendinger et al. (2009)
identified and tested 29 attributes of effective business teachers, grouped into
three categories: (i) class preparation and design; (ii) class delivery; and (iii)
instructor traits and personal characteristics. Table 1 below provides the
rankings of the top ten attributes by 916 business students and 71 faculty at
four US universities. As can be seen, there are significant differences in the
orders of the importance of the attributes by the two groups. For students, the
most important attribute is the teacher’s current knowledge of the subject
matter, while from the teachers’ perspective, the key attribute is being well-
prepared.
A number of other studies have also ranked attributes of effective teaching
from the student or the teacher perspectives. For example, Bobe (2013) used
Buskist et al. (2002) Teacher Behaviour Checklist in a study of the perception
of high achieving business students at an Australian university and found the
five most important attributes of effective business teachers were all related to
classroom performance – creative and interesting; knowledgeable; effective
communicator; sensitive and persistent; and enthusiastic. Similarly, Alfraih and
Alanezi (2016) ordered the importance of the attributes of effective accounting
teachers as conceived by accounting students at Kuwait University using 28
attributes drawn from various studies. The students ranked the top five
important attributes as (i) respect for students; (ii) summarises major points;
(iii) clarity of handwriting; (iv) makes students feel comfortable asking
questions; and (v) is approachable in and out of class.
3
Terms such as qualities, characteristics and drivers are also used in the literature to
refer to attributes.
© 2018 AFAANZ
Table 1
Examples of attributes of effective teachers as ranked by students and teachers
Quality/attribute of teacher Ranking by students Ranking by faculty
Panel A
Illustrates current knowledge of the subject 1 3

matter
Is fair when dealing with students 2 5†
Provides information that is worthwhile and 3 5†
applicable to students
Creates an atmosphere where students are 4 5†
comfortable asking questions
Communicates and presents material in a way 5 19
that is easy to learn
Provides practical examples and applications 6 13
Is sincerely interested in student learning 7 4
Is well-prepared 8 1
Is approachable – both in and outside of the 9 16
classroom
Is passionate and enthusiastic about teaching 10 10
Is passionate and enthusiastic about subject 12 8
matter
Is organised 13 10
Challenges students to think 20 2
Encourage students to excel and set high 22 8
standards
Adapted from Simendinger et al. (2009).

†
The duplicate rankings are presented as they appear in the original article.
Other attributes identified in the literature as most important from the

students’ perspectives relate to classroom performance such as being interesting;
communicates well; expert/knowledgeable about subject; creative lectures;
enthusiastic about teaching; and relevant professional experience. Also impor-
tant are a teacher’s personal characteristics (e.g. helps students, easy to talk to,
good personality, approachable, understand/relate to students, willing to help/
helpful, friendly, and fair and realistic expectations) (McLean, 2001; Chonko
et al., 2002; Mounce et al., 2004; Vulcano, 2007). Simendinger et al. (2009)
describes these two sets of attributes as ‘. . ..what we teach and who we are’.
Wygal et al. (2014) on the other hand studied the attributes of effective
teaching from the teachers’ perspective based on the views of 22 award-winning
accounting educators, whom they call ‘teaching exemplars’ at Australian
universities. According to the exemplars, the top five drivers of effective
teaching in descending order were (i) having a student focus; (ii) commitment to
teaching (as a profession); (iii) high levels of preparation/organisation; (iv) the
ability to link subject matter to the practice environment; and (v) instructor
skills and attributes.
© 2018 AFAANZ
To have different perspectives on a quality issue by different stakeholders

may not be unique to teaching. The problem is that it makes it difficult for
educators and academic managers in designing teaching strategies and staff
development programmes. For example, according to Table 1, will the focus be
in addressing the issue of being on top of current disciplinary knowledge (as per
the students’ perspective) or being well-prepared for class (as per the teachers’
perspective)? Hence, it is important to research the issue, in particular in a
discipline-specific area such as accounting, to gain a better understanding of the
attributes that contribute to developing a desired learning approach, which in
turn enhances the quality of the learning experience of students.
2.3. The student approaches to learning framework
The student learning approach refers to the ways in which students tackle
everyday academic tasks (Entwistle, 2000) such as how they go about academic
reading tasks. There is no specific framework in the accounting education
literature to measure accounting students’ learning approaches (Booth et al.,
1999). Hence, accounting education researchers use frameworks developed in
the general education literature. In recognition of this fact, there has been a call
in the literature for accounting education researchers to draw upon the
established richness of the higher education literature to progress accounting
education research effectively (Sharma, 1997).
Researchers of student learning approaches have identified different
approaches to learning that students adopt in approaching their learning
(Duff and McKinstry, 2007). One stream of such literature first introduced by
two Swedish scholars, Marton and Säljö, classifies the student learning
approach into two main categories, namely deep learning approach (DLA) and
surface learning approach (SLA) (Marton and Säljö, 1976). The DLA refers to
a learning approach whereby students engage their learning at a ‘deeper level’.
The student under this approach is intrinsically interested to learn (the learning
motive) and attempts to maximise meaning (the learning strategy) from the
learning experience. Under DLA, students actively engage in the learning
processes that involve relating ideas and looking for patterns and principles,
and ensuring understanding of the concepts learned (Biggs, 1987; Entwistle,
2000; Gordon and Debus, 2002; English et al., 2004; Biggs and Tang, 2011).
On the other hand, the SLA refers to a learning approach where the primary
learning motive from the student perspective is to avoid failure. As the term
‘surface’ suggests, it is an approach to the leaning process at the surface level,
that is rote learning as a learning strategy to achieve a narrow target of passing
the required assessments and obtain in an academic certification. In summary,
while a ‘deep’ learning approach is described as striving for improved
understanding by applying and comparing ideas, a ‘surface’ learning approach
involves reproductive strategies with little attempt to integrate information
(Marton and Säljö, 1976; Biggs, 1987). Table 2 below summarises the intrinsic
© 2018 AFAANZ
Table 2
The motive and strategy of the surface and deep learning approaches
Approach Motive Strategy
Surface Instrumental: due to fear of failure, Reproductive: narrow target limited to

main purpose is to meet requirements bare essentials and reproduced through
minimally; a balance between rote learning
working too hard and failing
Deep Intrinsic interest: study to actualise Meaningful: read widely, interrelate with
interest and competence in particular previous relevant knowledge to maximise
academic subjects meaning
Source: Adapted from Abraham (2006, p. 6) and Biggs et al. (2001, p. 135).
motives and their corresponding strategies of the DLA and SLA learning
approaches.
2.4. Research model and hypotheses
The characteristics of the attributes of effective teaching and the student

learning approaches reviewed above lead us to propose that effective teaching
and the students’ approach to learning are two important predicators of the
quality of the learning experience of accounting students. We also argue that
effective teaching contributes to developing a deep learning approach and these
relationships are sensitive to cultural and gender differences. Figure 1 below
provides an overview of the conceptual model.
2.4.1. Effective teaching and approaches to learning
The consensus in the education literature is that teaching is effective when it

is student-centred rather than teacher-centred. This means that learning is
constructed as a result of the learner’s activities and effective teaching supports
those appropriate activities (Biggs, 1999b). Leveson (2004) categorises the
views in accounting teaching as either primarily as a matter of transmitting
facts and procedures or encouraging students to develop their own accounting
concepts, and perhaps to even change their world view in the process. It can be
argued that the former would encourage a surface learning approach, while the
latter promotes a deep learning approach. In a national criteria for evaluation
of excellence in teaching in the Australian universities, the attributes of effective
teaching are specified as teaching that influences, motivates and inspires
students to learn, thereby enhancing their learning (Devlin and Samarawick-
rema, 2010). Biggs et al. (2001, p. 136) argue that there is a direct causal
relationship between the two educational activities. They note that ‘. . ..the
generic aim of good teaching is precisely to encourage students to adopt a deep
approach and to discourage the use of a surface approach’, whereas ‘. . ..poor
© 2018 AFAANZ
teaching and assessment result in a surface approach where students use

inappropriate and lower-order learning activities’.
There is also empirical evidence in the accounting education literature that a
knowledge transmission form of teaching is associated with less desirable study
approaches; and a teaching approach that facilitates learning is associated with
a more meaningful student learning approach (Gow and Kember, 1993).
Outside the accounting discipline, similar results have been found. For
example, Trigwell et al. (1999) investigated the relationships between science
teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning and
found a significant positive association between a teacher-focused teaching
approach (i.e. teaching as having a focus on what the teachers do and on
transmitting knowledge) and the surface learning approach. The deep learning
approach was associated with a student-centred teaching approach (i.e.
teaching that is more oriented towards the student and to changing the
student conceptions). On the basis of the above theoretical arguments and
empirical evidence, the following relationships between an effective teaching
and student learning approach are hypothesised:
H1a: Effective teaching is positively associated with a deep approach to learning

by students in a second-year undergraduate accounting unit (subject).
H1b: Effective teaching is negatively associated with a surface approach to
learning by students in a second-year undergraduate accounting unit (subject).
2.4.2. Learning approaches and student satisfaction with the learning experience
As discussed above, students who adopt the deep approach to learning are
intrinsically motivated to learn, maximise meaning from the learning experi-
ence and actively engage in the learning processes and we argue that these
students gain a positive experience from their learning activities. This argument
is consistent with Ramsden (1992, p. 58) who contends that ‘. . ..deep
approaches are almost universally associated with a sense of involvement,
challenge and achievement, together with feelings of personal fulfilment and
pleasure’. Also, Abraham (2006, p. 10) asserts that ‘. . ..students who adopt a
deep approach to learning will be more satisfied with the course than those who
adopt a surface approach’.
On the contrary, the learning motive of students who adopt the surface
approach to learning is extrinsic; that is, education is a means to an end, such as
obtaining an academic certificate. These students put in just the minimum effort to
pass the required assessment and use reproductive strategies such as rote learning.
Hence, because these students are not motivated intrinsically to learn and do not
attempt to actively engage in the learning activities for a meaningful purpose, we
argue that these students do not enjoy their learning experience. As such, the
surface approach may be associated with a disengaged learning experience.
© 2018 AFAANZ
As was stated above, prior research in the area has focused on the
relationship between approaches to learning and learning outcomes, not the
quality of the learning experience as in this study. Hence, it is not possible to
draw directly from the findings of prior studies to formulate a hypothesis on the
association between the approaches to learning and the quality of learning,
measured as student satisfaction with the learning experience. Notwithstanding
this, learning outcomes can be used as a guide for the quality of the learning
experience, as the two are conceptually highly related. Although the empirical
evidence is mixed, a number of studies have found evidence that the deep
learning approach is positively and significantly associated with learning
outcomes and/or that the surface learning approach is negatively and
significantly associated with learning outcomes (e.g. Biggs, 1987; Booth et al.,
1999; Byrne et al., 2002; Duff, 2004; Elias, 2005; Abraham, 2006). However,
some studies found no significant relationship between one or both of the
learning approaches and learning outcomes (Davidson, 2002; Duff, 2004).
Drawing on the above theoretical arguments and the characteristics of the deep
and surface approaches to learning and the findings of the majority of the
studies in the area, the following are hypothesised:
H2a: A deep learning approach is positively associated with the satisfaction of

