1 s2.0 S147281172300085X Main

The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100847
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The International Journal of Management Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme
Accounting education and digitalization: A new perspective after

the pandemic
Patrizia Tettamanzi, Valentina Minutiello, Michael Murgolo *
School of Economics and Management, LIUC - Cattaneo University, Italy
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: This study investigates how the Italian academic system tackled the COVID-19 emergency, in
Accounting Education terms of teachers’ perceptions of how to provide an effective educational experience during this
Pandemic unprecedented situation. We analyse the degree of academic digitalization, trying to identify the
Blended Learning
main changes in teaching methods introduced because of the COVID-19 pandemic, underlining
ESG
Distance Learning
those that could also be effective in the ‘new normal’.
COVID-19 We developed an explorative survey for professors of Italian universities, analysed by means of
Universities PLS-SEM techniques. 286 out of 877 identified academics took part in the survey (i.e., 32.61% of
Digitalization the total population). Due to the nature of the results gathered, we proposed a two-level analysis.
First, we implemented a syntactic analysis on the open and closed questions to emphasize the
impacts that the pandemic had on instructors and academia as a whole. Second, by implementing
SmartPLS procedures, we analysed in depth the quantitative data gathered.
Among the main findings of our study, we observed that digitalization and distance-learning
played a secondary role in influencing the organization of educational programs compared
with the learning experience and its primary role in defining student performance.
In short, this study represents one of the very first attempts to analyse the adoption of new
teaching practices following an anomalous disruption to our daily lives (i.e., the COVID-19
pandemic). It highlights the need to shift towards active learning approaches in higher educa
tion, even within a blended-learning or distance-learning environment, emphasizing a student-
centred teaching method and its experientialism. This should lead – from a managerial point of
view of academia – to a lower ‘churn rate’ and – from an educational standpoint for policy-makers
– to a decrease in dropouts due to lack of interest and a poor learning experience.
1. Introduction
The health emergency that swept the planet has highlighted the need to plan for the future to foresee changes that will involve
business, management and accounting studies at both a professional and educational level (Apostolou et al., 2020; Hosseini et al.,
2021; Mantai & Calma, 2022; Samkin & Schneider, 2014). Italy was one of the first western countries to seriously suffer from the
dramatic spread of COVID-19, and it was also one of the pioneers in facing this global crisis through the introduction of remote working
procedures so as not to bring all the country’s economic activities to a halt (Davico et al., 2021). The provision of academic activities
was also guaranteed through the form of distance learning. This teaching strategy was widely used to tackle lockdowns and human
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mmurgolo@liuc.it (M. Murgolo).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100847
Received 6 July 2022; Received in revised form 1 June 2023; Accepted 5 July 2023
Available online 12 July 2023
1472-8117/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
P. Tettamanzi et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100847
contact limitations during the COVID-19 pandemic and implies a new physical setting for the learning process.
Other global phenomena, such as rapid technological development, cyber attacks and artificial intelligence (AI), the emergence of
international capital markets and the increasing importance of sustainability standards, are also having an impact on the field of
management in general, and on accounting education (AE) in particular (Sollosy & McInerney, 2022). It has been shown that the
pandemic itself played a catalyst role in digital solution enhancement and diffusion across all industries and workplaces, including
education (Sollosy & McInerney, 2022). This ‘forced’ technological expansion in higher education brought about by the pandemic has
brought positive and negative aspects with it, ultimately initiating significant (and, potentially, permanent) lifestyle changes (Bish
op-Monroe et al., 2022).
Based on these trends, it is of paramount importance to anticipate the impact of the expected changes in business practices and,
consequently, to redefine the necessary teaching methods so as not to persevere in the use of obsolete practices that have no response in
the future reality (Coovadia & Ackermann, 2020; Frizon & Eugénio, 2022; Howieson, 2003). Accounting and management educators
are called upon to anticipate the emerging trends, adapting their courses and the teaching methods used to respond to these needs and
adequately prepare students for the new skills that the job market will require. Traditional teaching methods – geared towards more
cooperative and interactive working environments – might not appear to be relevant to these purposes. It is fundamental to identify
and introduce new approaches, instruments and technologies to guarantee the effectiveness of the learning process along the academic
‘value chain’ (Comoli et al., 2023; de Villiers, 2010; Duff & Mladenovic, 2015; Elliott & Jacobson, 2002; Hosseini et al., 2021; Wilkin,
2022). Hence, the crucial role of research in the field of higher education in business is evident (Frizon & Eugénio, 2022). Several
studies have already explored the relationship between student performance and learning styles, suggesting how they need to be
adapted to the context in which they are used to be most effective (Frizon & Eugénio, 2022; Visser et al., 2006). There is, however, still
a lack of research into the adaptation of teaching activities to current and future contexts. Given availability of resources that would
have been scarce in the past, especially during disruptions, such as a pandemic or a crisis, it is relevant to further investigate the
adequacy and acceptance of digitalization as a means and possible alternative for educational training (Sollosy & McInerney, 2022).
This study is designed to look into these aspects. Through the administration of a questionnaire to Italian university professors, we
aimed at investigating how the Italian academic system (i.e., at university level) tackled the emergency in terms of teacher perceptions
and actual measures introduced throughout the country to provide an educational action that would deal as effectively as possible with
an unprecedented situation (i.e., COVID-19 pandemic). In particular, in our study, teaching and learning are presented as recipro
cating, with one changing as the other changes or not, or so one might suppose. Hence, they will be considered in a complementary
fashion and based on the assumption that teaching methods do influence the learning process and vice versa.
Our study aims to achieve the following research objectives:
1. to determine through an explorative survey the real impact of the pandemic on the learning experience during this particular
historical period and, as a result, on students’ performance;
2. to analyse the degree of academic digitalization in order to determine the role it played in the pandemic, and could play in the long
run;
3. to identify the main changes in teaching methods that have been introduced due to the pandemic and the need to keep them
permanently even after this disruptive event.
Although results might be extended across the entire ‘business administration’ field, the focus of analysis was mostly on the ac
counting area. In fact, managing to answer several calls for papers (e.g., Henadirage & Gunarathne, 2023; Tharapos & Marriott, 2020)
on the need to conduct more studies on accounting education, our study considers its evolution in light of the technological
change/digitalization, which is inevitably influencing teaching activity and the accounting and/or consulting profession.
The structure of this paper is as follows. First, the relevant literature that comprised our background and informed our study is
considered. Second, the methodology used to quantitatively and qualitatively analyse the gathered data, the profile of the accounting
educators and the universities involved in the study are described. After presenting the analysis and discussion of data, the paper
concludes by proposing some insights concerning potential future paths of management and accounting education (AE).
2. Literature review
The pandemic impacted many economic sectors, including the educational one, which has been struck severely. Generalized
lockdowns caused the closure of universities and campuses, redirecting all academic activities and ancillary service provision ‘off
campus’.
The accounting faculty, therefore, had to change their consolidated teaching methods and research activity procedures overnight,
trying to discover and develop alternative modes of delivery that were as fast and as effective as possible. Although these challenges
have been spread around the globe, the way in which universities managed them, as well as the duration of restrictions, has varied and
continues to vary on multiple levels: the individual, the faculty/department, the university, and the nation as a whole (Hosseini et al.,
2021; Imran et al., 2023; Sangster et al., 2020; Sarfraz et al., 2022). The need to depict the actual situation of accounting education
worldwide stands out, in terms of the state of the art, the ‘forced’ digitalization of activities, the magnitude of the effect of which on
future academic activities is yet to be understood, as well as prospective paths and dynamics (Sarfraz et al., 2022). With this objective
in mind, the following paragraphs synthesize the related extant literature, making the research gap this study aims to explore emerge
(in section 2.4).
2
2.1. The role and evolution of accounting education
The objective of accounting education (AE) and training is to produce competent practitioners who make a positive contribution to
their professional body and society throughout their lives (IFAC, 2003; Barac, 2009; Wilkin, 2022). Accounting academics work on the
creation of new knowledge to be applied in the ‘real world’ in order to solve its main problems and criticalities, and fully satisfy the
needs of future clients as accounting professionals (Bakre, 2006; Lubbe, 2014; Paisey & Paisey, 2017; Sarfraz et al., 2022). In addition
to this, accounting educators are required to: (a) update their knowledge following the evolution and proliferation of regulatory
standards, (b) introduce innovative teaching practices that are in harmony with past ones, (c) manage increasingly numerous classes
with students who are diverse in terms of culture and background, (d) develop research in the subject field, while managing the
problems related to the scarcity of funds, and (e) coordinate with the educational requirements requested by professional bodies
(James, 2008; Wright & Chalmers, 2010; Evans et al., 2010; de Villiers & Dumay, 2014; O’Connell et al., 2015; Samkin & Stainbank,
2016; Mulder & van Oordt, 2016; Duff et al., 2020; Sollosy & McInerney, 2022). Based on the assertion that accounting curricula
should be updated regularly to conform to workplace requirements (Hassall et al., 2005; Mantai & Calma, 2022), accounting educators
must, in drawing up their study programs, seek input from the professionals who actually confront reality and business practices
(Rebele, 2002; Sarfraz et al., 2022).
2.2. The catalyst role of the pandemic for digital solutions in education
2.2.1. COVID-19 pandemic and considerations on necessary educational change

In December 2019, an outbreak of pneumonia of unknown origin was reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. The global spread
of this severe acute respiratory syndrome and the thousands of deaths caused by the (then called) coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led
the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare a pandemic in March 2020. To date, the world has paid a high toll in terms of human
lives lost, economic repercussions and lifestyle changes (Ciotti et al., 2022; Mantai & Calma, 2022). In fact, during the pandemic, in
order to immediately fight COVID-19, generalized restrictions on human contact were introduced by law, leading to lockdowns of
facilities and, therefore, of universities as well. In this context, the role played by artificial intelligence (AI) in the management of the
pandemic was crucial (Ciotti et al., 2022; Sarfraz et al., 2022); in the absence of AI, most activities – pertaining mainly to the tertiary
and quaternary sectors – would have faced a tragic interruption. In fact, the pandemic does seem to have played a catalyst role in the
widespread diffusion and enhancement of technologies and videoconferencing tools. Yet, in some industries, such as the ones per
taining to higher education, side effects did not fail to emerge (Aldahray, 2022; Sollosy & McInerney, 2022). In the aftermath of the
pandemic, and as a result of the impacts associated with digitalization, the findings pertaining to future expectations in business and
accounting education have been contradictory (Aldahray, 2022; Petrolo et al., 2023; Sollosy & McInerney, 2022; Tharapos & Marriott,
2020).
2.2.2. The impacts of digitalization as a tool for educational experience

