Search

ABSTRACT: This study Investigates the role of productive thinking in affecting student attitudes toward, and performance with, microcomputer spreadsheet programs in a managerial/ cost accounting course. Productive thinking is defined as thinking based on an understanding of the nature of problems rather than on memorization of facts and rules. In this experiment covering two academic quarters, students initially indicated strong desire to use microcomputers, but their enthusiasm diminished after the classroom experience with their use. Although there was no performance difference across integrative versus non-integrative assignments, performance was positively related to previous computing experience. Students did feel, however, that computers should be used in other accounting courses. Students also reported that they experienced greater learning with integrative course assignments than with repetitive, non-integrative assignments. This finding suggests that a benefit of computer use in teaching accounting may be the opportunity it offers for problem solving based on Understanding rather than on memorization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated the role of creative thinking as a means of improving system developers' abilities to make accounting information systems work. Creative thinking is a structured process of mess-finding, fact-finding, problem-finding, idea-finding, solution-finding, and acceptance-finding for the purpose of implementing new solutions. In this experiment, treatment subjects received instruction in creative thinking and completed a comprehensive case designed to elicit creative thinking; control subjects did not receive instruction in creative thinking and completed a narrowly focused exercise rather than the comprehensive case. There was no consistent difference between the subsequent performance of treatment and control subjects. The results were adjusted for demographic and other variables reflecting subjects' aptitude, academic preparation, and experience in information systems. The finding of no performance difference suggests several possible interpretations: (1) that the exercise of creative thinking may not be measurable, at least not with traditional examinations, (2) that experiential knowledge may dominate the contribution of creative thinking, (3) that learning to think creatively, if it can be taught at all, may require more than one instructional experience, or (4) that different instructional methods might be needed. Depending on which interpretation is more valid, this finding has varying implications for academic and professional educational programs. If creative thinking is not measurable, then one would never know if training in creating thinking had been effective; if experience dominates creative thinking, then the best approach may be to give new system developers experience with actual systems; if the inculcation of creative thinking requires more than one instructional experience, then creative thinking concepts should be integrated into more than one course and reinforced over time; and finally, if different instructional methods are needed, then further experimentation is desirable to develop more effective instructional approaches. Regardless of which interpretation has the most merit, the only way to improve the instruction in systems is for instructors to experiment with new approaches and document their results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]