second-year undergraduate accounting students with their learning experience in a
unit of study (subject).
H2b: A surface learning approach is negatively associated with the satisfaction of
second-year undergraduate accounting students with their learning experience in a
unit of study (subject).
2.4.3. Effective teaching and student satisfaction with the learning experience
Scholars have indicated that effective teaching is likely to lead to a better

learning outcome and, by extension, better learning experience. For example,
Pascarella (2006) argues that the attributes of effective teaching such as clarity,
expressiveness and feedback have a positive correlation with the quality of the
learning experience. Jackson (2006) also stresses that good teaching is teaching
that promotes good learning, which in turn results in higher learning outcomes.
Angelo (1996, p. 57) also provides a very basic but powerful assumption that
‘. . ..the purpose of teaching is to help students learn more effectively and
efficiently than they would on their own’. Drawing on the above literature, we
propose the following hypothesis:
H3: Effective teaching is positively related to the satisfaction of second-year

undergraduate accounting students with their learning experience in a unit of
study (subject).
© 2018 AFAANZ
3. Research methods
3.1. Measurement of variables
The deep and surface approaches to learning constructs were measured using
the 20-item questionnaire developed by Biggs et al. (2001) known as the
Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) (Appendix I,
Part I). The R-SPQ-2F measures deep motive (DM), deep strategy (DS),
surface motive (SM) and surface strategy (SS), each with five items. The main
deep/surface approaches to learning scales were measured using the means of
the ten relevant items used to measure their motive and strategy subscales. This
is consistent with the suggestion of Justicia et al. (2008) who tested the factor
structures of the 20 items and found only two-first-order factors (deep and
surface) and not four-first-order (DM, DS, SM and SS) and two-second-order
(deep and surface) factors. Further, our focus on this study is only on the two
main scales (deep approach and surface approach). See the ‘Test of measure-
ment model’ below for reliability and validity tests.
We used the instrument developed by Simendinger et al. (2009) to measure
the effective teaching construct (Appendix I, Part II). This instrument was
chosen because it was specifically developed to measure the attributes of
effective business teachers for the Association for the Advancement of
Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). As the AACSB sets standards for
business schools across the world, we believe that the instrument is of high
quality for measuring the attributes of effective accounting teachers. The
instrument has 29 attributes of effective teaching divided into three components
of effective teaching – class preparation and design (10 items), class delivery (9
items) and instructor traits and personal characteristics (10 items). One item ‘Is
an effective researcher’ attribute was excluded from the survey, as it was
considered that the students in this study were unlikely to have full knowledge
of the teacher’s research profile to rate it accurately. The 28 remaining
attributes were combined to measure one construct – effective teaching. This
was carried out due to a multi-collinearity problem when the attributes were
used to measure the three separate constructs as proposed by Simendinger
et al. (2009). See the ‘Test of measurement model’ below for reliability and
validity tests.
As discussed above, the dependent variable in this study is ‘overall student
satisfaction with a unit of study’. This measurement has been used by a few
studies within and outside the accounting discipline (e.g. Ramsden, 1992;
Abraham, 2006). It was measured using a single item, ‘Overall, I am satisfied
with this unit’. The respondents were asked to rate their agreement to the
statement on the following four-point scale: strongly disagree, disagree, agree
and strongly agree (Appendix I, Part III, Q.4). It is expected that satisfaction in
a unit of study and grade in the unit are correlated. We assessed this
proposition by performing a correlation analysis between expected grade in a
© 2018 AFAANZ
unit and student satisfaction in the same unit. The result is shown in
Appendix III. As expected, the two variables are correlated (Pearson coeffi-
cient, 0.127 with 5 percent significant level, two-tail).
We have also conducted supplementary analyses to assess the impacts of
gender and cultural background on the hypothesised relationships. Cultural
background is measured using the residential status (domestic versus interna-
tional students) as a proxy.
3.2. Data collection
Survey data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire. The

target population were 1,854 second-year undergraduate accounting major
students enrolled in two accounting subjects (financial accounting, n = 870
students, and management accounting, n = 984 students) at a metropolitan
multicampus public university in Australia. Second-year subjects were chosen
following Eley (1992) and Sharma (1997) on the assumption that the students
have established learning approaches and are well experienced in evaluating
teaching effectiveness. The survey instrument was administered online using
SurveyMonkey in trimesters 2 and 3 of 2015 and trimester 1 of 2016. The three
trimesters cover a period equal to a full academic year (July 2015 to June 2016).
The survey was conducted in three consecutive trimesters to increase the
response rate. Upon gaining ethics approval for the study, the chair of the
relevant department was approached to approve the online administration of
the instrument. Approval was granted and the unit chairs (unit coordinators)
agreed to post an initial invitation to students and follow-up reminders on their
units’ websites. In week 8 of the 11-week trimesters,4 the initial invitation was
posted in the respective units’ websites explaining the objectives of the research
with a link to a plain language statement and the survey instrument contained
in a SurveyMonkey site, specifically designed for the study. The invitation
message specifically stated that participation in the survey was voluntary. Two
reminder messages, thanking those who completed and encouraging those who
had not completed the questionnaire to do so, were posted again with the
online link in weeks ten and eleven. A total of 421 students (22.70 percent)
participated in the survey of which 17 questionnaires were removed due to
missing data, leaving 404 (21.79 percent) usable responses. See Table 3 for the
profile of the respondents. To assess the representativeness of our data, we
4
Week 8 was chosen to ensure the student had spent sufficient time in the unit to be able
to evaluate the teacher. The university where the survey was conducted has a trimester
system with each trimester having 11 weeks. The last week is mostly used for revision;
hence, the teaching weeks are the first 10 weeks. By week 8, assignments are due in the
two units considered in this research. Therefore, for all practical purposes, it can be
assumed that the student is able to reflect on their experience in the unit as 80 percentage
of the trimester is completed. Please also note that the data collection went to the end of
the trimester (week 11).
© 2018 AFAANZ
Table 3
Profile of respondents (N = 404)
Grouping base Group No. %
Gender Female 247 61.1

Male 157 38.9
Age group 18 to 19 33 8.2
20 to 25 289 71.5
26 to 30 34 8.4
>30 48 11.9
Residential status Domestic 141 34.9
International 263 65.1
Unit of study Financial accounting 221 54.70
Management accounting 183 45.30
compared our response rates with the response rates of the survey results
conducted by the university itself in the three relevant trimesters. As can be seen
in Appendix II, the response rates for the university survey and this study were
very similar.
4. Results and discussion
The data were analysed using the partial least-squares structural equa-
tion modelling (PLS-SEM) approach.5 We used SmartPLS 3 software
developed by Ringle et al. (2015). The minimum sample size recommended
in PLS-SEM to achieve a statistical power of 80 percent for three arrows
pointing from three exogenous variables to one endogenous variable as in our
model6 is 124 observations for detecting R2 values of at least 0.10, with a 5
percent probability of error (95 percent significant level) (Hair et al., 2014, p.
21). Our sample size of 404 is therefore adequate for PLS modelling.
4.1. Test of measurement model
The reliability and validity of the indicators of each construct (latent)

variable were evaluated before proceeding to analyse the structural model (the
5
PLS-SEM (Partial least-squares structural equation modelling), which is a second
generation of multivariate data analysis, was chosen because it also allows to visually
examine the relationships between constructs in the structure model (the theoretically
formulated relationship among latent (unobservable) variables within the model) and
also enable to easily assess the relationships between the observable indicator variables
(referred to as the outer model) and the unobservable latent variables (constructs)
(referred to as the inner model).
6
The three exogenous (independent) variables are effective teaching, deep approach to
learning and surface approach to learning; and the endogenous (dependent) variable is
overall student satisfaction.
© 2018 AFAANZ
hypothesised relationships). We assessed individual item reliability by exam-

ining the factor loading of each measurement item. Adequate indicator
reliability is achieved when an outer loading for an item is 0.70 or higher
(Nunnally, 1978). However, indicators with outer loading values between 0.40
and 0.70 should be considered for removal only when deleting the indicator
improves the composite reliability and the average variance extracted (AVE) of
the construct above the suggested threshold values of 0.70 and 0.50,
respectively (Hair et al., 2012). In addition, indicators with weaker outer
loadings are also considered for retention on the basis of their contribution to
content validity (Hair et al., 2011).
Two indicators from the deep approach were removed from further analysis
based on the above criteria. This includes one deep motive indicator – I come to
most classes with questions in mind that I want answering and one deep
strategy indicator – I find that I have to do enough work on a topic so that I
can form my own conclusions before I am satisfied. Also removed were three
indicators from the surface approach to learning – I only study seriously what’s
given out in class or in the course outlines; I learn some things by rote, going
over and over them until I know them by heart even if I do not understand
them; and I find the best way to pass examinations is to try to remember
answers to likely questions.
Prior studies have indicated that the meaning, and therefore the structure,
of some subscales may vary across different populations, defined in either
terms of cultural or institutional contexts (Meyer and Parsons, 1989) and this
seems to be the case in the current study. All the remaining indicators met the
criteria and they were statistically significant at p < 0.01 level, demonstrating
adequate reliability of the indicators (Gotz et al., 2010). The internal
consistency reliability of the latent variables was evaluated using composite
reliability and the Cronbach alpha. Each of the measurement models had met
the criteria recommended in the literature of 0.70 or higher (see Appen-
dices IV and V).
Convergent validity is tested through average variance extracted (AVE). A
commonly used threshold is that a construct explains 50 percent of the
variances of its reflective indicators (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As shown in
Appendices IV and V, the AVEs of all latent variables are 0.50 and greater
ensuring that convergent validity of all the latent variables have been achieved.
As the AVE of each latent variable was greater than the corresponding
interconstruct squared correlations (see Appendix VII), the measurement
models also satisfied discriminant validity. Because all factor loadings
(Appendix VII, panel B-Cross Loadings Matrix) were >0.7 and the items load
highly to their theorised construct than any other variable, there is further
evidence that the measurement model satisfies convergent and discriminant
validities.
© 2018 AFAANZ
4.2. Results from descriptive statistics
Although it is not directly the focus of this study, we provide below the most
important attributes of effective accounting teachers and approaches to
learning, as perceived by the different groups of students employed in the study.
4.2.1. Attributes of effective accounting teachers
Table 4 below is a summary of the top 10 attributes of effective accounting

teachers as perceived by all students in the sample (column 3). It also presents
how these attributes were perceived by different groups of students – female,
male, domestic and international students. It reveals that the top ten attributes
are primarily class preparation and design attributes (5 of 10) and instructor
traits and personal characteristics (4 of 10). Class delivery attribute is just 1 of
the 10 top attributes (creates an atmosphere where students are comfortable
asking questions) which is very close to instructor personal characteristics.
Hence, the results lead to the suggestion that accounting educators need to
spend more time on class preparation and design to be rated as effective
teachers by their students. This finding has practical significance for academic
managers and individual academics in their attempt to improve student
satisfaction ratings.
4.2.2. Approaches to learning
Table 5 below provides a summary of the mean scores of the deep and
surface approaches to learning by all students in the sample, as well as being
classified by gender and cultural background. As can be seen, the undergrad-
uate second-year accounting students in this study have greater mean scores for
the deep approach to learning than the surface approach. It is also interesting
to note that the international student sample has the highest mean scores for
both the deep and the surface approaches to learning. This finding provides
further empirical evidence to prior studies that Asian background students
simultaneously adopt the two approaches to learning (Cooper, 2004; Donald
and Jackling, 2007).
4.3. Structural model (test of hypotheses)
Figure 2 below depicts the results of the PLS structural model.