As reference institutions, universities face critical challenges, stemming from several factors. The technological revolution, with the
consequent spread of online learning and the massive use of digital learning technologies, is certainly an example (Fischer, 2012;
Halabi, 2005; Sollosy & McInerney, 2022). Further problems concern the growing competition with private education providers, who
normally have different, yet efficient, cost structures and prices (Arvanitakis, 2014; Guthrie & Parker, 2014), as well as the growing
number of free online resources, such as YouTube and so forth (Arvanitakis, 2014; Freeman & Hancock, 2013; Guthrie et al., 2013, pp.
9–22; Guthrie & Parker, 2014; Mantai & Calma, 2022).
To cope with these challenges, some authors have highlighted how it has become necessary to move from traditional teaching
methods to a more student-centred approach, where students benefit from active participation in the overall learning process (Del
laportas & Hassall, 2013; Leveson, 2004; Slabbert et al., 2009; Sollosy & McInerney, 2022; Visser et al., 2006). For instance, rapid IT
developments are increasingly exposing accountants to routine changes in their activities, seriously challenging their professional
competence (Sollosy & McInerney, 2022). However, IT is still not widely and homogenously integrated into the accounting curriculum
(Ainsworth, 2001; Barac, 2009; Sarfraz et al., 2022). Moreover, not all academic facilities are well equipped with regard to IT, with
heterogeneous situations worldwide (Wilkin, 2022). In a period, such as the current one, the importance of structurally integrating
data processing and technological competency has become clear not only for the provision of educational services, but also in order to
provide future accountants with pertinent tools. Yet, we must not forget the balance that should also be emphasized between technical
and soft skills (de Villiers, 2010; Mantai & Calma, 2022; Powell & McGuigan, 2020); one of the future challenges for accounting
educators will indeed be to foster the latter within the boundaries of technological environments and through digital devices.
Given the huge impact that the technological revolution evidently has on education (which we could also refer to as ‘teachnology’),
for the purposes of this study, the definition of ‘digitalization’ in education and academia adopted is the current level of educational
institutions with regards to (a) IT tool availability, (b) new software package introduction, (c) Internet connection issues, and (d)
availability and appropriateness of study stations for digital learning (Berikol & Killi, 2021).
2.2.3. The concepts of ‘remote learning’ and ‘digital learning’

Research in the remote and digital learning domain continues to be prompted as a result of different and contradictory findings
(Papageorgiou & Halabi, 2014; Mali & Lim, 2021; Wilkin, 2022). Studies in accounting (but also in education in general) and student
performance mainly involve face-to-face teaching techniques, leaving open the debate on the most recent methods introduced. Ac
counting educators must consider the specific characteristics that come from students belonging to different generations. A
3
much-discussed example in the literature concerns the so-called ‘Millennial Generation’, made up of individuals born between 1982
and 2004 (Bullen et al., 2001; Howe & Strauss, 1991; Sandeen, 2008). This generation is much more inclined than previous ones to use
digital tools also for educational purposes (Laurillard, 2002; Mali & Lim, 2021; Prensky, 2001; Spector et al., 2014), a characteristic
that accounting educators must, therefore, take into consideration in carrying out their activities (Bullen et al., 2001; Gros et al., 2012).
A clarification of the different ways of delivering education is worth proposing (see also Table 1, where learning delivery ap
proaches have been categorized and systematized according to the extant and most relevant literature). Under the two more-widely
mentioned areas (i.e., remote and digital learning settings), we might indeed find other teaching method nuances (Le Cunff, 2022). The
terms ‘distance learning’, ‘e-learning’, ‘computer-based learning’ (CBL), ‘online learning’ and ‘virtual learning’ are rightly or wrongly
used interchangeably. However, the last four would fall under the umbrella concept of ‘digital learning’ or, rather, ‘tech
nology-enhanced learning’ whereas ‘distance learning’ or ‘remote learning’ are only related to where the learning process happens. It
is crucial to separate the two areas, since ‘distance learning’ was a necessary teaching approach due to lockdowns and human contact
restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas ‘technology-enhanced learning’ is associated with the phenomenon of the digital
revolution. In short, the learning experience, based on (a) the location, can be onsite or remote (distance), (b) the communication, can
be synchronous or asynchronous, (c) the delivery, can be online or offline, and (d) the device, can be digital or analogue (Berikol &
Killi, 2021; Sollosy & McInerney, 2022). For the purposes of our study, we adopted a hybrid definition to determine our construct,
Table 1
Overall spectrum of learning approaches as of 2023.
TYPE OF LEARNING APPROACH DEFINITION RELEVANT
REFERENCES
A. TRADITIONAL LEARNING The practice of delivering teaching in a classroom setting. There is an educator who Putz et al. (2018)
moderates and regulates the flow of information and knowledge. The educator, then, Fernández-Mesa et al.
expects the students to deepen their knowledge through written exercises and self-study at (2022)
home. In face-to-face instruction scenarios, the primary source of information is still the
educator. It is generally characterized by a passive delivery, where the learner absorbs the
information the instructor provides.
B. REMOTE (OR DISTANCE) The delivery of educational activities with students who may not always be physically Arbaugh (2014)
LEARNING present at school or where the learner and the teacher are separated in both time and Henadirage and
distance. This practice, which might nowadays be supported by technology, is so named Gunarathne (2023)
due to where the learning process takes place.
C. DIGITAL (OR TECHNOLOGY- Umbrella concept associated with the phenomenon of digital revolution. This concept is in López Gavira and
ENHANCED) LEARNING continuous expansion. Some of the specific learning delivery modes (and the most Omoteso (2013)
widespread), which could also overlap, are explained below (under C.1, C.2, C.3 and C.4). Hettiarachchi et al. (2023)
C.1. E-LEARNING A learning system based on formalized teaching but with the help of electronic resources. Arbaugh et al. (2010)
While teaching can be based in or out of the classroom, the use of computers and the Maldonado et al. (2023)
Internet forms the major component of this practice. The delivery of education is made to a
large number of recipients at the same or different times. The emphasis is on the cloud
system that generally gathers all the educational resources. It generally takes place
asynchronously.
C.2. COMPUTER-BASED LEARNING This term is used for any kind of learning which happens through the support of computers. Ktoridou et al. (2018)
(CBL) This practice makes use of the interactive elements of the computer applications and Januszwski & Grzeszczak,
software, and the ability to present any type of media to the users. CBL is characterized by 2021
the ‘potential’ advantage of users learning at their own pace and without the need for an
instructor to be physically present.
C.3. ONLINE LEARNING A method of education whereby students learn in a fully virtual environment. It refers to an Drennan et al. (2005)
Internet-based learning setting that can connect online – and, therefore, synchronously – Petrolo et al. (2023)
students of diverse backgrounds who boast different perspectives. Mostly prevalent in
higher education, it enables students from different geographical areas to engage with an
academic institution and other students, learning flexibly and (possibly) at their own pace.
C.4. VIRTUAL LEARNING A virtual learning environment (VLE) in educational technology is a web-based platform De Lange et al. (2003)
which supports, through digital activities, some aspects of courses of study, usually within Petrolo et al. (2023)
educational institutions. VLE usually allows an institution to report on participation. The
stress, for this practice, is on its integration in institutional systems, providing teachers,
learners, parents and others involved in education with complementary information, tools
and resources to support and enhance educational delivery and management.
D. BLENDED LEARNING Also known as technology-mediated instruction or mixed-mode learning, it represents an Arbaugh et al. (2010)
educational approach which combines online educational materials and opportunities for Imran et al. (2023)
interaction online with physical classroom-based methods. While students still attend
brick-and-mortar school with a teacher present, face-to-face classroom practices are
combined with computer-mediated activities regarding content and delivery. It is
commonly used in professional development and training settings.
E. STUDENT-CENTRED LEARNING This practice broadly encompasses methods of teaching that shift the focus of instruction Welsh and Dehler (2013)
from the teacher to the student, developing learner autonomy and independence by putting Mousa and Arslan (2023)
responsibility in the hands of students. Through a more active process, this approach
focuses on skills and practices that enable lifelong learning and independent problem-
solving. In so doing, the learning experience is ideally tailored to each student’s need and
interests, acknowledging, therefore, the student voice as central to the process itself:
students choose what, when and how they will learn.
4
since students were obliged to attend classes remotely and through digital devices. Moreover, the categorization of the learning ap
proaches in Table 1 should be seen as a subjective attempt to synthesize and clarify some ‘key’ definitions pertaining to educational
sciences which, in any case, remain dynamic in nature.
Some of the already recognized factors that might influence academic performance are age, gender, prior accounting knowledge,
mathematics background and academic aptitude (Deegan & Unerman, 2011). It is not clear, however, whether these traits would still
be as relevant as they appear to be in a remote environment and delivered through digital tools. It is expected that they might be
intertwined with other features when detected in a completely different setting. For instance, previous studies report that students with
no prior accounting knowledge who completed their course through CBL (i.e., computer-based learning) achieved a significantly
higher test mark than the face-to-face teaching group (Andrade et al., 2022; Halabi et al., 2010). However, this was no longer the case
when the students had prior accounting knowledge, nor was it significant based on their gender.
‘Distance learning’, on the other hand, includes the use of various activities and technologies in a virtual classroom, which can be
synchronous or asynchronous, such as video camera, chat rooms, online office hours, and so on (Mali & Lim, 2021; Weil et al., 2014).
Technology-enhanced learning materials, in general, should lead to higher knowledge absorption and retention by the student
(Andrade et al., 2022; Boyce et al., 2001), and to less instructor time per student. The ‘digital learning’ computer-based approach
appears to be more structured and easier to understand since it is commonly made up of small packages, allowing students to progress
through clear phases and giving them the necessary flexibility to choose when to study (Mali & Lim, 2021; McCourt Larres & Radcliffe,
2000). Moreover, recent accounting-based research has demonstrated that CBL can even be used to tailor individual needs and abilities
through AI (Andrade et al., 2022; Berikol & Killi, 2021; Weil et al., 2014).
There are also many drawbacks to this approach, however, such as development cost and usage of digital materials, computer
dominance over its primary function as a supportive tool, direct contact loss and difficulties in making personal connections, frus
trations with online technologies, lack of proper computer equipment, connectivity issues, and AI inability to deal with unexpected
learning problems (Ali, 2020; Andrade et al., 2022; Halabi et al., 2010). Furthermore, even the environment where learning takes place
must be thoroughly scrutinized: ‘digital learning’ and ‘remote learning’ could put student concentration at stake if the surroundings are
not appropriate. Furthermore, numerous authors have compared the effectiveness of distance learning with respect to traditional
lessons, reporting conflicting results: in some cases, distance learning was effective (Dellana et al., 2000; Iverson et al., 2005; Jones
et al., 2005; Wilkin, 2022), while in others it led to lower results than traditional lessons (Ponzurick et al., 2000; Sollosy & McInerney,
2022; Terry et al., 2001). Powell and McGuigan (2020) contend that the ongoing reliance on digital technologies and virtual learning
strips accounting education of its richness and complexity: a virtual learning setting simply fails to replace the intricacy and necessary
informal spontaneity of human connection and interaction.
2.3. A possible solution to the new challenges in accounting education: the ‘blended-learning’ approach and learner-centred education
At this point in time, it is logical to accept technologies as essential tools throughout the whole educational chain (Ackermann,
2021). Blended learning design could result in a winning and successful approach to the ultimate objectives and scope of accounting
education. It must be noted that ‘blended learning’ means considering all techniques or activities added to traditional methods, even
synchronous or asynchronous supplemental ones (Ali, 2020; Müller & Wulf, 2022; Prinsloo & van Rooyen, 2007). It could, therefore,
imply integrating face-to-face learning with online learning activities by combining their different strengths (Garrison & Kanuka,
2004; Müller & Wulf, 2022; Wong et al., 2014). Different tools and activities (both synchronous and asynchronous) can be used by
educators (e.g., lectures, podcasts, vodcasts, quizzes and voice-over-PowerPoint) so as to effectively reach their educational objectives
in a multifaceted fashion (Graham et al., 2013; Müller & Wulf, 2022), making them ’experiential’ as it was, for instance, a sports event.
International trends in open and distance learning proclaim that ‘blended learning’ is becoming crucial for any level of education
institution that desires to remain relevant in an increasingly contested market. Recent research has demonstrated that this method
helps to promote student-centred learning and to reduce the distance between educators and students. In this way, the flexibility of the
learning process is increased (Aliotta et al., 2008, pp. 33–42; Bayerlein, 2015; Chan & Lee, 2005, pp. 59–71; Müller & Wulf, 2022; Weil
et al., 2014; Wong et al., 2014). Yet the target student might differ at times. Take ‘open universities’ as an example, where students
tend to be already employed and ten or more years older on average than those in ‘school-leaver universities’; learning is generally
different because of this. Moreover, educators often lack the digital skills needed to implement blended learning effectively and, in the
current panorama, struggle to recognize its positive impacts on students (Lai & Hong, 2015; Mali & Lim, 2021; Spector et al., 2014).
These are all relevant elements that must be taken into consideration to effectively define study curricula, emphasizing that also in this
research domain multiple (and different) solutions might be deemed appropriate (Sarfraz et al., 2022). In any case, in contrast to
traditional (i.e. ‘teacher-centred’) learning – in which the teacher plays the primarily ‘active’ role and the students a more ‘passive’,
receptive one, typically in a classical onsite setting – student-centred learning requires students to be active, enabling lifelong learning
and independent problem-solving; these are all skills and practices necessary to navigate today’s world, increasingly plagued by
disruptions. In order to develop learner autonomy and independence in accounting, digital competencies are, therefore, essential
(Cornelius-White, 2015; Sollosy & McInerney, 2022).
2.4. Research questions
Since the actual effects of the pandemic on higher education in general (Ali, 2020; Davico et al., 2021; Sarfraz et al., 2022), and on
accounting education in particular (Mantai & Calma, 2022; Reyneke et al., 2021; Sangster et al., 2020) are still under investigation, we
have been inspired to conduct the present work, to try to depict the current situation of Italian universities during the pandemic with
5
specific regard to business and accounting studies.

