*4.2. Addressing Accounting Evolution*

An advantage of this concept tree is its capacity to display and justify how accounting evolved and is evolving, which is attributed to the use of bifurcation signposts between di fferent branches and between di fferent twigs in a branch. To illustrate this, in contrast to the mainstream financial accounting (trunk) in pursuit of financial profits for individual business entities, public-sector accounting (branch) rests on a not-for-profit and public interest element, and sustainability accounting (branch) is developed to address non-financial and non-profit concerns. The bifurcation signposts between the trunk and the two new accounting branches characterize the base and the vein of how the two non-financial accounting systems emerged from critiques of the traditional accounting suppositions.

In a teaching setting, this concept tree is integrated in a story-telling method, where students can learn the accounting theories from a historical perspective. It was found that this innovative approach not only raised students' interests in studying theories themselves, but also triggered their enthusiasm in exploring the socio-economic backgrounds on which these theories were engendered. For example, presentation of the history of deprival value is complemented by the concept tree in the lecture. The bifurcation signpost between the twigs of financial reporting and alternative measurement informs that the deprival value contends an opposing stance against the historical cost assumption on which financial reporting standards are based. Associated with this bifurcation is a sequence of critical thinking questions regarding the invention of deprival value: (1) What were the problems of historical cost assumption when applied in practice? (2) How did the deprival value enable one to solve these problems? (3) How did the deprival value influence a generation of accounting scholars? (4) What lessons and experiences can we learn from this story regarding accounting evolution? These questions, ascribed to the historic story of deprival value, led students to probe into a deeper understanding of this accounting concept, motivating them to deliberate the nature and the practical implications of accounting evolution.

### *4.3. Understanding Accounting Research Methodology in Contexts*

The distinction between the two research methods—normative accounting and positive accounting—is basic knowledge in this curriculum. Compared to the traditional way of paralleling the accounting research methodology to the practical accounting systems (as shown in Simon's map (2007) [10], this concept tree integrates the methodological understanding across and within accounting contexts. For instance, the concept tree illustrates the origin of positive accounting in the field (twig) of capital market research [49,50], and the normative accounting research is associated with the critique of existing theories and the exploration of alternative theories (refer to the bifurcation signposts). This is evidenced in the emergence of new branches or twigs in the concept tree. Sustainability accounting can be understood as one example of normative theory, for this new accounting system with a non-financial element is used to substitute for the traditional financial accounting routines in dealing with non-financial environmental and social issues [12]. The alternative measurements can be viewed as another example of normative theory, in which the historical cost assumption is refused due to its inability to reflect current value and future benefit.

### *4.4. Enhancing Understanding of Sector-Specific Accounting Practices*

The context- or sector-specificity of accounting practices as a relatively new philosophic perspective has gained prominence in the accounting academy [42,51,52]. It argues that, provided an accounting principle is applicable to di fferent accounting sectors/contexts (such as financial business accounting, governmental accounting, and sustainability accounting), practical models and operationalization methods of this principle vary significantly across these accounting sectors [12,42,44,53]. The concept tree reinforces the understandability of this important perspective, guiding students to observe, deliberate, and analyze the sector-dependent nature of accounting phenomena. For example, the GRI sustainability reporting standards and the financial reporting standards symbolize sub-twigs from di fferent accounting branches in the concept tree. This graphic outlook enables an immediate grasp of the di fferences between the two reporting systems and provides a foundation for the later implementation of concrete cases, through which these di fferences are investigated in detail, from reporting principles to procedures and formats.

Another application exemplar is the research case of operationalizing the materiality principle in practices. The accounting academy has observed that public-sector accountants and auditors tend to apply a much stricter materiality level (significance of an issue) than their corporate financial peers [53,54]. That is, an issue that is considered insignificant from the view of corporate accountants and auditors may be regarded as significant for public-sector accounting practices. Theorists attribute this variance to the di fferent scopes of accountability, where financial accounting practitioners are accountable to only a small group of shareholders, whilst public-sector accountants/auditors bear accountability to the whole society [53,55]. The concept tree enables a graphic reference to understand this phenomenon, where the materiality sub-twigs appear in the di fferent branches of traditional financial accounting and public-sector accounting, and the two branches are regulated by di fferent accountor–accountee relationships. This graphic reference drawn from the concept tree has been used to introduce the sector-specific materiality phenomenon and the relevant theoretical explanations, thereby enhancing a meaningful learning manner through which the theories are visualized [21,22].

### **5. Notes to the Curriculum Design**

The concept tree performs a function of designing and steering the curriculum. The curriculum design experiences pertinent to its application are documented as follows.

### *5.1. Sequence of Lecture Topics*

Concept mapping is a useful vehicle for educators to "consider sequencing of topics" (p. 305) [11], a critical requirement for curricula due to the linear nature of instructional processes [1]. The concept tree endorses a sequence of curriculum topics. To begin, the concept tree is introduced in the initial lecture (Topic 1) to outline the overall curriculum knowledge system. Topic 1 also involves a brief explanation of the accountability theory and the accounting research methodology as they pertain to normative and positive theories. The other topics of the curriculum are sequenced and correspond to di fferent parts of the tree, such as: financial reporting system (Topic 2, mainstream/trunk), alternative measurements to historical costs (Topic 3, twig), capital market research (Topic 4, twig), accountability theory (Topic 5, root), sustainability accounting (Topic 6, branch), public-sector accounting (Topic 7, branch), and advanced issues in accounting theory (Topic 8). Except for the introductory Topic 1, the sequencing starts from the financial reporting system (Topic 2) and its closely related Topics 3 and 4, and then to the non-financial accounting Topics 5, 6, and 7. The final topic, Topic 8, concerns progressive theses, antitheses, and debates in accounting studies, covering all previous topics.

The rationale inherent to this sequencing is in line with Ausubel's meaningful learning theory [21,22], which holds that an e fficient learning process is produced when new knowledge can be related to knowledge already known. A prerequisite for the Accounting Theory (and Application) curriculum is the unit of Principles of Accounting, which conjoins with the topic of corporate financial reporting. As this topic contains knowledge that students are familiar with before they start the curriculum, it is set as the second topic immediately following the introductory topic. Accountability theory (Topic 5) is allocated before sustainability accounting (Topic 6). This arrangemen<sup>t</sup> is in accordance with an epistemic perspective that accountability theory is the ethical foundation for the development of sustainability accounting [13].