The model explains approximately 22 percent of the variance in the
dependent variable (overall satisfaction with unit of study) and supports four
of the five the hypotheses (full model). In addition, the model was tested to
assess the impacts of gender and cultural background in the hypothesised
relationships. We also split the sample into financial accounting and manage-
ment accounting students subsamples. In most of these supplementary
© 2018 AFAANZ
2116
Table 4
Summary of the top 10 attributes of effective accounting teachers as perceived by students
Attribute of effective All students Female students Male students Domestic students International students
© 2018 AFAANZ
Survey item code accounting teacher (n = 404) (n = 247) (n = 157) (n = 141) (n = 263)
AET-ITPC10 Is professional 1 1 7 5 1
AET-CPD8 Meets course/unit objectives 2 2 8 3 3
AET-CPD4 Is well-prepared 3 3 2 7 2
AET-CPD3 Provides practical examples 4 4 1 4 5
and applications
AET-CD1 Creates an atmosphere 5 6 5 2 10
where students are
comfortable asking
questions
AET-CPD1 Illustrates current 6 7 9 1 14
knowledge of the subject
matter
AET-CPD2 Provides information that is 7 8 6 6 6
worthwhile and applicable
to students
AET-ITPC9 Is self-confident 8 10 3 15 4
AET-ITPC4 Is passionate and 9 5 16 11 8
enthusiastic about
teaching
AET-ITPC1 Is fair when dealing with 10 11 12 9 12
students
B. J. Bobe, B. J. Cooper/Accounting & Finance 60 (2020) 2099–2143
© 2018 AFAANZ
Table 5
Mean values of approach to learning variables by category of students
Approach to Female Male Domestic International Financial

learning ALL students students students students accounting Management accounting
Deep approach 27.05 27.11 26.96 25.64 27.81 27.18 26.94

to learning
Surface approach 19.29 18.55 20.44 16.98 20.52 19.53 18.84
to learning
2117
analyses, four of the five hypotheses were also supported. The following
subsection discusses the results of the primary (full sample) and supplementary
(subsamples) models.
4.4. Discussion
Hypothesis 1 predicted that effective teaching would be associated positively

with a deep approach to learning (H1a) and negatively with a surface approach
to learning (H1b). As can be seen in Table 6 below, H1a was fully supported by
the full sample (b = 0.44, p = 0.00) as well as the subsamples (gender and
cultural background; and financial accounting versus management accounting
students). This finding provides strong empirical evidence to the effective
teaching and learning literature that effective teaching (e.g. being seen as a
professional; meeting learning objectives; being well-prepared for class;
providing practical examples and applications; and creating an atmosphere
where students are comfortable asking questions) supports students to
construct learning through their activities, that is student-centred teaching
(Biggs, 1999b; Leveson, 2004). This is achieved by adopting the deep approach
to learning (e.g. feeling of a deep personal satisfaction; finding subject topics
interesting; finding studying as exciting as a good novel or movie; reading
widely; testing oneself to ensure full understanding). This finding is also
consistent with the findings of some prior empirical studies. For example,
Watkins and Akande (1992) found that the lecturer’s enthusiasm and teaching
ability significantly impacted the student interest in the subject, which is a
characteristic of the deep approach to learning.
On the other hand, hypothesis 1b, which proposed a negative relationship
between effective teaching and the surface approach to learning, was not
supported by either the full sample or the subsamples, except the management
accounting students’ subsample which showed a significant negative relation-
ship. Interestingly, the relationship is positive and significant for the male
student (b = 0.24, p = 0.07) and the international student (b = 0.23,
p = 0.10) subsamples. Yin et al. (2016) also found that good teaching had a
positive impact on surface motive in their study of 2,043 Chinese undergrad-
uate students. These findings suggest that, contrary to our expectations,
effective teaching may be positively related to the surface approach to learning
(e.g. doing as little work as possible to pass assessment; not finding subjects
interesting; focusing on memorising only key sections expected in exams) of
some groups of students. This finding is consistent with prior empirical studies
in respect of the international student group. For example, both Cooper (2004)
and Donald and Jackling (2007) found that Asian accounting students in
Australian universities tend to adopt both the deep and surface approaches to
learning simultaneously, leading to the conclusion that effective teaching is
positively correlated with both approaches to learning for this group. Thus, the
findings in H1a and H1b taken together indicate that effective teaching is
© 2018 AFAANZ
Table 6
© 2018 AFAANZ
Summary of PLS structural model results for full sample and gender and cultural background subsamples
Panel A: Full sample
Description of path and expected sign b t p
Effective teaching -> deep approach (H1a+) 0.44 11.38 0.00*

Effective teaching -> surface approach (H1b ) 0.01 0.11 0.91
Deep approach -> overall satisfaction (H2a+) 0.15 2.59 0.01**
Surface approach -> overall satisfaction (H2b ) 0.14 2.37 0.02**
Effective teaching -> overall satisfaction (H3 + ) 0.37 5.80 0.00*
Panel B: Gender and cultural background subsamples
Female students Male students Domestic students International students
Description of path and expected sign b t p b t p b t p b t p
Effective teaching -> deep approach (H1a+) 0.41 8.11 0.00* 0.48 7.83 0.00* 0.29 3.85 0.00* 0.57 14.06 0.00*
Effective teaching -> surface approach (H1b ) 0.08 1.05 0.29 0.24 1.81 0.07*** 0.12 1.30 0.19 0.23 1.65 0.10***
(continued)
2119
Table 6 (continued)
2120
Panel B: Gender and cultural background subsamples
Female students Male students Domestic students International students
Description of path and expected sign b t p b t p b t p b t p
© 2018 AFAANZ
Deep approach -> overall satisfaction (H2a+) 0.25 3.60 0.00* 0.01 0.07 0.95 0.12 1.30 0.20 0.10 1.36 0.17
Surface approach -> overall satisfaction (H2b-) 0.19 3.22 0.00* 0.06 0.56 0.58 0.20 2.60 0.01** 0.10 1.46 0.14
Effective teaching -> overall satisfaction (H3 + ) 0.23 3.27 0.00* 0.52 5.15 0.00* 0.34 3.62 0.00* 0.44 5.32 0.00*
Panel C: Financial accounting and Management accounting subjects subsamples
Bootstrapping results PLS-MGA†
Management
Financial accounting accounting p-values of path
Path coefficients difference coefficients difference*
Description of path and expected sign b t p b t p
Effective teaching -> deep approach (H1a+) 0.47 8.83 0.00 0.45 8.19 0.00 0.02 0.39
Effective teaching -> surface approach (H1b ) 0.16 1.39 0.17 0.17 1.92 0.06 0.33 0.03*
Deep approach -> overall satisfaction (H2a+) 0.20 2.22 0.03 0.12 1.57 0.12 0.07 0.26
Surface approach -> overall satisfaction (H2b-) 0.23 3.32 0.00 0.12 1.24 0.21 0.11 0.84
Effective teaching -> overall satisfaction (H3 + ) 0.43 5.09 0.00 0.33 3.24 0.00 0.10 0.22
Panel A and B: *Significant at 1 percent level; **Significant at 5 percent level; ***Significant at 10% level.
Panel C: *Significant at the 5% probability of error level, if the p-value is smaller than 0.05 or larger than 0.95 for a difference of group-specific
path coefficients.
†
PLS-MGA, Partial least-squares multigroup analysis.
positively associated with a deep approach to learning in all circumstances,

while the surface approach to learning is sensitive to gender, cultural
background and type of accounting subject.
Hypothesis 2 was concerned with the relationship between the approach to
learning and overall satisfaction of students with a unit of study. It
hypothesised that the deep approach to learning (H2a) and surface approach
to learning (H2b) would be correlated with satisfaction of students positively
and negatively, respectively. Both hypotheses were fully supported by the full
sample. In regard to the subsamples, H2a has support from two groups –
female students and financial accounting students, while H2b was supported by
the female (b = 0.19, p = 0.00), domestic (b = 0.20, p = 0.01) and
financial accounting (b = 0.23, p = 0.00) student subsamples. Hence, these
results taken together suggest that the relationship between approaches to
learning and overall student satisfaction is sensitive to gender, cultural
background7 and accounting subject type. It is also worth noting that although
not significant, the directions of the relationships between the surface approach
to learning and overall student satisfaction are in the expected direction of
negative for all of the other subsamples as well. As such, the results of H2a and
H2b taken together suggest that the learning approaches that accounting
students adopt in most cases can influence their overall satisfaction with a unit
of study positively (deep) or negatively (surface).
As discussed above, our dependent variable is not a measure of academic
performance but rather the quality of learning experience. As such, it was not
possible to directly compare our results with prior research. However, our
findings are consistent with some of the findings of prior studies where a deep
(surface) approach to learning was found to be associated with high (less)
successful academic performance. Booth et al. (1999) compared students’
scores on the deep and the surface learning approaches with two subjective and
one objective academic performance measures. Following Biggs (1987), the two
subjective measures were (i) students’ self-ratings of their overall performance
relative to that of their peers and (ii) students’ self-ratings of their level of
satisfaction with their level of performance. The objective performance measure
was subject (unit) assessment marks. Booth et al. (1999) found a significant
negative correlation between higher surface approach scores and the first
subjective performance measure and the objective performance measure.
However, they did not find any significant association between the second
subjective performance measure and the deep approach scores. There was also
no significant association between the scores on both learning approaches and
the subjective satisfaction with their own performance and the objective
7
We acknowledge that we do not have full information about the cultural background
of the international students. However, most international students in Australian
universities come from Asia – China and India – mainly followed by other countries.
Hence, our analysis of cultural background is limited to this assumption.
© 2018 AFAANZ
academic performance measure. Hence, the deep approach was not associated
with any form of the academic performance measures.
Byrne et al. (2002) found that in their full model, the deep approach was
positively associated with high academic performance and the instrumental
[surface] approach was associated with poor performance. Similar to our
finding, they found the relationship between approaches to learning and
learning outcome for the female students was positive for deep and negative for
surface but with little evidence for male students. They speculated that the male
students might have not effectively reported their actual approach to learning.
Duff (2004) investigated the role of approaches to learning on academic
performance (first-year undergraduate accounting and economics students) and
found that ‘effective learner’ scores were high on deep approach and low on
surface approach, while the ‘ineffective learner’ scores low on deep approach
and high on surface approach. Hall et al. (2004) experimented on changing the
learning environment (introduction of group learning activities) to promote
deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students and found a
significant negative relationship between surface scores and academic grades
(aggregate final grades). Justicia et al. (2008) found a significant relationship
between performance on complex examination questions and the use of a deep
study approach. Lucas (2001) conducted a phenomenographic study to identify
the approaches to learning of introductory accounting students and to identify
the features of the deep and surface approaches within the accounting
discipline. Lucas found that those students who focused on passing the subject
took a very particular form of surface approach which was termed a ‘format’
approach to learning, given the students’ focus on the format of the financial
statements rather than on any inherent meaning.
Lucas and Meyer (2005) also observed variations between female and male
students in the conceptions and approaches to learning. Ramsden (1992)
measured learning outcomes with the same construct as the current study, that
is overall satisfaction with a unit of study, and found that it was positively
associated with a deep approach to learning. Thus, our finding provides further
support that students should be discouraged from the surface approach to
learning to achieve better student satisfaction, as well as better academic
performance. However, scholars caution that student satisfaction may be
affected by other factors such as interest in a task or subject (financial
accounting versus management accounting in our study) as much as the
approach they adopt to learning and that the results need to be interpreted
cautiously (Lizzio et al., 2002).
Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between effective teaching and
an overall satisfaction of students with a unit of study. This hypothesis is fully
and strongly supported including in all subsamples – full sample (b = 0.37,
p < 0.00), female students subsample (b = 0.23, p < 0.00), male students
subsample (b = 0.52, p < 0.00), domestic students subsample (b = 0.34,
p < 0.00), international students subsample (b = 0.44, p < 0.00), financial
© 2018 AFAANZ
accounting students subsample (b = 0.43, p < 0.00) and management account-