Our research investigates the effect of the pandemic on educators and students, and the role played by digitalization (in terms of its
actual level and integration in academia). This should lead to the emergence of ‘best practices’ that have been seen to be efficient and
effective under pandemic conditions and possibly could be considered so even in the ‘new normal’ (Comoli et al., 2023).
For this purpose, the following three Research Questions (RQ) were formulated:
- RQ1. What have the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic been on accounting educators in terms of their perceptions and thoughts in
the long run?
- RQ2. What have the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic been on students in terms of their performance and involvement?
- RQ3. What has the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic been on the learning experience and the role of digitalization in
trying to contain and neutralize it?
After presenting the methodological approach adopted to investigate these research questions, the following sections present the
relevant results, each of them in a specific paragraph.
3. Methodology
3.1. Population identification and profiling
This study is built over four stages.

The first stage consisted in identifying and profiling our research population, which is made up of all ‘active’ academics for the
academic years 2019-20 and 2020-21, working in the Italian scientific-disciplinary sector that refers to Business Administration and
Accounting studies.
We selected all the Italian universities – officially recognized by the Italian Ministry of Education and Research – that provide full
structured courses in Business Administration and Accounting, and collected through their official websites the e-mail contacts of all
the accounting professors involved in academic activities for the aforementioned years.
To be more specific, we collected the contacts of all ‘full’ professors, associate professors, lecturers, researchers and those who
might occasionally provide their expertise in the field through some teaching activities at the university level. We identified 73 Italian
universities (63 of them are ‘traditional’, in the sense that they provide their services through traditional channels, and 10 are so-called
‘online’ universities).
Through their websites we were able to extract 877 e-mail contacts, meaning that our final population was made up of 877 aca
demics, who were contacted.
3.2. Survey design
The second stage was the design of the survey and related administration. We decided to adopt an exploratory survey research
since, to the best of our knowledge, there are no previous studies that aimed to identify the main impacts of the pandemic on the
teaching methods adopted by universities, and, consequently, we concluded that we are still at an early stage of research into this
phenomenon. The survey allowed us to gain preliminary insights into this research area, even if its results are only the basis for further
investigation through other methods such as case studies or interviews (Forza, 2002; Fowler, 1993). Moreover, the survey also proved
to be an appropriate solution for conducting research during the critical period of the pandemic, given the restrictions present (i.e., it
was not possible to conduct face-to-face interviews; people were engaged in adapting their previous lives to this new context).
Thanks to Google Forms, we created a questionnaire divided into five sections:
- 1st section: general description of the research aims and objectives;

- 2nd section: 9 questions to profile our study population, in terms of their role at the university, language used for teaching,
accounting-related disciplines taught, age and gender, university denomination, location as well as whether it was ‘online’ or
traditional and state or private;
- 3rd section: 17 questions, through which we investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academics’ performance, their
perceptions/feelings and the digitalization level of their university;
- 4th section: 12 questions, through which the academics evaluated the pandemic’s impact on their students, also in terms of their
perceived academic performance, and their first perceptions regarding the ‘new’ (contingency enforced) teaching methods;
- 5th section: general feedback request for appreciation concerning the research topic and availability to collaborate in further
analysis on accounting education.
To test the validity and appropriateness of the questions, also in terms of their clarity, we conducted a brief user test before the
official launch, to five randomly selected academics, whose insights proved to be essential.
3.3. Administration of the survey
Once the questionnaire was considered effective for our purpose, we proceeded to the third stage of the defined research process:
6
the survey administration. To do that, we planned three transmissions, about one every 10 days (two of them were reminders of the
first formal questionnaire transmission). The data gathering spanned one month (from January 15th, 2021 to February 13th, 2021).
Out of 877 academics, 286 responded (i.e., 32.61% of the total population). This percentage appears to be above the set limit of
20% that can be found in previous literature (Malhotra & Grover, 1998; Prinsloo & van Rooyen, 2007).
The most significant features of the respondents are shown in the table below (Table 2) to precisely identify the sample on which
this study was conducted.
Our sample consists prevalently of ‘full’ and associate professors as well as lecturers, with a cumulative percentage frequency of
71%. 89% of the sample respondents are over 35 years old, and 58% are male.
Our sample appears to be sufficiently representative of the general Italian situation, having gathered data from universities all
across the country, including both those that provide academic activities only through open-supported learning methods and those
providing education through a traditional approach (i.e., on-campus). Data were collected from both private (27%) and public (73%)
universities.
3.4. Data Re-elaboration and analysis
The fourth and last stage can be synthesized in data re-elaboration and analysis. Due to the nature of the results gathered, we
proposed two different levels of analysis (first qualitative, then quantitative, in line with what has been observed in some relevant
studies in literature – see Matsunaga, 2008; Owusu et al., 2018; Sugahara & Dellaportas, 2018):
1. Through the identification of key questions included in our survey, and by implementing a syntactic analysis, we first grouped and,
then, studied the most pertinent (open and closed) answers. Thanks to some open answers, we tried to emphasize the impacts that
the pandemic had on instructors, and academia as a whole, and the current degree of academic digitalization;
2. Through the definition of logistic regression models and, more specifically, by implementing SmartPLS techniques (a software for
variance-based structural equation modelling – SEM – that uses the partial least squares – PLS – path modelling method) we were
able to analyse our data in depth. Our aim was to identify the interrelations (if any) between university type and its digitalization
level, teacher profile, pandemic effect, learning experience and student performance.
Table 2
Respondents profile.
TYPE OF RESPONDENT FREQ. %
ACADEMIC POSITION
’Full’ Professors 61 21%
Associate Professors 82 29%
Lecturers 76 27%
Researchers, SMEs and others 65 23%
Total 284 100%
LANGUAGE OF COURSES
English 23 8%
Italian 217 76%
Both of them 45 16%
Total 285 100%
GENDER
Female 120 42%
Male 165 58%
Total 285 100%
TYPE OF UNIVERSITY
Private 78 27%
Public 206 73%
Total 284 100%
AGE (X ¼ YEARS)
x < 35 33 12%
35 < x < 50 133 47%
x > 50 120 42%
Total 286 100%
TEACHING METHOD
Online 16 6%
Traditional (i.e. on campus) 268 94%
Total 284 100%
UNIVERSITY LOCATION
Northern Italy 152 53%
Central Italy 54 19%
Islands (Sicily and Sardinia) 18 6%
Southern Italy 62 22%
Total 286 100%
7
This tool, which is essentially grafted on factor analysis and logistic regression modelling, is primarily used to develop theories in
exploratory environments (Hair et al., 2017) and, due to its ability to make analyses more faithful to reality, is considered to have
become the most popular statistical estimation technique in social sciences. This approach turned out to be effective and appropriate in
some recent accounting education (AE) studies as well (Owusu et al., 2018), and has been considered in the literature to be advan
tageous in increasing the efficiency of the proposed model and in decreasing its random error (Matsunaga, 2008). The methodology
can be applied through the application of a wide variety of software packages, from the more widely known (such as Stata and R) to the
more sophisticated and localized-to-the-purpose ones (such as SmartPLS, ADANCO, WarpPLS). For this study, we decided to use
SmartPLS, as it currently represents the most popular and comprehensive software implementation of the PLS-SEM methodology
(Venturini & Mehmetoglu, 2019).
Based on the data collected, we have been able to define, characterize and measure the following constructs:
- University Type (UT): this is estimated through the creation of dummy variables that capture specific features such as whether the
university to which the single observation refers is private or public, online or ‘traditional’ (i.e., with a campus and academic
activities provided), and their locations;
- Teacher Profile (TP): this construct is represented by the measured age range, gender, academic position, and predisposition/
preference to personal interaction;
- Digitalization Level (DL): we gathered data and measured, through a Likert scale, the degree of e-learning switch effectiveness,
level or lack of IT tools, introduction of new software packages, Internet connection issues, and teaching activity redesign;
- Pandemic Effect (PE): this was measured through different dummy and Likert scale variables such as student attendance during the
pandemic, student involvement perception, life quality improvement of teachers, e-learning switch rapidity, and expected learning
objective alteration;
- Learning Experience Effectiveness (LE): following similar approaches, we measured the student assessment of the new teaching
method, student e-learning appreciation, asynchronous activity ‘approval’, preferred optimal teaching solution, blended-teaching
approach effectiveness, and e-learning setting expectations;
- Student Performance (SP): measured through the assessed academic performance of the students recorded by the respondents.
The basic logistic regression formulations were created, taking into consideration, on the one hand, similar propositions of related
studies; on the other, the emerging and previously inexistent nature of the phenomenon in analysis, i.e., COVID-19 pandemic, re-
adapting existing frames to our scope.
The two grafted logistic regression models are:
- logit(D1i) = β1 LEi + β2 UTi + β3 TPi + ε

