IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v46y2006i5p697-713.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Australian evidence on student expectations and perceptions of introductory business finance

Author

Listed:
  • Balasingham Balachandran
  • Michael Skully
  • Kevin Tant
  • John Watson

Abstract

This study examines the differences in perceptions and expectations between students at the Caulfield and Peninsula campuses of Monash University with different entrance criteria and degree availability to determine whether two different introductory finance subjects should be offered rather than one. Results reported in this study suggest that students at the Caulfield campus are interested in studying a challenging introductory finance subject, whereas students at the Peninsula campus perceived that introductory finance is ‘difficult’. Capital structure and cost of capital topics are statistically significantly ranked higher by Caulfield students than Peninsula students. The results reported in this study revealed that two different introductory finance subjects would be more effective. The core subject at the finance major campus (Caulfield) follows a traditional structure with more emphasis on finance theory, whereas the new subject at the non‐finance campus (Peninsula) places greater emphasis on applications.

Suggested Citation

  • Balasingham Balachandran & Michael Skully & Kevin Tant & John Watson, 2006. "Australian evidence on student expectations and perceptions of introductory business finance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 46(5), pages 697-713, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:46:y:2006:i:5:p:697-713
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-629X.2006.00193.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2006.00193.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2006.00193.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosina Mladenovic, 2000. "An investigation into ways of challenging introductory accounting students' negative perceptions of accounting," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 135-155.
    2. John Marangos, 2002. "How University Students Were Planning To Study Introductory Microeconomics? Were Their Study Plans Realised?," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 21(2), pages 45-60, June.
    3. Andrew Worthington & Helen Higgs, 2003. "Factors explaining the choice of a finance major: the role of students' characteristics, personality and perceptions of the profession," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 261-281.
    4. Eisenbeis, Robert A, 1977. "Pitfalls in the Application of Discriminant Analysis in Business, Finance, and Economics," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 32(3), pages 875-900, June.
    5. Paul Azzalini & Sandra Hopkins, 2002. "What Business Students Think Of Economics: Results From A Survey Of Second Year Students," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 21(1), pages 11-17, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beverley Jackling & Claude Calero, 2006. "Influences on Undergraduate Students' Intentions to become Qualified Accountants: Evidence from Australia," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 419-438.
    2. Hunjra, Ahmed Imran & Rehman, Kashif-Ur- & Ahmad, Abrar & Safwan, Nadeem & Rehman, Ijaz-Ur, 2009. "Factors explaining the choice of finance major: students’ perception towards finance profession," MPRA Paper 40687, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Tiffany Hutcheson & Harry Tse, 2004. "Learning by Students at University," Working Paper Series 136, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
    4. Montgomery, D. & Swinnen, G. & Vanhoof, K., 1997. "Comparison of some AI and statistical classification methods for a marketing case," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 312-325, December.
    5. Lin, Hsiou-Wei William & Lo, Huai-Chun & Wu, Ruei-Shian, 2016. "Modeling default prediction with earnings management," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 306-322.
    6. Kevin M. Baird & Venkateshwaran Narayanan, 2010. "The effect of a change in teaching structure on student performance," Asian Review of Accounting, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 18(2), pages 148-161, July.
    7. Adriana Csikosova & Maria Janoskova & Katarina Culkova, 2020. "Application of Discriminant Analysis for Avoiding the Risk of Quarry Operation Failure," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, September.
    8. Dean Fantazzini & Silvia Figini, 2009. "Random Survival Forests Models for SME Credit Risk Measurement," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 29-45, March.
    9. Youssef Zizi & Mohamed Oudgou & Abdeslam El Moudden, 2020. "Determinants and Predictors of SMEs’ Financial Failure: A Logistic Regression Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-21, October.
    10. Larry G. Perry & Glenn V. Henderson Jr. & Timothy P. Cronan, 1984. "Multivariate Analysis Of Corporate Bond Ratings And Industry Classifications," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 7(1), pages 27-36, March.
    11. Premachandra, I.M. & Chen, Yao & Watson, John, 2011. "DEA as a tool for predicting corporate failure and success: A case of bankruptcy assessment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 620-626, December.
    12. Sara Gundersen & Allison Shwachman Kaminaga, 2022. "Presentations To The President: A Role-Play Assignment For A Macroeconomics Principles Class," Journal of Economics Teaching, Journal of Economics Teaching, vol. 7(3), pages 185-199, October.
    13. Paul G. Farnham & George S. Cluff, 1982. "Municipal Bond Ratings: New Results, New Directions," Public Finance Review, , vol. 10(4), pages 427-455, October.
    14. Balcaen, Sofie & Ooghe, Hubert, 2006. "35 years of studies on business failure: an overview of the classic statistical methodologies and their related problems," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 63-93.
    15. Serrano Cinca, C. & Mar Molinero, C. & Gallizo Larraz, J.L., 2005. "Country and size effects in financial ratios: A European perspective," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 26-47, August.
    16. Martin Vojtek & Evžen Koèenda, 2006. "Credit-Scoring Methods (in English)," Czech Journal of Economics and Finance (Finance a uver), Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, vol. 56(3-4), pages 152-167, March.
    17. Poon, Winnie P. H. & Firth, Michael & Fung, Hung-Gay, 1999. "A multivariate analysis of the determinants of Moody's bank financial strength ratings," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 267-283, August.
    18. Tony R. Wingler & James M. Watts, 1982. "Electric Utility Bond Rating Changes: Methodological Issues And Evidence," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 5(3), pages 221-235, September.
    19. En-Der Su & Shih-Ming Huang, 2010. "Comparing Firm Failure Predictions Between Logit, KMV, and ZPP Models: Evidence from Taiwan’s Electronics Industry," Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, Springer;Japanese Association of Financial Economics and Engineering, vol. 17(3), pages 209-239, September.
    20. Chrysovalantis Gaganis & Fotios Pasiouras & Charalambos Spathis & Constantin Zopounidis, 2007. "A comparison of nearest neighbours, discriminant and logit models for auditing decisions," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1‐2), pages 23-40, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:46:y:2006:i:5:p:697-713. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.