ing students subsample (b = 0.33, p < 0.00). We further examined the indirect
effect of effective teaching to overall student satisfaction mediated by the two
learning approaches. Although not shown in Figure 1, the result is positive and
significant (b = 0.44, p < 0.00). Hence, this renders further empirical evidence
that effective teaching can positively contribute to student satisfaction directly
as well as indirectly, through promoting the deep learning approach. These
findings are in a way intuitive in that ‘. . ..an effective teacher is one who has
mastered his or her field of expertise to the point that he or she can explain
difficult concepts with clarity giving numerous examples and inviting questions
and discussion, because as a successful teacher he or she is interested in
cultivating an enjoyable student learning environment’ (Simendinger et al.,
2009; p. 114). Our finding is also consistent with the literature, in that effective
teaching is positively correlated with a quality of learning experience
(Pascarella, 2006). Good teaching is teaching that promotes good learning
which, in turn, results in higher learning outcomes (Jackson, 2006); and
teaching is effective when it is student-centred and supports the learning
activities of students (Biggs, 1999a,b, 2003) which leads to satisfaction with the
learning experience. Gow and Kember (1993) examined the relationship
between the conception of teaching and learning outcomes and found that
departments with high scores on knowledge transmission discouraged students
from adopting a deep approach to study, whereas departments in which
learning facilitation predominated seemed less likely to induce surface
approaches. The relatively stronger positive relationship between effective
teaching and overall student satisfaction for the male students (b = 0.52)
compared to the female students (b = 0.23) is consistent with the finding of
de Lange et al. (1997), who found that male students outperformed female
students in their study of 107 first-year accounting students.
5. Conclusion
This study set out to investigate two key factors in accounting students’
satisfaction with their unit of study. Drawing on adapted Biggs’ (1991) ‘3P
model’, we examined teaching context (effective teaching) from the presage
phase and the learning approaches from the process phase, to understand how
they are related to overall student satisfaction in the product phase. The study
) Deep learning approach H2a

a (+ (
0.15 +)
Overall satisfaction
H1 0 . 4 4 * ** with a unit of study
Effective teaching H3 (+) 0.37*
H1b )
–0.01 (–) H2b (– * R 2 = .22
Surface learning approach –0.14*
Figure 2 Results of the PLS structural model.

Note: *Significant at p < 0.01; **Significant at p < 0.05.
© 2018 AFAANZ
was motivated by the concerns of accounting education scholars that

accounting students are likely to adopt a surface approach to learning rather
than a deep approach (Eley, 1992; Booth et al., 1999; English et al., 2004),
which in turn was expected to lead to lower quality learning experience (less
student satisfaction) (Booth et al., 1999). We also conducted supplementary
analyses to test whether the results of the primary model were sensitive to
gender, cultural background or type of accounting subject (financial accounting
versus management accounting).
Our findings by and large confirm the underpinning theoretical frameworks
used to build the conceptual model of the study (i.e. attributes of effective
teaching and student learning approach). Four of our five hypotheses were
supported within the full model, as well as most of the subsample additional
analyses. First, it was confirmed that effective teaching is positively related to
the deep approach to learning and, more importantly, to overall satisfaction of
students in their learning experiences. Second, the relationships between the
approaches to learning and overall student satisfaction were in line with the
theoretical stances and most of the prior empirical research findings in that the
deep (surface) approaches to learning are positively (negatively) associated with
overall student satisfaction. Thus, the key conclusion is that by applying the
principles of effective teaching (e.g. being professional, meeting unit objectives,
being well-prepared) as shown in Table 4, accounting educators would be able
to influence students to adopt a deep approach to learning in order to improve
the overall student satisfaction.
The supplementary analyses to test whether our research model was sensitive
to gender, cultural background or accounting subject type showed that there
were no differences between the two genders in the relationships between
effective teaching and overall satisfaction of students with a unit of study,
although there was a difference in the strength of the relationship, being more
pronounced for the male subsample. Similarly, both genders are likely to be
influenced to adopt a deep approach to learning with effective teaching. As
such, both genders respond positively to effective teaching and the deep
approach to learning. As noted earlier, however, the relationship between
effective teaching and the surface approach was positive and significant for the
male subsample. This is contrary to our expectation. The possible explanation
about this might be that male students are likely to be pleased with effective
teaching, regardless of the approach to learning they adopt.
In regard to the relationship between the approaches to learning and overall
student satisfaction, the two genders had differences. The relationships for the
female subsample were the same as the full sample, that is positive (negative)
and significant relationship between the deep (surface) approach to learning
and overall satisfaction. However, the relationships were not significant for the
male subsample. Thus, while for the female students, the deep (surface)
approach to learning is associated with overall satisfaction positively (nega-
tively), there was no such relationship for the male students.
© 2018 AFAANZ
Concerning the sensitivity of our model to cultural background as

represented by the residential status of students (domestic versus international),
the two groups had the same results in the relationships between effective
teaching and the deep approach to learning, and effective teaching and overall
student satisfaction, which were consistent with the full sample and the female
and male groups. Thus, effective teaching inspires a deep approach to learning
and as well as leading to overall student satisfaction, regardless of the gender or
cultural background of students. However, there was a difference between the
two groups in the relationship between effective teaching and the surface
approach to learning. For the international students, like the male student
group, there was a significant positive association between the two variables
but it was negative and not significant for the domestic group. Prior research
has found that Asian background students employ a surface approach to
learning to learn through repetition rather than rote memorisation (Cooper,
2004; Donald and Jackling, 2007). Hence, the positive relationship between
effective teaching and the surface approach to learning for the international
students might be attributed to their style of learning. We have also found,
consistent with prior studies, that the international student sample had the
highest mean scores on both the deep and surface approaches to learning as
shown in Table 5.
In relation to the approach to learning and overall student satisfaction, there
was no significant relationship between the deep approach to learning and
overall student satisfaction for both cultural groups. However, there were
differences between the two groups in the relationship between the surface
approach to learning and overall student satisfaction. It was negative and
significant for the domestic student group, which was consistent with our model
but negative (as expected) but not significant for the international student
group. Thus, it seems that the relationships between approaches to learning and
overall student satisfaction are sensitive to cultural background. When the
sample was analysed by subject type, we note differences between financial
accounting and management accounting students in both the deep and the
surface approaches and overall satisfaction relationships. For financial
accounting students, the deep (surface) approaches are associated positively
(negatively) and significant to overall satisfaction as hypothesised in our
conceptual model. However, for management accounting students, while the
directions (positive/negative) are as expected, the relationships are not
significant. A possible explanation seems to lie within the nature of the two
subjects (units). Both are second-year level units. However, a second-year
financial accounting unit has a relatively narrow set of topics leading to the
preparation of financial statements. On the other hand, management account-
ing covers a wide range of topics, which some students may find challenging to
be fully engaged with. These findings suggest further work in the area to
determine the reasons and devise strategies to help the students adopt a deep
approach to learning and enjoy their learning experience. In relation to the
© 2018 AFAANZ
specific nature of learning accounting, other accounting researchers have also

argued that accounting educators should encourage students to develop and
use a deep study approach, to become more proficient with complex material
(Justicia et al., 2008) and improve their analytical and critical conceptual skills
(Sharma, 1997).
Our findings have a number of theoretical and practical implications.
Theoretically, this study provides strong evidence, as discussed above, that
quality teaching impacts student satisfaction with their learning experience.
Furthermore, quality teaching positively influences the choices of the students’
approach to learning.
On a practical level, the study provides further empirical evidence that
effective teaching and the deep approach to learning result in overall student
satisfaction. As such, by implementing strategies from the findings of the most
important attributes of effective teaching (see Table 4), accounting teachers
and academic administrators can in a practical way influence their students to
adopt the deep approach to learning. By doing so, they will improve the ratings
of their teaching by students. The implications of the findings on the control
variables (gender and residential status) are also important and need to be
given attention by accounting educators. While the relationships between
effective teaching and overall student satisfaction, and between effective
teaching and the deep approach, are both positive and significant for both
genders, it is stronger for male students than for female students. On the other
hand, while effective teaching is not associated with a surface approach to
learning for female students, it is positive and significant for male students. This
finding is mixed in the literature. For example, de Lange and Mavondo (2004)
found that for male students, intrinsic motivation [deep approach to learning] is
positively associated with surface learning, which is contrary to the findings of
Biggs (1987) and Booth et al. (1999). Despite the mixed findings in the
literature, the results seem to suggest that different learning strategies for male
and female accounting students may be necessary (de Lange and Mavondo,
2004). Thus, the practical implications from these findings are that effective
teachers can positively influence the approach to learning of accounting
students and make learning enjoyable and satisfying for students, which might
lead to better scores in the student evaluations of teaching and units.
The study has some limitations. Student satisfaction with a unit of study is a
complex issue. The current study examined only two possible factors, that is
effective teaching and approaches to learning. Despite the significant roles of
these two variables, environmental factors, mostly beyond the control of the
individual teacher, such as large classes, inadequate time for research, increased
administrative responsibilities (Leveson, 2004), excessive workload, lack of
intrinsic motivation, high student–staff ratio and second language (Gow et al.,
1994; Bobe and Cooper, 2017), may influence directly or indirectly the
satisfaction of students with a unit of study. Second, it is possible that the same
student was enrolled in both subjects. In addition, failing students could be
© 2018 AFAANZ
enrolled in the same subject over multiple trimesters. Due to anonymity of the
survey, we were not able to identify such students and unable to control.
However, we do not expect this to affect the results significantly, as a student
who completed the survey once may assume that it was the same survey, even if
it was for a different unit.
As shown above, the empirical evidence on the relationship between learning
approaches and student satisfaction is mixed depending on the student
category. Hence, there is a need for more research within the accounting
discipline, to gain a better understanding of why the deep learning approach in
particular is not always associated with higher student satisfaction for all types
of students. In relation to effective teaching, more research is required to
identify the most important attributes and their individual relationships to
learning approaches and student satisfaction. Future research may also
examine the relationship between the satisfaction of the students and the
attributes of the teacher (i.e. gender, cultural background, age). Some teachers
might do well with certain cohorts because of a similarity in terms of cultural
background.
References
Abraham, A., 2006, Teaching and learning in accounting education: students’