- logit(D2i) = β4 PEi + β5 DLi + ε
Table 3
Item loadings necessary to attain a composite SCORE FOR the constructs and VIF.
CONSTRUCTS and INDICATORS/ITEMS LOADINGS/WEIGHTS VIF
UNIVERSITY TYPE – UT
The university is ‘online’ or provides educational services through ‘traditional’ methods 0.412 1.077
Location of university (Northern, Central or Southern Italy as well as Italian Islands) 0.879 1.060
TEACHER PROFILE – TP
Gender of educators 0.679 1.250
Preference/predisposition to personal interaction 0.757 1.007
DIGITALIZATION LEVEL – DL
Lack of IT tools 0.867 2.192
Introduction of new software packages 0.507 1.132
Internet connection issues 0.722 1.908
Availability of an appropriate and silent study station 0.691 1.555
PANDEMIC EFFECT – PE
Student involvement perception 0.525 1.161
Life-quality improvement of educators 0.802 1.519
Expected learning objective alteration 0.857 1.566
LEARNING EXPERIENCE EFFECTIVENESS – LE
Student assessment of the ‘new’ teaching method 0.571 1.167
Student e-learning appreciation 0.618 1.488
Asynchronous activity ‘approval’ by students 0.472 1.176
E-learning effectiveness as the only teaching tool 0.720 1.281
Preferred optimal teaching solution by educators 0.508 1.189
Blended-teaching approach effectiveness 0.519 1.215
E-learning ‘settling’ expectations 0.495 1.199
STUDENT PERFORMANCE – SP
Assessed academic performance of the students recorded by the educators 1.000 1.000
8
where, D1i represents the first dependent variable in our model and is marked with ‘SP’ (i.e., Student Performance), and D2i is the
second dependent variable and is marked with ‘LE’ (i.e., Learning Experience Effectiveness). Based on the data at our disposal, we
chose the recommended number of arrows (i.e., the possible direct connections and/or existing relationships between the chosen
constructs) for this kind of analysis (Hair et al., 2017): in fact, the level of sophistication of the model can be augmented only when
substantiable with a conspicuous number of observations (sample size). Having said that, we did not want to draw out all the possible
determinants of student performance – which is still an open question – but the impact that only specific variables have/had (if any) on
it, namely the (1) pandemic, the (2) level of digitalization and (3) university/educator characteristics. The results of the indicator/item
loadings illustrate that the chosen items (Table 3) were appropriate measures for their respective construct, as most of their factor
loadings exceeded the 0.4 minimum threshold (Hulland, 1999). In fact, high outer loadings (also commonly called ‘indicator reli
ability’) on a construct indicate that the associated indicators have much in common, which is captured by the construct. The outer
loadings of all indicators should, at least, be statistically significant – indicators with very low outer loadings (below 0.4) should, in any
case, be eliminated from the construct (Hair et al., 2017).
Furthermore, the reliability of each construct was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, and the Fornell & Larcker measure of composite
reliability. As shown in Table 4, reliability scores for the constructs were satisfactory overall (Nunnally, 1978), as were the convergent
validity tests, conducted using the values of the average variance extracted (AVE) by the identified constructs: for a validity construct,
the rule of thumb is to have at least 50% of the total variance explained by the items within the construct (Owusu et al., 2018). Table 5
provides the results of the discriminant validity tests. In this regard, the correlations between the various constructs appear to be lower
than the square root of AVE scores for the same constructs; this test is essential in order to understand if the various items in each of the
constructs measure that particular construct exactly.
Then, we offer the statistical indicators for significance and reliability of the presented model in line with Hair et al.’s (2017)
prescriptions.
Our model becomes stable after only 10 iterations (which are well under the maximum accepted of 300). The outer loadings and
Rho values for internal consistency reliability of the defined indicators are generally greater than 0.7 (only ‘university’ and ‘teacher
profile’ constructs do not conform to the threshold defined for Rho). Conversely, HTMT tends (in 14 cases out of 15) to settle under the
established threshold values (i.e., 0.9). Furthermore, as far as collinearity statistics are concerned, each item chosen to represent the
constructs of our model has a lower than 5 variance inflation factor (VIF), meaning that there are no multicollinearity issues in the set
of selected items.
Table 3 reports on data pertaining to the validity of the indicators for the constructs chosen so as to make the model proposed robust
by means of PLS-SEM methodology implementation (see section 4.3. for the related results). It shows how the different constructs, in
terms of their indicators, were determined and their reliability. From a different standpoint (Hair et al., 2017), Table 4 also conveys a
conservative measure of reliability but, in this context, pertaining to the construct itself. In fact, when analysing and assessing the
measures’ internal consistency reliability, the true reliability usually lies between Cronbach’s alpha (representing the lower bound)
and the composite reliability (representing the upper bound). To conclude, Table 5 shows the extent to which a construct is truly
distinct from the other constructs by empirical standards (i.e., their discriminant validity). It implies that a construct is unique and
exactly captures a phenomenon which is not represented by other constructs in the model.
4. Research findings and discussion
4.1. Educators’ perceptions about the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on their activities
We started the analysis of our data by going through the answers to some key questions that show the impacts of the pandemic on
the educators.
As for the likelihood of keeping the digital solutions currently applied in the ‘new normal’ academic activities, 65.72% of the Italian
professors in our sample confirmed this. However, 58.95% of respondents thought that a face-to-face teaching approach was important
or very important (see Table 6 for a granular depiction of educator perceptions, breaking down their responses based on their academic
position, age, teaching method and type of university).
In this part of our study, we propose the reasons expressed showing respondents’ agreement (Table 7) or disagreement (Table 8)
regarding the statement about keeping digital solutions.
We now propose the statements of those respondents who pertain to the remaining part of the sample (i.e., 34.28%). As already
mentioned, in Table 8, we provide evidence that would substantiate why, at the end of the pandemic, digital solutions should not be
Table 4
Measure of construct validity.
LATENT CONSTRUCTS AVE COMPOSITE RELIABILITY CRONBACH’S ALPHA
UNIVERSITY TYPE – UT 0.265 0.180 0.376

