|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|359395||620159||2015||21 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
• In the U.S., accounting textbook revisions have accelerated over the past 28 years.
• U.S. accounting faculty believe that textbook revision cycles should be slower.
• Textbook authors see more value in frequent revisions than do non-authors.
• More experienced and female teachers are more likely to consider students' costs.
• Opportunities to decrease student textbook costs have expanded in recent years.
In response to increasing concerns about the cost of university education, we examine one contributor to these costs: the revision cycle of accounting textbooks. We approach the issue from several perspectives. First, by examining copyright dates for 69 accounting textbooks, we find that accounting textbooks have been revised at an increasing rate over the past 28 years. Second, through a survey of faculty, we find that that faculty across accounting sub-disciplines believe that revision cycles should be slower. Faculty who teach sub-disciplines that change more slowly, such as cost accounting, prefer longer revision cycles than do faculty who teach in rapidly changing fields. In addition, faculty who are not textbook authors see less value in frequent textbook revisions. Regarding cost to students, more experienced faculty, female faculty, and faculty who are not authors are more likely to consider the price students pay for textbooks as an important factor in the textbook-selection decision. Third, an examination of published reviews of accounting textbooks indicates that none refer to the cost to students, and few address whether the revised edition is worthwhile. This multi-pronged approach lays the foundation for several recommendations for accounting faculty in these changing times, including our suggestion for the development of a new system of textbook material creation and delivery that would be free to accounting students.
Journal: Journal of Accounting Education - Volume 33, Issue 3, September 2015, Pages 198–218