perceptions of the linkages between teaching context, approaches to learning and
outcomes, Faculty of Commerce-Papers, University of Wollongong 210, 1–13.
Alfraih, M. M., and F. Alanezi, 2016, Accounting students’ perceptions of effective
faculty attributes, Journal of International Education in Business 9, 123–142.
Angelo, T., 1996, Relating exemplary teaching to student learning, New Directions for
Teaching and Learning 65, 57–64.
Biggs, J. B., 1987, Student Approaches to Learning and Studying (Australian: Council for
Educational Research, Melbourne, Vic).
Biggs, J., 1991, Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong
Kong: some comparative studies, Educational Research Journal 6, 27–39.
Biggs, J. B., 1999a, Teaching for Quality Learning at University (Open University Press,
Buckingham).
Biggs, J. B., 1999b, What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning, Higher
Education Research and Development 18, 57–75.
Biggs, J. B., 2003, Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does,
2nd edn (Open University Press, Berkshire).
Biggs, J., and C. Tang, 2011, Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 4th edn (Society
for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Maidenhead).
Biggs, J., D. Kember, and D. Y. P. Leung, 2001, The revised two-factor study process
questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F, British Journal of Educational Psychology 71, 133–149.
Bobe, B., 2013, Attributes of effective business teachers: perceptions of students enrolled
in highly rated units, Paper presented at the AFAANZ Annual Conference, Perth.
Bobe, B. J., and B. J. Cooper, 2017, The effect of language proficiency on approaches to
learning and satisfaction of undergraduate accounting students, Accounting Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2017.1396481
Booth, P., P. Luckett, and R. Mladenovic, 1999, The quality of learning in accounting
education: the impact of approaches to learning on academic performance, Account-
ing Education 8, 277–300.
© 2018 AFAANZ
Buskist, W., J. Sikorski, T. Buckley, and B. K. Saville, 2002, Elements of master

teaching. in: S. F. Davis, W. Buskist, eds., The Teaching of Psychology: Essays in
Honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie and Charles L. Brewer Mahwah (Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ), 27–39.
Byrne, M., B. Flood, and P. Willis, 2002, The relationship between learning approaches
and learning outcomes: a study of Irish accounting students, Accounting Education 11,
27–42.
Chalmers, D., 2008, Teaching and learning quality indicators in Australian universities.
Outcomes of higher education: quality relevance and impact. Paris, Programme on
Institutional Management in Higher Education. Available at: https://www.scribd.
com/document/151543629/Outcomes-of-higher-education-Quality-relevance-and-impact-
pdf
Chonko, L. B., J. F. Tanner, and R. Davis, 2002, What are they thinking? Students’
expectations and self-assessments, Journal of Education for Business 77, 271–281.
Christie, A., 2017, The top three learning and teaching challenges in higher education in
Australia, Available at: http://blog.blackboard.com/top-three-learning-teaching-cha
llenges-higher-education-australia/?utm_campaign=INTL_2017_APAC_NewsletterJune_
190617_SGregory&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&utm_content=INTL_
2017_APAC_NewsletterJune_060617&lang=uki&utm_source=newsletter&utm_med
ium=email&utm_content=BbAPACNewsletter&elqTrackId=d26761aba3ee4ebaac93df
49683ec23b&elq=69ae8c467a1c4ebf8d005f4ab59ae900&elqaid=21018&elqat=1&elq
CampaignId=11310 (Retrieved 19 June 2017)
Cooper, B. J., 2004, The enigma of the Chinese learner, Accounting Education 13, 289–310.
Davidson, R. A., 2002, Relationship of study approach and exam performance, Journal
of Accounting Education 20, 29–44.
de Lange, P., and F. Mavondo, 2004, Gender and motivational differences in
approaches to learning by a cohort of open learning students, Accounting Education
13, 431–448.
de Lange, P., E. Waldmann, and K. Wyatt, 1997, Personal characteristics and academic
achievement of undergraduate accounting students studying through open learning,
Accounting Education 6, 295–306.
Devlin, M., and G. Samarawickrema, 2010, The criteria of effective teaching in a changing
higher education context, Higher Education Research and Development 29, 111–124.
Donald, J., and B. Jackling, 2007, Approaches to learning accounting: a cross-cultural
study, Asian Review of Accounting 15, 100–121.
Duff, A., 2004, Understanding academic performance and progression of first-year
accounting and business economics undergraduates: the role of approaches to
learning and prior academic achievement, Accounting Education 13, 409–430.
Duff, A., and S. McKinstry, 2007, Students’ approaches to learning, Issues in Accounting
Education 22, 183–214.
Eley, M. G., 1992, Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students,
Higher Education 23, 231–254.
Elias, R. Z., 2005, Students’ approaches to study in introductory accounting courses,
Journal of Education for Business 80, 194–199.
English, L., P. Luckett, and R. Mladenovic, 2004, Encouraging a deep approach to
learning through curriculum design, Accounting Education 13, 461–488.
Entwistle, N., 2000, Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment:
conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. In ESRC Teaching and Learning
Programme Conference 2000. Leicester.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker, 1981, Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research 18,
39–50.
© 2018 AFAANZ
Gordon, C., and R. Debus, 2002, Developing deep learning approaches and personal
teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context, British Journal of
Educational Psychology 72, 483–511.
Gotz, O., K. Liehr-Gobbers, and M. Kraft, 2010, Evaluation of structural equa-
tion models using the partial least squares (PLS) approach, in: V. E. Vinzi, W. W.
Chin, J. Henseler, H. Wang, eds., Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts,
Methods and Applications (Springer, Berlin), 691–712.
Gow, L., and D. Kember, 1993, Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to
student learning, British Journal of Educational Psychology 63, 20–33.
Gow, L., D. Kember, and B. Cooper, 1994, The teaching context and approaches to
study of accounting students, Issues in Accounting Education 9, 118–130.
Hair, J., C. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, 2011, PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice 19, 139–151.
Hair, J., M. Sarstedt, C. Ringle, and J. Mena, 2012, An assessment of the use of partial
least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 40, 414–433.
Hair, J. F., G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, 2014, A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).
Hall, M., A. Ramsay, and J. Raven, 2004, Changing the learning environment to
promote deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students, Accounting
Helterbran, V. R., 2008, The ideal professor: student perceptions of effective instructor
practices, Attitudes, and Skills, Education 129, 125–138.
Hinton, H., 2013, Reliability and validity of student evaluations: testing models versus
survey research models, Political Science and Politics 26, 562–569.
Jackson, M., 2006, “Serving time”: the relationship of good and bad teaching, Quality
Assurance in Education 14, 385–397.
Justicia, F., M. C. Pichardo, F. Cano, A. B. G. Berben, and J. Fuente, 2008, The revised
two-factor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F): exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses at item level, European Journal of Psychology of Education 23, 355–372.
Keeley, J., D. Smith, and W. Buskist, 2006, The teacher behaviors checklist: factor
analysis of its utility for evaluating teaching, Teaching of Psychology 33, 84–91.
Leveson, L., 2004, Encouraging better learning through better teaching: a study of
approaches to teaching in accounting, Accounting Education 13, 529–548.
Lizzio, A., K. Wilson, and R. Simons, 2002, University students’ perceptions of the
learning environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice,
Studies in Higher Education 27, 27–52.
Lucas, U., 1996, Student approaches to learning–a literature guide, Accounting
Lucas, U., 2001, Deep and surface approaches to learning within introductory
accounting: a phenomenographic study, Accounting Education 10, 161–184.
Lucas, U., and J. H. F. Meyer, 2005, ‘Towards a mapping of the student world’: the
identification of variation in students’ conceptions of, and motivations to learn,
introductory accounting, The British Accounting Review 37, 177–204.
Marginson, S., 2007, Global university rankings: implications in general and for
Australia, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 29, 131–142.
Martin, L. M., 2016, Using assessment of student learning outcomes to measure
university performance: towards a viable model. PhD thesis, Melbourne Centre for
the Study of Higher Education, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The
University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Marton, F., and R. S€alj€ o, 1976, On qualitative differences in learning I: outcome and
process, British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 4–11.
© 2018 AFAANZ
McLean, M., 2001, Qualities attributed to an ideal educator by medical students: should
faculty take cognizance?, Medical Teacher 23, 367–370.
Meyer, J. H. F., and P. Parsons, 1989, Approaches to studying and course perceptions
using the Lancaster Inventory - a comparative study, Studies in Higher Education 14,
137–363.
Mounce, P. H., D. S. Mauldin, and R. L. Braun, 2004, The importance of relevant
practical experience among accounting faculty: an empirical analysis of students’
perceptions, Issues in Accounting Education 19, 399–411.
Nunnally, J. C., 1978, Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York, NY).
Parker, L., 2011, University corporatisation: driving redefinition, Critical Perspectives
on Accounting 22, 434–450.
Parker, L. D., and J. Guthrie, 2010, Business schools in an age of globalization,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 23, 5–13.
Parpala, A., S. Lindblom-Yl€anne, and H. Rytk€ onen, 2010, Students’ conceptions of
good teaching in three different disciplines, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Pascarella, E. T., 2006, How college affects students: ten directions for future research,
Journal of College Student Development 47, 508–520.
QILT. “About this site.” Retrieved 27 May, 2017, from https://www.qilt.edu.au/.
Ramsden, P., 1992, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (Routledge, London).
Ringle, C. M., S. Wende, and J.-M. Becker, 2015, SmartPLS 3. B€ onningstedt:
SmartPLS. Available at: http://www.smartpls.com.
Rowe, K., 2004, Analysing & reporting performance indicator data: ‘Caress’ the data
and user beware! ACER, April, background paper for The Public Sector Performance
& Reporting Conference, under the auspices of the International Institute for
Research (IIR). Available at: http://research.acer.edu.au/learning_processes/13
Saville, B. K., T. E. Zinn, A. R. Brown, and K. A. Marchuk, 2010, Syllabus detail and
students’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness, Teaching of Psychology 37, 186–189.
Sharma, D. S., 1997, Accounting students’ learning conceptions, approaches to learning,
and the influence of the learning-teaching context on approaches to learning,
Accounting Education 6, 125–146.
Simendinger, E., B. Galperin, D. R. LeClair, and A. G. Malliaris, 2009, Attributes of
effective business teachers, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 13, 107–130.
Taylor, P., and R. Braddock, 2007, International university ranking systems and the
idea of university excellence, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 29,
245–260.
Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser, 1991, Improving the quality of student leaning: the
influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning
outcomes, Higher Education 22, 251–266.
Trigwell, K., M. T. Prosser, and F. Waterhouse, 1999, Relations between teachers’
approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning, Higher Education 37,
57–70.
Vulcano, B. A., 2007, Extending the generality of the qualities and behaviors
constituting effective teaching, Teaching of Psychology 34, 114–117.
Watkins, D., and A. Akande, 1992, Assessing the approaches to learning of Nigerian
students, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 17, 11–20.
Wygal, D. E., K. Watty, and D. E. Stout, 2014, Drivers of teaching effectiveness: views
from accounting educator exemplars in Australia, Accounting Education 23, 322–342.
Yin, H., W. Wang, and J. Han, 2016, Chinese undergraduates’ perceptions of teaching
quality and the effects on approaches to studying and course satisfaction, Higher
Education, 71, 39–57.
© 2018 AFAANZ
Appendix I
Survey instrument
General instructions
This questionnaire consists of four parts. Part I relates to your attitudes