TEACHER PROFILE – TP 0.518 0.682 0.331
DIGITALIZATION LEVEL – DL 0.829 0.907 0.801
PANDEMIC EFFECT – PE 0.782 0.878 0.722
LEARNING EXPERIENCE EFFECTIVENESS – LE 0.507 0.750 0.538
STUDENT PERFORMANCE - SP 1.000 1.000 1.000
9
Table 5
Measure of discriminant validity.
CONSTRUCTS DL LE PE SP TP
LE 0.238
PE 0.446 0.854
SP 0.120 0.376 0.386
TP 0.425 0.459 0.601 0.103
UT 0.746 0.463 0.624 0.135 0.487
Table 6
Educatora perceptions’ pertaining to e-learning continuity and face-to-face importance.
EDUCATOR E-LEARNING CONTINUITY IN FUTURE FACE-TO-FACE IMPORTANCE
YES NO YES NEUTRAL NO
ACADEMIC POSITION
Full and Associate Professors 65.0% 33.6% 64.8% 20.4% 14.8%
Researchers and Lecturers 63.8% 35.4% 55.1% 29.9% 15.0%
SMEs and Others 71.4% 28.6% 42.9% 50.0% 7.1%
AGE (X ¼ YEARS)
x < 35 57.6% 42.4% 57.5% 26.7% 15.8%
35 < x < 50 66.2% 32.3% 62.1% 24.2% 13.6%
x > 50 65.8% 33.3% 51.5% 36.4% 12.1%
TEACHING METHOD
Online 75.0% 25.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0%
Traditional (i.e. on campus) 64.6% 34.3% 61.2% 25.7% 13.1%
TYPE OF UNIVERSITY
Private 70.5% 28.2% 46.8% 33.8% 19.5%
Public 62.6% 36.4% 64.1% 23.3% 12.6%
a
According to Academic Position, Age, Teaching Method and Type of University.
Table 7
Affirmative answers to the need of keeping digital solutions in the academic activities.
Digital solutions represent an advantage in terms of costs and efficiency both for students and teachers.
They make studying and providing academic activities easier for non-attending student workers and for off-campus teachers.
Some innovative teaching methods enrich the learning process compared to traditional methods.
It needs less space, making the existing space more efficient.
I hope so: we should make an effort to take real advantage of digital opportunities, investing in new pedagogical methods.
It allows students to follow while staying at home and us to invite experts without having to bear any travel expenses.
It is somehow impossible to go totally back. In fact, my university has made significant investments in new digital infrastructures. However, even though I believe
we must learn from the current situation and make the most of it, we must also avoid idealizing ‘distance learning’ as it inevitably ruins social relationships
among teachers and students, and especially among students.
Some of these techniques will be maintained as they have been appreciated by students, and especially by some particular ‘students’ such as those who attend a
business school for a Master (i.e. graduates and post-graduates).
I believe they are useful for those who have disabilities of any kind or are in need.
The change caused by the pandemic has improved lives of teachers, academic institutions and students. In fact, how easy can following lessons from Baku be for any
Azerbaijan student? It stands to reason to state that the right level of blended-teaching approach depends on the society where it is introduced. To me, my ideal
blended-teaching approach consists of 5/10% on campus, and the remaining at distance.
It allows us to have a wider ‘audience’ of attendees.
Digital solutions might improve the academic offer for off-campus students as it will be possible to access new-territorial markets and target students.
I hope they will be maintained as my teaching approach now is more effective: I can organize team work activities which would be difficult to manage on campus, I
can guide my students towards objective outcomes, and I can better control them. Plus, I can synchronously work with them on Excel spreadsheets.
I reckon that the provision of, for instance, office-hour meetings and thesis corrections for students should be off-campus. It would also be an opportunity to test
initially online so as to slim down the list, and then provide the real exam. However, I would not say so as far as lectures are concerned.
maintained according to our sample respondent opinions.

When asked whether switching from a traditional teaching approach to distance learning was fast and easy, 56.3% of respondents
stated that it was, with only 14.7% saying that it was quite tough and challenging. Moreover, 89.9% of the accounting educators of our
sample maintained that their institution had been effective in equipping them with the necessary tools for distance-learning activity
provision. Having said that, among the inefficiencies and complications they came across, we report:
- general lack of support in the introduction of new digital tools;

- lack of quality and necessary IT resources;
- lack of training in the newly introduced tools;
- unwillingness of academic boards to make prompt investments in new IT resources;
10
Table 8
Negative answers to the need of keeping digital solutions in the academic activities.
Technical activities are difficult to carry out at distance. However, digital solutions might represent a valid alternative for ongoing assessments, but not for the final
exam.
I hope we will go back to on-campus activities very soon as it is only through this way of teaching that educational objectives are effectively reached.
I actually hope these solutions won’t be maintained as they would distort learning, maturation and growth processes.
Italian universities are not ready to equalize online learning and on-campus activities.
These solutions would not be effective if there were no health emergency.
I hope not unless digital solutions were really able to create effective opportunities to network among fellow students and instructors.
I would consider detrimental, ineffective and undesirable educational services totally provided off-campus and online.
On-campus activities are unbeatable. Online learning – as long as it is not 100% such – could be chosen for Masters or other post-graduate courses that would,
therefore, be provided through a blended-teaching approach.
I have observed a decrease in focus and concentration of my students as well as greater difficulties when faced with some particular topics. Moreover, there is a sort
of generalized perception in which we have all become online universities, which are institutions that deserve respect, but were actually conceived to meet
different and other needs through their digital way of providing education, and not due to the advancement of IT itself.
I have a strong desire for social connections.
We feel an inexplicable fear of missing the original goal of going to (and being at) university.
I really want to bring the students into the classroom.
University should mean relationships and discussions. Online learning is totally not educational, it represents the ‘easy way’, making students naïve and immature:
this is the most serious damage.
- administrative and activity management issues.
As for the discussion about the effectiveness of a uniquely digital teaching approach in accounting studies and academic activities,
the overwhelming majority of the respondents (i.e., 80%) positioned themselves in the very first half – between the first and the second
percentile, with 59% of them replying that it would be totally ineffective or only slightly effective. They also declared they had
somehow readapted their teaching methods following the health emergency in 89.1% of cases. In actual fact, 75.5% of Italian ac
counting professors maintained that the quality of their life had not improved with the provision of off-campus activities during the
pandemic (see Table 9 for a granular depiction of educator perceptions, breaking down their responses according to some of their
characteristics). The opposite result might have been obtained, instead, in ‘normal’ times, as there are many factors that may have
influenced this declaration.
It must be reported that the introduced teaching method readaptations include:
- change in final exam procedures;

- redefinition of lecture-allotted time through the choice of a new balance between topic explanations and breaks;
- adoption of new ‘teaching’ tools, such as software and platforms;
- more interactive lessons and less ‘traditional’ lectures;
- change in the chosen topics presented to the students.
4.2. The COVID-19 pandemic impact on accounting students
76.1% of our sample stated that it was difficult to understand the level of involvement of students during distance lectures: this
result was expected as it is understandable that trying to adopt similar teaching methods through the use of different tools might lead to
Table 9
Educatora perceptions’ pertaining to their life quality improvement and optimal teaching method.
EDUCATOR TEACHER LIFE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT OPTIMAL TEACHING METHOD
YES NEUTRAL NO TRAD.b BLENDED ONLINE
ACADEMIC POSITION
Full and Associate Professors 39.7% 31.0% 29.3% 34.3% 61.5% 3.5%
Researchers and Lecturers 41.9% 32.3% 25.8% 28.3% 65.4% 6.3%
SMEs and Others 45.9% 32.4% 21.6% 14.3% 78.6% 7.1%
AGE (X ¼ YEARS)
x < 35 40.4% 34.4% 25.2% 24.2% 72.7% 3.0%
35 < x < 50 41.9% 30.6% 27.5% 31.6% 63.2% 5.3%
x > 50 37.2% 27.9% 34.9% 30.8% 63.3% 5.0%
TEACHING METHOD
Online 54.2% 31.3% 14.6% 31.3% 64.2% 4.1%
Traditional (i.e. on campus) 39.7% 31.8% 28.5% 18.8% 62.5% 18.8%
TYPE OF UNIVERSITY
Private 47.4% 25.8% 26.8% 23.1% 71.8% 5.1%
Public 38.5% 33.9% 27.6% 33.5% 61.2% 4.9%
a
b
Trad. = Traditional.
11
inconsistency and asymmetry in the actual outcome.

25.5% of the responding professors believe that students are not favourable to distance learning, with another 39.9% unable to give
an appropriate answer. In general, student performance in academic activities during the pandemic remained similar to the past (in
65.7% of registered cases), but with 20.4% of respondents asserting that their students obtained lower academic results.
However, when higher performances were recorded (in 39 cases out of 280, i.e., 13.9%), 30.5% of the total respondents referred it
to instances of cheating and misconduct (with a further 33.9% of them deciding not to express themselves on the point in question).
Another issue that we want to point out is student attendance. Although 79.5% of our sample stated that they did not record a lower
attendance on the part of their enrolled students, it must be also stated that being connected to the online session does not necessarily
mean being present at the lesson (see Table 10 for a granular depiction of educator perceptions, breaking down their responses based
on some of their characteristics).
Finally, even though 30.5% of the respondents would still prefer to go back to pre-pandemic teaching methods, i.e., face to face and
on campus, 64.6% of them would consider a blended-learning approach as the optimal solution for the future of accounting education.
It must also be underlined that, in any case, the blended experience considered ‘ideal’ is a tenuous one. 38.6% of the total sample
consider a possible solution in a blended-learning approach that consists of 75% of time spent on campus and through traditional
activities and only 25% in distance learning and through digital means.
That said, a blended-learning approach in education does not axiomatically mean teaching through digital tools or exclusively
online. In fact, by blending the teaching approach, we would provide academic activities through a less traditional method. Yet, the
question is to what extent should teaching be blended. The current trends in education that we should consider seriously as accounting
educators appear to be the following:
- blended-learning approach through IT and digital resources as a consequence of an already existing yet latent factor which emerged
decisively during the pandemic;
- active learning approach, which emphasizes a student-centred teaching method and its experientialism.
Three final points, which emerge as a consequence of the above-mentioned considerations, and which might be fundamental in the
provision of academic services in the ‘new normal’, have been identified.
1. Through our survey we recorded the following:

- the distance-learning tools most appreciated by students during the pandemic were (in order of frequency): ‘live’ lectures (76%),
‘live’ practice exercise resolutions (44%), asynchronous lectures through recorded video-clips (35%), Q&A sessions (26%),
teamwork activities (24%), and workshop with field experts (17%);
- the most serious obstacles to high-quality academic activities provision during the pandemic were Internet connection (68%),
inadequacy of tools owned by students (51%), and inadequacy of work-stations for students allowing focus and silence (40%).
2. As for the implementation of blended-learning techniques, we underline once again the cruciality of consistency and coherence
among the chosen paths: a few well integrated alternatives should lead to a better outcome. In this regard, supporting traditional
ways of teaching with software packages, such as Socrative App, turned out to be outstandingly effective in accounting studies since
they encourage students to play an active part in class (González-González et al., 2018).
3. Considering the importance of bringing the student to the centre of the academic arena, there are many neuroscientific attempts to
determine effective models for successful learning: one of these is well synthesized by the AGES model (see Rock et al., 2014;
Tambini et al., 2010), which relies essentially on the stimulation of Attention, the Generation of connections through active
Table 10
Educatora perceptions’ pertaining to student involvement and lower attendance.
EDUCATOR PERCEIVED STUDENT INVOLVEMENT LOWER ATTENDANCE
YES NO YES UNVAR.b NO
ACADEMIC POSITION
Full and Associate Professors 23.8% 76.2% 36.4% 29.8% 33.7%
Researchers and Lecturers 26.0% 74.0% 43.0% 24.2% 32.9%
SMEs and Others 7.1% 85.7% 17.9% 32.1% 50.0%
AGE (X ¼ YEARS)
x < 35 24.2% 75.8% 45.8% 27.9% 26.3%
35 < x < 50 26.3% 73.7% 32.3% 26.9% 40.9%
x > 50 12.1% 84.8% 45.8% 27.9% 26.3%
TEACHING METHOD
Online 37.5% 62.5% 32.4% 40.5% 27.0%
Traditional (i.e. on campus) 23.1% 76.5% 38.5% 26.7% 34.8%
TYPE OF UNIVERSITY
Private 23.1% 75.6% 34.7% 28.2% 37.1%
Public 24.3% 75.7% 40.0% 27.0% 33.0%
a
b
Unvar. = Unvaried.
12
involvement, the stimulation of Emotions, and Spacing the concepts in time so as to retrieve them after a while, and not all together
at once.
4.3. ‘Pandemic effect’, learning experience effectiveness and the role of digitalization in disruptive contexts
To conclude the examination of the state of the art in accounting education in Italy, we now proceed to the second degree of
analysis.
Through variance-based structural equation modelling (SEM) techniques that use a PLS path modelling method, we try to syn
thesize the above in a more concise and comprehensive system, as well as introduce further elements in the analysis, namely the
learning experience effectiveness in the pandemic and the role played by digitalization in contrasting it.
The results are synthesized in Fig. 1, through which it is also possible to highlight the chosen connections between the constructs,
the measured path coefficients and the R2s.
The figure shows a visual representation of the two logistic regression models presented in section 3.4, grafted onto each other.
Through the depiction in analysis, the several constructs chosen can be easily identified so as to verify the third research question
proposed (see section 2.4.) as well as how their potential relationships were conceived and/or hypothesized and, most importantly, the
path coefficient and R2 that would justify (or not) the actual existence of the relationships (based on the gathered data).
The structural model results (see Fig. 1 and Table 11) enable us to determine that the ‘pandemic effect’ exists and has had the
strongest effect (among those measured through our survey) on ‘learning experience effectiveness’ (0.644 – in actual fact, values
smaller than 0.2 would mean that the construct is not statistically significant). Besides, also the f2 of the former construct confirms the
above, which is, in fact, equal to 0.696. The combination of ‘pandemic effect’ and ‘digital level’, considered as exogenous constructs,
together explain 41.7% of the variance of the endogenous construct ‘learning experience effectiveness’ (R2 = 0.417). By the same
token, the latter has the strongest effect on ‘student performance’ (0.328) over ‘university’ and ‘teacher profile’. These three constructs
together would explain 12.2% of variance of ‘student performance’ (R2 = 0.122). The strength of the relationship between ‘learning
experience effectiveness’ and ‘student performance’ variables, represented through f2, is equal to 0.111 (which is considered to be a
‘moderate effect size’).
We can affirm that the path coefficients that would suggest an actual influence of the pandemic on the learning experience, and on
recorded student performances are significant with p-values equal to 0.008 and 0.004, respectively. In other words, we cannot reject
the two above-mentioned path coefficients with a level of significance (α) equal to 1%.
When we went through the blindfolding analysis (an iterative procedure that allows us to determine the reflective and predictive
ability of the model), we were able to evaluate the predictive relevance of the two prevalently studied constructs, i.e., ‘learning
experience effectiveness’ and ‘student performance’. These two variables appear to be predictive for the scope of our model since their
Q2 are equal to 0.113 and 0.061, respectively (as a relative measure of predictive relevance, values of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 indeed
indicate that an exogenous construct has a small, medium and large predictive relevance for a certain endogenous construct).
Based on the model in Fig. 1, we can state that, based on our analysis and with regard to all the initially identified constructs, the
total effects of the pandemic over the learning experience (T Statistics = 2.905), the learning experience over student performances (T
Statistics = 2.675), and the pandemic over student performances (T Statistics = 2.504), with ascertained values greater than 1.96, are
significant.
Fig. 1. SmartPLS logistic regression result for accounting education during the COVID-19 pandemic.
13
Table 11
Final results of grafted logistic regressions through PLS-SEM techniques.
TESTED PATH COEFFICIENT SAMPLE MEAN SD T STATISTICS P-VALUES
DL -> LE − 0.013 − 0.040 0.051 0.261 0.794