towards your studies and your usual way of studying. Part II relates to the
attributes of an effective accounting teacher. Part III is about your academic
background while Part IV contains demographic questions. Please circle a
number on the scale for each question for Parts I and II and mark an ‘X’ in
Parts III and IV. Your answers are strictly CONFIDENTIAL and used only
for the purpose of this research as described above. The completion and return
of the survey implies your consent to participate in this research project and
that you have read and understood the plain language statement (PLS) and
that you freely agree to participate in this project according to the conditions in
the PLS.
Part I: Your attitudes towards your studies and your way of studying
Please rate your attitudes towards your studies and your usual way of
studying using the scale of 1 to 5, where
1. This item is never or only rarely true of me 4. This item is frequently true of me
2. This item is sometimes true of me 5. This item is always or almost always
3. This item is true of me about half the time true of me
1. I find that at times studying gives 1 2 3 4 5

me a feeling of deep personal satisfaction
2. I find that I have to do enough work 1 2 3 4 5
on a topic so that I can form my own
conclusions before I am satisfied
3. My aim is to pass the unit while doing as 1 2 3 4 5
little work as possible
4. I only study seriously what’s given out in 1 2 3 4 5
class or in the unit guide
5. I feel that virtually any topic can be highly 1 2 3 4 5
interesting once I get into it
6. I find most new topics interesting and often 1 2 3 4 5
spend extra time trying to obtain more
information about them
7. I do not find this unit very interesting so 1 2 3 4 5
I keep my work to the minimum
(continued)
© 2018 AFAANZ
Table (continued)
8. I learn some things by rote, going over and 1 2 3 4 5

over them until I know them by heart
even if I do not understand them
9. I find that studying academic topics can 1 2 3 4 5
at times be as exciting as a good novel or movie
10. I test myself on important topics until 1 2 3 4 5
I understand them completely.
11. I find I can get by in most assessments 1 2 3 4 5
by memorising key sections rather than
trying to understand them
12. I generally restrict my study to what is 1 2 3 4 5
specifically set as I think it is
unnecessary to do anything extra
13. I work hard at my studies because 1 2 3 4 5
I find the material interesting.
14. I spend a lot of my free time finding 1 2 3 4 5
out more about interesting topics
which have been discussed in different classes
15. I find it is not helpful to study topics 1 2 3 4 5
in depth. It confuses and wastes time,
when all you need is a passing
acquaintance with topics
16. I believe that lecturers shouldn’t expect 1 2 3 4 5
students to spend significant amounts
of time studying material everyone
knows won’t be examined
17. I come to most classes with questions 1 2 3 4 5
in mind that I want answering
18. I make a point of looking at most of the 1 2 3 4 5
suggested readings that go with the lectures
19. I see no point in learning material which 1 2 3 4 5
is not likely to be in the examination
20. I find the best way to pass examinations 1 2 3 4 5
is to try to remember answers to likely questions
Part II: Attributes of effective accounting teachers

Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the least important and 5 being
the most important to you, the following attributes of the accounting teacher of
this subject (unit) you are currently undertaking.
1. Illustrates current knowledge of the subject matter 1 2 3 4 5

2. Is fair when dealing with students 1 2 3 4 5
3. Creates an atmosphere where students are comfortable asking questions 1 2 3 4 5
4. Provides information that is worthwhile and applicable to students 1 2 3 4 5
5. Provides practical examples and applications 1 2 3 4 5
6. Communicates and presents material in a way that is easy to learn. 1 2 3 4 5
(continued)
© 2018 AFAANZ
Table (continued)
7. Is well-prepared 1 2 3 4 5
8. Is sincerely interested in student learning 1 2 3 4 5
9. Is approachable - both in and outside the classroom 1 2 3 4 5
10. Is passionate and enthusiastic about teaching 1 2 3 4 5
11. Is passionate and enthusiastic about subject matter 1 2 3 4 5
12. Keep students engaged 1 2 3 4 5
13. Is organised 1 2 3 4 5
14. Sets expectations about the grading contract up front 1 2 3 4 5
15. Is accessible – both in and outside the classroom 1 2 3 4 5
16. Regularly gives clear and constructive feedback to students 1 2 3 4 5
17. Achieves a positive rapport with students 1 2 3 4 5
18. Challenges students to think 1 2 3 4 5
19. Sets expectations about course/unit content 1 2 3 4 5
20. Encourages students to excel and set high standards 1 2 3 4 5
21. Is able to teach to different levels and experiences 1 2 3 4 5
22. Is flexible 1 2 3 4 5
23. Is self-confident 1 2 3 4 5
24. Is professional 1 2 3 4 5
25. Meets course/unit objectives 1 2 3 4 5
26. Is effective at selling the values of the class 1 2 3 4 5
27. Uses diverse teaching and delivery mechanisms 1 2 3 4 5
28. Incorporates research into classroom learning 1 2 3 4 5
Part III: Academic performance related data

Please mark an ‘X’ in the box of your answer for each item below.
1. Code and title of this unit (subject)

2. The final grade you expect □ HD □C □ N (Fail)
in this unit (subject) □D □P
3. The estimated amount of time □<25% □ 25–50% □ 51–75% □ 76–100%
you attended lecture in this
unit/course (subject)
4. Overall, I am satisfied with this □ Strongly □ Disagree □ Agree □ Strongly
unit/course (subject). disagree Agree
5. Your average grade (GPA) so far in □ HD □C □ N (Fail)
your current degree □D □P
course/programme
Part IV: Demographic data

Please mark an ‘X’ in the box of your answer for each item below.
1. Gender □ Female □ Male

2. Age group (years) □ 18–19 □ 20–25 □ 26–30 □ > 30
(continued)
© 2018 AFAANZ
Table (continued)
3. Did you study high school □ YES □ NO
in English
(medium of instruction)?
4. Are you an international □ YES □ NO
student?
5. Your course/programme level □ Undergraduate □ Postgraduate
6. Your year level □ First □ Second □ Third □ Fourth
7. Your field of study (major) □ Accounting □ Finance □ Other
Appendix II
Comparison of the university’s evaluate result and current research survey result
Case university’s evaluate result Current study

survey result
Three trimester
2015-T2 2015-T3 2016-T1 aggregate
Financial accounting 86% 88% 87% 86.04%