LE -> SP 0.328 0.306 0.113 2.905 0.004
PE -> LE 0.644 0.603 0.241 2.675 0.008
TP -> SP − 0.001 − 0.048 0.068 0.011 0.991
UT -> SP − 0.091 − 0.032 0.132 0.692 0.489
In short, we found that, during the pandemic, and irrespective of the university attended, the professors in charge and the general
level of digitalization of academia, students’ performance is predominantly affected by the learning experience provided. This is quite
an unexpected result if we consider, for instance, the increasing importance that university rankings had in the pre-pandemic
panorama.
5. Conclusion
5.1. Contribution to theory
The ongoing pandemic has revolutionized the ways in which management and accounting education has traditionally been pro
vided, highlighting the need to plan for the future and readjust to the new needs required by the business world (Apostolou et al., 2020;
Comoli et al., 2023; Frizon & Eugénio, 2022; Samkin & Schneider, 2014). Another global phenomenon is added to this effect, namely
the growing technological development, which provides new tools to be integrated into the world of education (Mantai & Calma,
2022).
Due to the lack of research on the need for adaptation of teaching activities to current and future contexts and the relevance of
digitalization for educational training (Sollosy & McInerney, 2022), based on the so-called ongoing ’twin transition’, this study
investigated the response of the Italian academic system to the COVID-19 emergency and its main impacts in the light of teachers’
perspectives. Among the main findings of our study, we observed that – based on our sample – digitalization and distance-learning
played a secondary role in influencing the organization of educational programs during the months of restricted movement and
generalized lockdowns, whereas the learning experience is pivotal in defining student performance. Although digital solutions have
been a useful tool to tackle the health emergency, and are somehow considered the ‘new normal’ way of approaching the work-life
balance, their actual effect on the learning experience has been totally absorbed by the ‘pandemic effect’ implications. In fact, we
found that, during the pandemic, the learning experience played the central and primary role in defining student performance, leaving
aside the particular characteristics of universities and educators, which do not appear to be relevant in determining student success
during emergencies of this kind. Further evidence arising from our analysis is that COVID-19 has presented and continues to present an
opportunity to rethink accounting education, which we indeed feel – and have also partially measured – to be necessary. Educators
have a real chance to set the pace for a content change as a major driver of educational transformation and to rethink accounting
education as a blend of technical skills and practical competencies.
5.2. Contribution to practice
As Cialdini (1984) coined it, ‘social proof’ is that psychological phenomenon whereby people copy the actions of others in an
attempt to undertake behaviour in any given situation. This fact, also known as informational social influence, is considered prominent
in ambiguous situations where people are unable to determine the appropriate mode of behaviour or decisions, and is driven by the
assumption that surrounding people possess more knowledge about the current situation.
For the scope of the present analysis, this concept is essential to provide a potential future path in accounting education. If the
overwhelming majority of people think that digitalization is the key, then it is highly likely that it will become the norm. However, it
must be underlined that, if accounting professors have been influenced – even subconsciously – by the social proof phenomenon,
careful attention should be paid to this, as it can cause people to converge very rapidly upon one single choice, and decisions of larger
groups of individuals would, therefore, be based on very little information (i.e., informational cascade). Understanding whether other
teaching methods could be effectively (and should be concretely) implemented in academia is anything but a swift decision. In fact,
wrong judgment on this subject might lead to negative repercussions in the long run.
Moreover, results demonstrate that readaptation in teaching methods was only due to an emerging necessity, and not to a personal
desire to move in new directions. This is important to consider as a trend would hardly catch on decisively if it is not rooted in the
thoughts and aspirations of those who constitute that tendency.
Concerning the impacts of the pandemic on the students’ performance, the presence of cheating and misconduct practices is a
critical matter that should be taken into consideration as cheating through digital mode is more accessible than educators might
perceive. Thus, it stands to reason to draw academics’ attention to the fact that failing to detect misconduct and dishonesty in the
assessment procedures, which will take on new shapes and forms in the ‘new normal’, would be deleterious and severely harmful to the
health of the social and economic system. Thus, not only would an appropriate, timely, responsible and updated scheme for academic
assessment be much appreciated, but it should be promptly implemented in academia so as to effectively limit this obstacle to growth
14
and transparency.
To conclude, we have understood so far that in Italy there is a general restraint vis-a-vis the introduction of a learning approach that
is exclusively digital. Nonetheless, accounting educators identify and are aware of the potential and, somehow, the inexorability of IT
in the current and future business arena. Hence, the compromise that is highly likely to spread throughout the ‘new normal’ is the
blended-learning approach.
Based on this premise, our study gathered personal perceptions and actions of accounting educators from the majority of Italian
universities with the aim of investigating how the Italian academic system tackled the pandemic in terms of teachers’ and students’
perceptions, and the main teaching innovations introduced because of the COVID-19 spread that could be effective also in the future.
To the best of our knowledge, our work represents one of the very first attempts to study the adoption of new teaching practices
following an anomalous disruption to our daily lives (i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic). Moreover, we have been able to quantitatively
demonstrate the need to shift towards active learning approaches, even within a blended-learning or distance-learning environment, in
higher education, emphasizing a student-centred teaching method and its experientialism. This should lead – from a managerial point
of view of academia – to a lower ‘churn rate’ and – from an educational standpoint for policy-makers – to a decrease in dropouts due to
lack of interest and poor learning experience.
5.3. Limitations of the study and further research
The major limitation of the paper lies in the sample chosen that refers only to the Italian situation and is based on survey
administration. Italy was one of the first countries in the world and one of the most severely struck by the global pandemic (Ciotti et al.,
2022); hence, it was deemed to be a pertinent area in which to conduct this analysis. Yet generalizations should be made with caution.
The same holds true with data gathered through surveys, which tend to be characterized by self-biases: on the one hand, we might be
testing data provided only by those who are interested in the research and, on the other hand, we cannot control for the veracity of
responses. In addition, we purposely analysed the impact on the learning experience and student performance of some specific factors,
namely the pandemic, digitalization and institution/educator-side features, from the perspective of instructors. A study conducted also
taking into consideration the characteristics of the students involved might be useful to provide a more comprehensive overview of the
dynamics in analysis. Further research could be based on survey administration specifically targeting students or through other
methods such as experimental design in action research, case studies or interviews. Moreover, the importance of considering this field
of research as open, fluid and in continuous need of adaptation to changing environments must be strengthened, so studies in this area
will always be necessary to understand potential new path directions according to evolving times and phases. From a practical point of
view, studies also provide relevant suggestions for updating the universities’ accounting programs.
Future research should properly investigate whether distance learning is an effective tool to efficiently train the future generation
of accountants. In fact, results are not unanimous in this regard (Ackermann, 2021; Aldahray, 2022; Imran et al., 2023; Misseyanni
et al., 2018; Papageorgiou & Halabi, 2014). However, now more than ever, academic discourse and discussion must revolve precisely
around this topic for, in the aftermath of the pandemic, many institutions will be likely to make long-term choices to proceed in this
direction in terms of new ways of providing educational services and possibly oriented towards sustainability and, in general, the ’ESG’
dynamics. It would therefore be interesting to better understand the relevance and perception of an e-learning approach in higher
education in more ‘normal’ times, since the existing pre-COVID-19 era studies are not unanimous (Coovadia & Ackermann, 2020;
Petrolo et al., 2023; Powell & McGuigan, 2020; Reyneke et al., 2021; Sarfraz et al., 2022).
Finally, it might be of interest for the academic community to further investigate the actual role played by universities and edu
cators in the coming digitalized era, since past equilibria have now evidently been put at stake. The results would be essential to
identify a possible path for ‘accounting education’ (AE); in fact, this and future studies might be taken into consideration by academic
boards and the government to provide an educational solution that is more in line with the needs and expectations of their referential
community. With regard to this, the incremental concerns pertaining to data governance and cyber security, and the recent energy
crisis, it might also be of interest to further explore the benefits of remote learning from an environmental point of view, and the
possible negative repercussions, from a societal one, on student isolation, privacy, mental health and lack of human connection and
interactions.
CRediT author statement
Patrizia Tettamanzi: Conceptualization, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Supervision, Writing - Review & Editing,
Visualization, Project Administration.
Valentina Minutiello: Conceptualization, Resources, Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization, Project
Administration.
Michael Murgolo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing -
Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
15
References
Ackermann, C. (2021). A personal narrative on understanding and navigating transitional change: Lessons learned by an accounting academic amidst COVID-19.
Accounting Research Journal, 11.
Ainsworth, P. (2001). Changes in accounting curricula: Discussion and design. Accounting Education, 10(3), 279–297.
Aldahray, A. (2022). ‘Do accounting students always perform better online? The COVID-19 experience’. Accounting Education.
Ali, W. (2020). Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: A necessity in light of COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Studies, 10(3), 16–25.
Aliotta, M., Bates, S., Brunton, K., & Stevens, A. (2008). Podcasts and lectures. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Andrade, M., Worman, L., & Westover, J. (2022). Current practices for community-based learning in schools of business. International Journal of Management in
Education, 20.
Apostolou, B., Dorminey, J., & Hassell, J. (2020). Accounting education literature review. Journal of Accounting Education, 51.
Arbaugh, J. (2014). System, scholar or students? Which most influences online MBA course effectiveness? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 349–362.
Arbaugh, J., Desai, A., Rau, B., & Sridhar, B. (2010). A review of research on online and blended learning in the management disciplines: 1994-2009. Organisation
Management Journal, 7.
Arvanitakis, J. (2014). Massification and the large lecture theatre: From panic to excitement. Higher Education, 67(6), 735–745.
Bakre, O. (2006). Accounting education, training and the profession in the commonwealth Caribbean: Integration or internationalisation? Accounting Forum, 30(3),
285–313.
Barac, K. (2009). South African training officers perceptions of the knowledge and skills requirements of entry-level trainee accountants. Meditari Accountancy
Research, 17(2), 19–46.
Bayerlein, L. (2015). Curriculum innovation in undergraduate accounting degree programmes through virtual internships. Education and Training, 57(6), 673–684.
Berikol, B., & Killi, M. (2021). ‘The effects of digital transformation process on accounting profession and accounting education’. Accounting, Finance, Sustainability,
Governance and Fraud.
Bishop-Monroe, R., Jordan, M., Ma, Z., & Royalty, K. (2022). Enhancing business professional competencies in a virtual educational environment. International Journal
of Management in Education, 20.
Boyce, G., Williams, S., Kelly, A., & Yee, H. (2001). Fostering deep and elaborative learning and generic (soft) skill development: The strategic use of case studies in
accounting education. Accounting Education, 10(1), 37–60.
Bullen, M., Morgan, T., & Quayyum, A. (2001). Digital learners in higher education: Generation is not the issue. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 3(1),
1–24.
Chan, A., & Lee, M. (2005). ‘An MP3 a day keeps the worries away: Exploring the use of podcasting to address preconceptions and alleviate pre-class anxiety amongst
undergraduate information technology students’. NSW: Charles Sturt University.
Cialdini, R. (1984). Influence. The psychology of persuasion. New York, NY: William Morrow & Company.
Ciotti, M., Ciccozzi, M., Terrinoni, A., Jiang, W.-C., Wang, C.-B., & Bernardini, S. (2022). The COVID-19 pandemic. Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences.
Comoli, M., Tettamanzi, P., & Murgolo, M. (2023). Accounting for ‘ESG’ under disruptions: A systematic literature network analysis. Sustainability, 15(8).
Coovadia, H., & Ackermann, C. (2020). Integrating digital pedagogies into a typical student learning lifecycle and its effect on exam performance. Accounting
Education, 30(1), 42–62.
Cornelius-White, J. (2015). Learner-centred teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Education Research.
Davico, C., Ghiggia, A., Marcotulli, D., Ricci, F., Amianto, F., & Vitiello, B. (2021). Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adults and their children in
Italy. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12.
Deegan, C., & Unerman, J. (2011). Financial accounting theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Dellana, S., Collins, W., & West, D. (2000). Online education in a management science course: Effectiveness and performance factors. The Journal of Education for
Business, 76(1), 43–47.
Dellaportas, S., & Hassall, T. (2013). Experiential learning in accounting education: A prison visit. The British Accounting Review, 45(1), 24–36.
Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarski, A. (2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward flexible online learning in management education. Journal of Educational
Research, 98(6), 331–338.
Duff, A., Hancock, P., & Marriott, N. (2020). The role and impact of professional accountancy associations on accounting education research: An international study.
The British Accounting Review, 52(5).
Duff, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of accounting students’ approaches to learning: A cluster analytic approach. The British Accounting
Review, 47(3), 321–338.
Elliott, R., & Jacobson, P. (2002). The evolution of the knowledge professional. Accounting Horizons, 16(1), 69–80.
Evans, E., Burritt, R., & Guthrie, J. (2010). Challenges for accounting education at a crossroad in 2010. Sydney: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia.
Fernández-Mesa, A., Olmos-Peñuela, J., García-Granero, A., & Oltra, V. (2022). The pivotal role of students’ absorptive capacity in management learning. International
Journal of Management in Education, 20(3).
Fischer, B. (2012). Disruption: Coming soon to a university near you. Forbes.
Forza, C. (2002). Survey research in operations management: A process based perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2).
Fowler, F. (1993). Survey research methods. Sage Publications, 1993.
Freeman, M., & Hancock, P. (2013). Milking MOOCs: Towards the right blend in accounting education. Sydney: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia.
Frizon, J., & Eugénio, T. (2022). Recent developments on research in sustainability in higher education management and accounting areas. International Journal of
Management in Education, 20.
Garrison, D., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
González-González, I., Alcaide-Munoz, C., & Jimenez-Zarco, A. (2018). ‘Using socrative App for accounting students in higher education’ in ‘active learning strategies in
higher education: Teaching for leadership, innovation, and creativity’ (pp. 293–313). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Graham, C., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet
and Higher Education, 18, 4–14.
Gros, B., Garcia, L., & Escofet, A. (2012). Beyond the net generation debate: A comparison of digital learners in face-to-face and virtual universities. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 191–210.
Guthrie, J., Evans, E., & Burritt, R. (2013). Challenges for accounting and business education: Blending online and traditional universities in a MOOC environment. Sydney:
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia.
Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. (2014). The global accounting academic: What counts. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(1), 2–14.
Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publishing.
Halabi, A. (2005). Accounting tele teaching lectures: Issues of interaction and performance. Accounting Forum, 29(2), 207–217.
Halabi, A., Essop, A., Joosub, T., Padia, N., Vawda, M., & Yasseen, Y. (2010). A South African study comparing the effectiveness of computer-based learning materials
and face-to-face teaching. Meditari Accountancy Research, 18(2), 23–37.
Hassall, T., Joyce, J., Montaño, J., & Anes, J. (2005). Priorities for the development of vocational skills in management accountants: A European perspective.
Accounting Forum, 29(4), 379–394.
Henadirage, A., & Gunarathne, N. (2023). Retaining remote teaching and assessment methods in accounting education: Drivers and challenges in the post-pandemic
era. International Journal of Management in Education, 21(2).
Hettiarachchi, N., Subramaniam, T., Palpanadan, S., & Al-Fattal, A. (2023). Infusing communication skills into financial accounting curriculum: A perspective form
the digital era. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 13(4).
16
Hosseini, M. M., Egodawatte, G., & Ruzgar, N. S. (2021). Online assessment in a business department during COVID-19: Challenges and practices. International Journal
of Management in Education, 19.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1991). ‘Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069’. New York, NY: William Morrow & Company.
Howieson, B. (2003). Accounting practice in the new millennium: Is accounting education ready to meet the challenge? The British Accounting Review, 35(2), 69–103.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.
Imran, R., Fatima, A., Elbayoumi, S., & Allil, K. (2023). Teaching and learning delivery modes in higher education: Looking back to move forward post-COVID-19 era.
International Journal of Management in Education, 21(2).
International Federation of Accountants – IFAC. (2003). ‘Framework for international education statements’, New York.
Iverson, K., Colky, D., & Cyboran, V. (2005). E-Learning takes the lead: An empirical investigation of learner differences in online and classroom delivery. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 18(4), 5–18.
James, K. (2008). A critical theory perspective on the pressures, contradictions and dilemmas faced by entry-level accounting academics. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 19(8), 1263–1295.
Januszwski, A., & Grzeszczak, M. (2021). Internship of accounting students in the form of e-learning: Insights from Poland. Education Sciences, 11(8).
Jones, K., Moeeni, F., & Ruby, P. (2005). Comparing web-based content delivery and instructor-led learning in a telecommunications course. Journal of Information
Systems Education, 16(3), 265–270.
Ktoridou, D., Doukanari, E., Epaminonda, E., & Karayiannis, A. (2018). ‘Case-based learning: Offering a premier targeted learning experience for technology
management students’. In IEEE global engineering education conference. EDUCON.
Lai, K., & Hong, K. (2015). Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher education: Do generational differences exist? British Journal of Educational
Technology, 46(4), 725–738.
de Lange, P., Suwardy, T., & Mavondo, F. (2003). Integrating a virtual learning environment into an introductory accounting course: Determinants of student
motivation. Accounting Education, 12(1).
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of technologies. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Le Cunff, A.-L. (2022). ‘Distance learning, e-learning, online learning, or virtual learning?’, Ness Labs.
Leveson, L. (2004). Encouraging better learning through better teaching: A study of approaches to teaching in accounting. Accounting Education, 13(4), 529–548.
López Gavira, R., & Omoteso, K. (2013). Perceptions of the usefulness of virtual learning environments in accounting education: A comparative evaluation of
undergraduate accounting students in Spain and England. Accounting Education, 22(5).
Lubbe, I. (2014). Educating professionals – describing the knowledge agency of accounting academics. Meditari Accountancy Research, 22(1), 107–127.
Maldonado, I., Silva, A., Magalhães, M., Pinho, C., Pereira, M., & Torre, L. (2023). Distance learning of financial accounting: Mature undergraduate students
perceptions. Administrative Sciences, 13(4).
Malhotra, M., & Grover, V. (1998). An assessment of survey research in POM: From constructs to theory. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 407–425.
Mali, D., & Lim, H. (2021). How do students perceive face-to-face/blended learning as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic? International Journal of Management in
Education, 19(3).
Mantai, L., & Calma, A. (2022). Beyond assuring learning: Greater challenges ahead for management educators. International Journal of Management in Education, 20.
Matsunaga, M. (2008). Item parcelling in structural equation modeling: A primer. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(4), 260–293.
McCourt Larres, P., & Radcliffe, G. W. (2000). Computer-based instruction in a professionally accredited undergraduate tax course. Accounting Education, 9(3),
243–257.
Misseyanni, A., Lytras, M., Papadopoulou, P., & Marouli, C. (2018). Active learning strategies in higher education: Teaching for leadership, innovation, and creativity.
Emerald Publishing Limited.
Mousa, M., & Arslan, A. (2023). To what extent does virtual learning promote the implementation of responsible management education? A study of management
educators. International Journal of Management in Education, 21(2).
Mulder, I., & van Oordt, T. (2016). Implementing basic e-learning tools into an undergraduate taxation curriculum. Meditari Accountancy Research, 24(3), 341–367.
Müller, F., & Wulf, T. (2022). Blended learning environments and learning outcomes: The mediating role of flow experience. International Journal of Management in
Education, 20.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
O’Connell, B., Carnegie, G., Carter, A., De Lange, P., Hancock, P., Helliar, C., & Watty, K. (2015). Shaping the future of accounting in business education in Australia.
Melbourne: CPA Australia.
Owusu, G., Obeng, V., Ofori, C., Kwakye, T., & Bekoe, R. (2018). What explains student’s intentions to pursue a certified professional accountancy qualification?
Meditari Accountancy Research, 26(2), 284–304.
Paisey, C., & Paisey, N. (2017). The decline of the professionally-qualified accounting academic: Recruitment into the accounting academic community. Accounting
Forum, 41(2), 57–76.
Papageorgiou, K., & Halabi, A. (2014). Factors contributing toward student performance in a distance education accounting degree. Meditari Accountancy Research, 22
(2), 211–223.
Petrolo, D., Fakhar Manesh, M., & Palumbo, R. (2023). Unpacking business, management, and entrepreneurship education online: Insights form hybrid literature
review. International Journal of Management in Education, 21(2).
Ponzurick, T., France, K., & Logar, C. (2000). Delivering graduate marketing education: An analysis of face-to-face versus distance education. Journal of Marketing
Education, 22(3), 180–187.
Powell, L., & McGuigan, N. (2020). Teaching, virtually: A critical reflection. Accounting Research Journal.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Prinsloo, P., & van Rooyen, A. A. (2007). Exploring a blended learning approach to improving student success in the teaching of second year accounting. Meditari
Accountancy Research, 15(1), 51–69.
Putz, L.-M., Reiblmaier, H., & Pfoser, S. (2018). Field trips for sustainable transport education: Impact on knowledge, attitude and behavioural intention. International
Journal of Logistics Management, 29(4), 1424–1450.
Rebele, J. E. (2002). Accounting education’s uncertain environments: Descriptions and implications for accounting programmes and accounting education research.
Accounting Education, 11(1), 3–25.
Reyneke, Y., Shuttleworth, C., & Visagie, R. (2021). Pivot to online in a post-COVID-19 world: Critically applying BSCS 5E to enhance plagiarism awareness of
accounting students. Accounting Education, 30(1), 1–21.
Rock, D., Davis, J., Balda, M., McGinniss, P., & Davachi, L. (2014). The science of making learning stick: An update to the ages model. NeuroLeadership Journal, 5,
1–15.
Samkin, G., & Schneider, A. (2014). The accounting academic. Meditari Accountancy Research, 22(1), 2–19.
Samkin, G., & Stainbank, L. (2016). Teaching and learning: Current and future challenges facing accounting academics, academics, and the development of an agenda
for future research. Meditari Accountancy Research, 24(3), 294–317.
Sandeen, C. (2008). Boomers, xers and millennials: Who are they and what do they really want from continuing higher education? Continuing Higher Education Review,
78, 11–31.
Sangster, A., Stoner, G., & Flood, B. (2020). Insights into accounting education in a COVID-19 world. Accounting Education, 29(5), 431–562.
Sarfraz, M., Khawaja, K., & Ivascu, L. (2022). Factors affecting business school students performance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A moderated and mediated
model. International Journal of Management in Education, 20.
Slabbert, J., De Kock, D., & Hattingh, A. (2009). ‘The brave ‘new’ world of education: Creating a unique professionalism’. Cape Town: Juta and Company.
Sollosy, M., & McInerney, M. (2022). Artificial intelligence and business education: What should be taught. International Journal of Management in Education, 20.
Spector, J., Merrill, M., Ellen, J., & Bishop, M. (2014). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York, NY: Springer.
17
Sugahara, S., & Dellaportas, S. (2018). Bringing active learning into the accounting classroom. Meditari Accountancy Research, 26(4), 576–597.
Tambini, A., Ketz, N., & Davachi, L. (2010). Enhanced brain correlations during rest are related to memory for recent experiences. Neuron, 65(2), 280–290.
Terry, N., Owens, J., & Macy, A. (2001). Student performance in the virtual versus traditional classroom. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, 2(1), 1–4.
Tharapos, M., & Marriott, N. (2020). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Research quality in accounting education. The British Accounting Review, 52(5).
Venturini, S., & Mehmetoglu, M. (2019). Pls SEM: A Stata package for structural equation modeling with partial least squares. Journal of Statistical Software, 88(8).
de Villiers, R. (2010). The incorporation of soft skills into accounting curricula: Preparing accounting graduates for their unpredictable futures. Meditari Accountancy
Research, 18(2), 1–22.
de Villiers, C., & Dumay, J. (2014). Writing an article for a refereed accounting journal. Pacific Accounting Review, 26(3).
Visser, S., McChlery, S., & Vreken, N. (2006). Teaching styles versus learning styles in the accounting sciences in the United Kingdom and South Africa: A comparative
analysis. Meditari Accountancy Research, 14(2), 97–112.
Weil, S., Da Silva, T., & Ward, M. (2014). ‘Blended learning in accounting: A New Zealand case’. Meditari Accounting Research, 22(2).
Welsh, A., & Dehler, G. (2013). Combining critical reflection and design thinking to develop integrative learners. Journal of Management Education, 37(6), 771–802.
Wilkin, C. (2022). Developing critical reflection: An integrated approach. The British Accounting Review, 54.
Wong, L., Tatnall, A., & Burgess, S. (2014). A framework for investigating blended learning effectiveness. Education and Training, 56.
Wright, S., & Chalmers, K. (2010). The future for accounting academics in Australia. Sydney: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia.
18