(% of agreement†)
Response rates 24% (n = 86) 17% (n = 51) 22% (n = 135) N = 221
Management accounting 90% n/a 96% 87.72%
(% of agreement†)
Response rates 24% (n = 157) n/a 21% (n = 68) N = 183
Combine (both units) 86.77%
(current study) (% of agreement†)
Response rate 21.79% (n = 404)
†
The percentages indicate the proportion of students who strongly agreed or agreed with the
following statement ‘Overall, I am satisfied with this unit’.
Appendix III
Correlation between expected grade in a unit and overall satisfaction of the
student in the same unit
FINGRADE OVERALLSAT
FINGRADE
Pearson’s correlation 1
Sig. (2-tailed)
OVERALLSAT
Pearson’s correlation 0.127* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.01
FINGRADE, expected final grade in the unit; OVERALLSAT, overall satisfaction in the
unit.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
© 2018 AFAANZ
Appendix IV
Descriptive statistics of survey items by category
All Female students
N Min Max Mean SD N Min Max Mean SD
© 2018 AFAANZ
AETCPD1 404 1.00 5.00 4.11 0.89 247 1.00 5.00 4.24 0.84
AETITPC1 404 1.00 5.00 4.09 0.94 247 1.00 5.00 4.21 0.88
AETCD1 404 1.00 5.00 4.12 0.90 247 1.00 5.00 4.25 0.82
AETCPD2 404 1.00 5.00 4.11 0.92 247 2.00 5.00 4.23 0.83
AETCPD3 404 1.00 5.00 4.14 0.95 247 1.00 5.00 4.26 0.90
AETCD2 404 1.00 5.00 4.05 1.00 247 1.00 5.00 4.18 0.93
AETCPD4 404 1.00 5.00 4.16 0.91 247 1.00 5.00 4.29 0.84
AETITPC2 404 1.00 5.00 4.07 1.00 247 1.00 5.00 4.19 0.92
AETITPC3 404 1.00 5.00 4.07 0.95 247 1.00 5.00 4.16 0.92
AETITPC4 404 1.00 5.00 4.10 0.92 247 1.00 5.00 4.26 0.82
AETITPC5 404 1.00 5.00 4.09 0.92 247 1.00 5.00 4.21 0.84
AETCD3 404 1.00 5.00 3.95 1.04 247 1.00 5.00 4.11 0.96
AETCPD5 404 1.00 5.00 4.09 0.94 247 1.00 5.00 4.22 0.87
AETCPD6 404 1.00 5.00 3.95 0.96 247 1.00 5.00 4.05 0.94
AETITPC6 404 1.00 5.00 4.05 0.92 247 1.00 5.00 4.15 0.87
AETCD4 404 1.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 247 1.00 5.00 4.10 0.95
AETITPC7 404 1.00 5.00 3.99 0.96 247 1.00 5.00 4.14 0.89
AETCD5 404 1.00 5.00 3.96 0.94 247 1.00 5.00 4.08 0.87
AETCPD7 404 1.00 5.00 4.00 0.94 247 1.00 5.00 4.14 0.86
AETCD6 404 1.00 5.00 4.00 0.94 247 2.00 5.00 4.20 0.83
AETCD7 404 1.00 5.00 3.96 0.98 247 1.00 5.00 4.10 0.91
AETITPC8 404 1.00 5.00 3.97 1.00 247 1.00 5.00 4.07 0.95
AETITPC9 404 1.00 5.00 4.11 0.92 247 1.00 5.00 4.22 0.87
AETITPC10 404 1.00 5.00 4.19 0.92 247 2.00 5.00 4.35 0.81
(continued)
2135
2136
Table (continued)
All Female students
N Min Max Mean SD N Min Max Mean SD
© 2018 AFAANZ
AETCPD8 404 1.00 5.00 4.17 0.91 247 2.00 5.00 4.32 0.79
AETCD8 404 1.00 5.00 3.99 0.95 247 1.00 5.00 4.06 0.91
AETCD9 404 1.00 5.00 3.91 0.99 247 1.00 5.00 4.04 0.94
AETCPD9 404 1.00 5.00 3.73 1.02 247 1.00 5.00 3.84 0.99
SLA-DA 404 8.00 40.00 27.05 5.74 247 12.00 40.00 27.11 5.45
SLA-SA 404 7.00 35.00 19.29 6.29 247 7.00 35.00 18.55 6.26
SLADM1 404 1.00 5.00 3.77 0.91 247 1.00 5.00 3.89 0.89
SLASM1 404 1.00 5.00 2.68 1.34 247 1.00 5.00 2.60 1.34
SLADM2 404 1.00 5.00 3.55 0.96 247 1.00 5.00 3.59 0.97
SLADS2 404 1.00 5.00 3.29 1.03 247 1.00 5.00 3.27 1.04
SLASM2 404 1.00 5.00 2.44 1.19 247 1.00 5.00 2.32 1.19
SLADM3 404 1.00 5.00 3.18 1.01 247 1.00 5.00 3.17 1.00
SLADS3 404 1.00 5.00 3.56 0.99 247 1.00 5.00 3.57 0.98
SLASM3 404 1.00 5.00 2.90 1.15 247 1.00 5.00 2.81 1.17
SLASS3 404 1.00 5.00 2.98 1.11 247 1.00 5.00 2.88 1.11
SLADM4 404 1.00 5.00 3.54 0.91 247 1.00 5.00 3.55 0.91
SLADS4 404 1.00 5.00 2.85 1.11 247 1.00 5.00 2.77 1.09
SLASM4 404 1.00 5.00 2.45 1.20 247 1.00 5.00 2.31 1.19
SLASS4 403 1.00 5.00 2.99 1.23 247 1.00 5.00 2.89 1.25
SLADS5 404 1.00 5.00 3.30 1.04 247 1.00 5.00 3.30 1.02
SLASM5 403 1.00 5.00 2.86 1.18 246 1.00 5.00 2.74 1.17
Table (continued)
Male students Domestic students International students
N Min Max Mean SD N Min Max Mean SD N Min Max Mean SD
© 2018 AFAANZ
AETCPD1 157 1.00 5.00 3.92 0.93 141 1.00 5.00 4.38 0.84 263 1.00 5.00 3.97 0.88
AETITPC1 157 1.00 5.00 3.89 1.00 141 1.00 5.00 4.30 0.89 263 1.00 5.00 3.98 0.95
AETCD1 157 1.00 5.00 3.93 0.98 141 1.00 5.00 4.37 0.87 263 1.00 5.00 3.99 0.88
AETCPD2 157 1.00 5.00 3.93 1.03 141 1.00 5.00 4.31 0.94 263 1.00 5.00 4.01 0.90
AETCPD3 157 1.00 5.00 3.96 1.00 141 1.00 5.00 4.34 0.98 263 1.00 5.00 4.03 0.92
AETCD2 157 1.00 5.00 3.85 1.07 141 1.00 5.00 4.18 1.07 263 1.00 5.00 3.98 0.95
AETCPD4 157 1.00 5.00 3.96 0.98 141 1.00 5.00 4.31 0.87 263 1.00 5.00 4.08 0.92
AETITPC2 157 1.00 5.00 3.89 1.08 141 1.00 5.00 4.31 1.01 263 1.00 5.00 3.94 0.97
AETITPC3 157 1.00 5.00 3.94 1.00 141 1.00 5.00 4.30 1.01 263 1.00 5.00 3.95 0.90
AETITPC4 157 1.00 5.00 3.86 1.02 141 1.00 5.00 4.30 0.94 263 1.00 5.00 4.00 0.89
AETITPC5 157 1.00 5.00 3.90 1.00 141 1.00 5.00 4.28 0.94 263 1.00 5.00 3.99 0.90
AETCD3 157 1.00 5.00 3.68 1.12 141 1.00 5.00 4.03 1.14 263 1.00 5.00 3.90 0.99
AETCPD5 157 1.00 5.00 3.88 1.00 141 1.00 5.00 4.26 0.93 263 1.00 5.00 4.00 0.93
AETCPD6 157 1.00 5.00 3.80 0.98 141 1.00 5.00 4.02 1.07 263 1.00 5.00 3.91 0.90
AETITPC6 157 1.00 5.00 3.90 0.98 141 1.00 5.00 4.26 0.93 263 1.00 5.00 3.94 0.90
AETCD4 157 1.00 5.00 3.83 1.06 141 1.00 5.00 4.06 1.10 263 1.00 5.00 3.96 0.94
AETITPC7 157 1.00 5.00 3.76 1.03 141 1.00 5.00 4.11 1.00 263 1.00 5.00 3.93 0.94
AETCD5 157 1.00 5.00 3.77 1.02 141 1.00 5.00 4.13 0.98 263 1.00 5.00 3.87 0.92
AETCPD7 157 1.00 5.00 3.78 1.02 141 1.00 5.00 4.17 0.97 263 1.00 5.00 3.91 0.91
AETCD6 157 1.00 5.00 3.69 1.02 141 1.00 5.00 4.20 0.96 263 1.00 5.00 3.89 0.92
AETCD7 157 1.00 5.00 3.75 1.05 141 1.00 5.00 4.12 1.09 263 1.00 5.00 3.88 0.91
AETITPC8 157 1.00 5.00 3.80 1.05 141 1.00 5.00 4.04 1.09 263 1.00 5.00 3.92 0.95
AETITPC9 157 1.00 5.00 3.95 0.98 141 1.00 5.00 4.26 0.94 263 1.00 5.00 4.04 0.91
AETITPC10 157 1.00 5.00 3.93 1.03 141 1.00 5.00 4.33 0.93 263 1.00 5.00 4.11 0.91
(continued)
2137
Table (continued)
2138
Male students Domestic students International students
N Min Max Mean SD N Min Max Mean SD N Min Max Mean SD
AETCPD8 157 1.00 5.00 3.93 1.04 141 1.00 5.00 4.37 0.91 263 1.00 5.00 4.06 0.90
© 2018 AFAANZ
AETCD8 157 1.00 5.00 3.88 1.01 141 1.00 5.00 3.96 1.05 263 1.00 5.00 4.01 0.90
AETCD9 157 1.00 5.00 3.71 1.03 141 1.00 5.00 3.82 1.09 263 1.00 5.00 3.96 0.92
AETCPD9 157 1.00 5.00 3.56 1.05 141 1.00 5.00 3.61 1.13 263 1.00 5.00 3.79 0.95
SLA-DA 157 8.00 40.00 26.96 6.19 141 12.00 40.00 25.64 6.03 263 8.00 40.00 27.81 5.44
SLA-SA 157 7.00 35.00 20.44 6.18 141 7.00 35.00 16.98 6.06 263 7.00 35.00 20.52 6.08
SLADM1 157 1.00 5.00 3.60 0.91 141 1.00 5.00 3.91 0.93 263 1.00 5.00 3.70 0.88
SLASM1 157 1.00 5.00 2.81 1.34 141 1.00 5.00 2.03 1.17 263 1.00 5.00 3.03 1.29
SLADM2 157 1.00 5.00 3.48 0.95 141 1.00 5.00 3.45 1.08 263 1.00 5.00 3.60 0.89
SLADS2 157 1.00 5.00 3.32 1.03 141 1.00 5.00 2.90 1.12 263 1.00 5.00 3.50 0.92
SLASM2 157 1.00 5.00 2.62 1.17 141 1.00 5.00 2.13 1.15 263 1.00 5.00 2.61 1.18
SLADM3 157 1.00 5.00 3.20 1.03 141 1.00 5.00 3.04 1.13 263 1.00 5.00 3.25 0.94
SLADS3 157 1.00 5.00 3.55 1.00 141 1.00 5.00 3.42 1.09 263 1.00 5.00 3.64 0.92
SLASM3 157 1.00 5.00 3.05 1.10 141 1.00 5.00 2.43 1.19 263 1.00 5.00 3.16 1.04
SLASS3 157 1.00 5.00 3.12 1.09 141 1.00 5.00 2.85 1.25 263 1.00 5.00 3.04 1.02
SLADM4 157 1.00 5.00 3.53 0.92 141 1.00 5.00 3.50 0.92 263 1.00 5.00 3.57 0.91
SLADS4 157 1.00 5.00 2.97 1.15 141 1.00 5.00 2.29 1.12 263 1.00 5.00 3.15 0.99
SLASM4 157 1.00 5.00 2.66 1.18 141 1.00 5.00 1.96 1.06 263 1.00 5.00 2.70 1.19
SLASS4 156 1.00 5.00 3.14 1.18 141 1.00 5.00 2.96 1.34 262 1.00 5.00 3.00 1.16
SLADS5 157 1.00 5.00 3.30 1.06 141 1.00 5.00 3.13 1.22 263 1.00 5.00 3.39 0.91
SLASM5 157 1.00 5.00 3.06 1.18 140 1.00 5.00 2.64 1.32 263 1.00 5.00 2.98 1.08
AETCPD, attribute of effective teacher – class preparation and design; AETITPC, attribute of effective teacher – instructor trait and personal
characteristics; AETCD, attribute of effective teacher – class delivery; SLA-DA, student learning approach – deep approach; SLA-SA, student
learning approach – surface approach; SLADM, student learning approach – deep motive; SLADS, student learning approach – deep strategy;
SLASM, student learning approach – surface motive; SLASS, student learning approach – surface strategy.
The actual descriptions of each item can be found in Appendices III and IV.
Appendix V
Summary of PLS measurement model results testing reliability and convergent
validity – attributes of effective teaching indicators
PLS code Description of indicator Outer loadings T-statistics p Values*
Construct = Attributes of effective teaching; Cronbach’s a = 0.98; composite reliability = 0.98;

AVE = 0.69
AET-CPD1 Illustrates current knowledge of the 0.84 43.52 0.00
subject matter
AET-ITPC1 Is fair when dealing with students 0.81 36.75 0.00
AET-CD1 Creates an atmosphere where 0.83 42.13 0.00
students are comfortable asking
questions
AET-CPD2 Provides information that is 0.87 59.67 0.00
worthwhile and applicable to
students
AET-CPD3 Provides practical examples and 0.84 45.22 0.00
applications
AET-CD2 Communicates and presents 0.84 46.01 0.00
material in a way that is easy to
learn
AET-CPD4 Is well-prepared 0.87 60.24 0.00
AET-ITPC2 Is sincerely interested in student 0.80 32.85 0.00
learning
AET-ITPC3 Is approachable – both in and 0.79 30.86 0.00
outside the classroom
AET-ITPC4 Is passionate and enthusiastic 0.79 28.99 0.00
about teaching
AET-ITPC5 Is passionate and enthusiastic 0.86 48.74 0.00
about subject matter
AET-CD3 Keep students engaged 0.84 48.51 0.00
AET-CPD5 Is organised. 0.86 52.85 0.00
AET-CPD6 Sets expectations about the grading 0.83 43.48 0.00
contract up front
AET-ITPC6 Is accessible – both in and outside 0.81 31.17 0.00
the classroom
AET-CD4 Regularly gives clear and 0.85 49.41 0.00
constructive feedback to students
AET-ITPC7 Achieves a positive rapport with 0.87 54.84 0.00
students
AET-CD5 Challenges students to think 0.74 24.91 0.00
AET-CPD7 Sets expectations about course/unit 0.79 32.89 0.00
content
AET-CD6 Encourages students to excel and 0.83 40.36 0.00
set high standards
AET-CD7 Is able to teach to different levels 0.84 44.53 0.00
and experiences
(continued)
© 2018 AFAANZ
Table (continued)
PLS code Description of indicator Outer loadings T-statistics p Values*
AET-ITPC8 Is flexible 0.79 30.88 0.00

AET-ITPC9 Is self-confident 0.86 50.59 0.00
AET-ITPC10 Is professional 0.84 42.13 0.00
AET-CPD8 Meets course/unit objectives 0.81 30.30 0.00
AET-CD8 Is effective at selling the values of 0.88 61.28 0.00
the class
AET-CD9 Uses diverse teaching and delivery 0.84 50.24 0.00
mechanisms
AET-CPD9 Incorporates research into 0.83 35.27 0.00
classroom learning
*Significant at p < 0.001.
Appendix VI
Summary of PLS measurement model results testing reliability and convergent
validity – deep and surface approaches to learning indicators
PLS Code Description of item Outer loadings T-Stat p-Values*
Construct = Deep approach to learning; Cronbach’s a = 0.87; composite reliability = 0.89;

AVE = 0.51
SLA-DM1 I find that at times studying gives 0.69 25.62 0.00

me a feeling of deep personal
satisfaction.
SLA-DM2 I feel that virtually any topic can be 0.72 22.56 0.00
highly interesting once I get into it
SLA-DM3 I find that studying academic 0.75 29.95 0.00
topics can at times be as exciting
as a good novel or movie
SLA-DM4 I work hard at my studies because I 0.77 32.22 0.00
find the material interesting
SLA-DS2 I find most new topics interesting 0.68 16.08 0.00
and often spend extra time trying
to obtain more information about
them.
SLA-DS3 I test myself on important topics 0.72 20.99 0.00
until I understand them
completely
SLA-DS4 I spend a lot of my free time finding 0.67 16.11 0.00
out more about interesting topics
which have been discussed in
different classes
(continued)
© 2018 AFAANZ
Table (continued)
PLS Code Description of item Outer loadings T-Stat p-Values*
SLA-DS5 I make a point of looking at most 0.71 21.30 0.00

of the suggested readings that go
with the lectures
Construct = Surface approach to learning; Cronbach’s a = 0.87; composite reliability = 0.90;
AVE = 0.56
SLA-SM1 My aim is to pass the unit while 0.67 4.89 0.00
doing as little work as possible
SLA-SM2 I do not find this unit very 0.84 5.13 0.00
interesting so I keep my work to
the minimum
SLA-SM3 I find I can get by in most 0.71 5.19 0.00
assessments by memorising key
sections rather than trying to
understand them
SLA-SM4 I find it is not helpful to study 0.80 5.13 0.00
topics in depth. It confuses and
wastes time, when all you need is
a passing acquaintance with
topics
SLA-SM5 I see no point in learning material 0.74 4.55 0.00
which is not likely to be in the
examination
SLA-SS3 I generally restrict my study to 0.73 4.10 0.00
what is specifically set as I think it
is unnecessary to do anything
extra
SLA-SS4 I believe that lecturers shouldn’t 0.73 5.32 0.00
expect students to spend
significant amounts of time
studying material everyone knows
won’t be examined
*Significant at p < 0.001.
© 2018 AFAANZ
Appendix VII
Discriminant validity assessments
LO – overall SAL – deep SAL – surface

AET-effective teaching satisfaction approach approach
Panel A: Fornell–Larcker criterion
0.83
0.44 1.00
0.44 0.30 0.71
0.01 0.13 0.08 0.75
Panel B: cross-loading matrix
AET-CPD1 0.84 0.36 0.35 0.02

AET-ITPC1 0.81 0.38 0.30 0.03
AET-CD1 0.83 0.38 0.42 0.06
AET-CPD2 0.87 0.40 0.36 0.01
AET-CPD3 0.84 0.36 0.39 0.03
AET-CD2 0.84 0.34 0.37 0.02
AET-CPD4 0.87 0.38 0.36 0.01
AET-ITPC2 0.80 0.35 0.36 0.06
AET-ITPC3 0.79 0.38 0.39 0.09
AET-ITPC4 0.79 0.32 0.39 0.07
AET-ITPC5 0.86 0.37 0.37 0.05
AET-CD3 0.84 0.39 0.36 0.06
AET-CPD5 0.86 0.37 0.37 0.02
AET-CPD6 0.83 0.33 0.36 0.04
AET-ITPC6 0.81 0.35 0.36 0.08
AET-CD4 0.85 0.34 0.37 0.07
AET-ITPC7 0.87 0.38 0.32 0.07
AET-CD5 0.74 0.36 0.44 0.08
AET-CPD7 0.79 0.34 0.38 0.09
AET-CD6 0.83 0.36 0.36 0.07
AET-CD7 0.84 0.35 0.36 0.04
AET-ITPC8 0.79 0.35 0.32 0.03
AET-ITPC9 0.86 0.36 0.33 0.06
AET-ITPC10 0.84 0.36 0.39 0.03
AET-CPD8 0.81 0.33 0.37 0.01
AET-CD8 0.88 0.35 0.37 0.00
AET-CD9 0.84 0.38 0.36 0.07
AET-CPD9 0.83 0.39 0.35 0.01
OVERALLSAT 0.44 1.00 0.30 0.13
SLA-DM1 0.48 0.28 0.69 0.07
SLA-DM2 0.31 0.21 0.72 0.04
SLA-DM3 0.29 0.27 0.75 0.08
SLA-DM4 0.31 0.22 0.77 0.01
SLA-DS2 0.26 0.16 0.68 0.12
(continued)
© 2018 AFAANZ
Table (continued)
LO – overall SAL – deep SAL – surface

AET-effective teaching satisfaction approach approach
SLA-DS3 0.32 0.13 0.72 0.09

SLA-DS4 0.15 0.12 0.67 0.30
SLA-DS5 0.24 0.23 0.71 0.11
SLA-SM1 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.67
SLA-SM2 0.07 0.14 0.00 0.84
SLA-SM3 0.01 0.11 0.14 0.71
SLA-SM4 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.8
SLA-SM5 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.74
SLA-SS3 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.73
SLA-SS4 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.73
The bold above shows that the indicators have higher loadings with their respective construct
than with any other construct.
Key to the codes: used to identify each item.
© 2018 AFAANZ
Copyright of Accounting & Finance is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

Retrieve 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Retrieve 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Retrieve 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accounting & Finance 60 (2020) 2099–2143

Accounting students’ perceptions of eﬀective teaching

Belete J. Bobe , Barry J. Cooper

Key words: Eﬀective teaching; Approach to learning; Learning outcome; Two-

JEL classiﬁcation: M41

We would like to thank the participants of the Department of Accounting, Deakin

In the current corporatised and rapidly changing higher education landscape

Two streams of accounting education research have independently examined

PLS-SEM statistical technique. The results of the PLS-SEM structural model

Figure 1 Overview of the conceptual model.

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

2.1. Student satisfaction with their learning experience

Student learning outcome in higher education is a complex and

two categories: 10 cognitive and 5 aﬀective learning outcomes. The

2.2. Qualities of eﬀective teaching

There is no universal consensus on the exact deﬁnition of ‘eﬀective teaching’

Quality/attribute of teacher Ranking by students Ranking by faculty

Illustrates current knowledge of the subject 1 3

Adapted from Simendinger et al. (2009).

Other attributes identiﬁed in the literature as most important from the

To have diﬀerent perspectives on a quality issue by diﬀerent stakeholders

2.3. The student approaches to learning framework

Approach Motive Strategy

Surface Instrumental: due to fear of failure, Reproductive: narrow target limited to

2.4. Research model and hypotheses

The characteristics of the attributes of eﬀective teaching and the student

2.4.1. Eﬀective teaching and approaches to learning

The consensus in the education literature is that teaching is eﬀective when it

teaching and assessment result in a surface approach where students use

H1a: Eﬀective teaching is positively associated with a deep approach to learning

H2a: A deep learning approach is positively associated with the satisfaction of

Scholars have indicated that eﬀective teaching is likely to lead to a better

H3: Eﬀective teaching is positively related to the satisfaction of second-year

3.1. Measurement of variables

3.2. Data collection

Survey data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire. The

Grouping base Group No. %

Gender Female 247 61.1

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Test of measurement model

The reliability and validity of the indicators of each construct (latent)

hypothesised relationships). We assessed individual item reliability by exam-

4.2. Results from descriptive statistics

4.2.1. Attributes of eﬀective accounting teachers

Table 4 below is a summary of the top 10 attributes of eﬀective accounting

4.2.2. Approaches to learning

4.3. Structural model (test of hypotheses)

Figure 2 below depicts the results of the PLS structural model.

Approach to Female Male Domestic International Financial

Deep approach 27.05 27.11 26.96 25.64 27.81 27.18 26.94

Hypothesis 1 predicted that eﬀective teaching would be associated positively

Panel A: Full sample

Description of path and expected sign b t p

Eﬀective teaching -> deep approach (H1a+) 0.44 11.38 0.00*

Panel B: Gender and cultural background subsamples

Female students Male students Domestic students International students

Description of path and expected sign b t p b t p b t p b t p

Panel B: Gender and cultural background subsamples

Female students Male students Domestic students International students