1 s2.0 S147281172300085X Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

1 s2.0 S147281172300085X Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100847

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The International Journal of Management Education

Accounting education and digitalization: A new perspective after

2.1. The role and evolution of accounting education

2.2.1. COVID-19 pandemic and considerations on necessary educational change

2.2.2. The impacts of digitalization as a tool for educational experience

2.2.3. The concepts of ‘remote learning’ and ‘digital learning’

2.4. Research questions

specific regard to business and accounting studies.

3.1. Population identification and profiling

This study is built over four stages.

3.2. Survey design

- 1st section: general description of the research aims and objectives;

3.3. Administration of the survey

3.4. Data Re-elaboration and analysis

- logit(D1i) = β1 LEi + β2 UTi + β3 TPi + ε

4. Research findings and discussion

UNIVERSITY TYPE – UT 0.265 0.180 0.376

YES NO YES NEUTRAL NO

maintained according to our sample respondent opinions.

- general lack of support in the introduction of new digital tools;

- administrative and activity management issues.

- change in final exam procedures;

4.2. The COVID-19 pandemic impact on accounting students

YES NEUTRAL NO TRAD.b BLENDED ONLINE

inconsistency and asymmetry in the actual outcome.

1. Through our survey we recorded the following:

YES NO YES UNVAR.b NO

DL -> LE − 0.013 − 0.040 0.051 0.261 0.794

5.1. Contribution to theory

5.2. Contribution to practice

5.3. Limitations of the study and further research

CRediT author statement

The data that has been used is confidential.

You might also like