**1. Introduction**

Concept maps have been proven to be a useful educational technique, integrating semantic relationships between concepts into node–link diagrams [1,2]. A traditional or Novakian concept map is made up of nodes of concepts, links, and linking phrases that articulate how these concept nodes relate to each other [3]. Through the provision of visual and abstract evident graphic depictions, concept maps can be used to aid organization, preparation, and presentation of information concerning a topic, a lecture, a course, or even a discipline of knowledge [2]. In higher education, concept mapping has been well regarded as a powerful and versatile tool to facilitate learning (particularly beneficial for lower performance students) [4,5], to enhance learners' problem-solving abilities [6,7], to foster knowledge sharing and social artefacts between students [7], to further teacher–learner dialogue [8], and to renew assessment modes from rote recall of isolated knowledge pieces towards connections between ideas [9].

Given its extensive use in a variety of (particularly science-based) disciplines, concept mapping has not received much attention in accounting education [10,11]. Of particular concern is its limited application in the Accounting Theory (and Application) course, where only one curriculum concept map (Simon 2007) has been found from literature thus far [4]. The essential problem is a map-knowledge mismatch. Proposed more than one decade ago and laid on a traditional financial position, Simon's map is unable to su fficiently and appropriately account for the current state of curriculum knowledge, as the system has been profoundly reshaped by theorizing accountability that triggers emergence and development of non-financial accountings [12–15]. Another inadequacy of this map is that it portrays only simple hierarchical relationships used to distinguish between "more general" and "more specific" concepts and is thus unable to make references to curriculum themes such as accounting evolution and sector-specificity, which are required to address the connections and the interconnections among accounting theories and models across di fferent categories. It has been highlighted that concept maps can serve as powerful tools for educators and students to tackle the challenge emerging from the increasing amount and complexity of knowledge, where more sophisticated and alternative thoughts

to the existing understanding are continuously generated [5,9]. In this regard, concept maps enable a "knowledge integration" process towards a higher level of knowledge, through which the connections between the old and the new ideas are rigorously explored, and the repertoire of all these inconsistent ideas is systematically rearranged [9]. From this perspective, it is necessary to update the curriculum concept map specified on both the extended, nonfinancial knowledge domain of accounting alternatives to traditional financial accounting [1,16], and the intricate (inter)relationships within.

On the other hand, a particular form of concept maps is to symbolize the system of knowledge or information in a tree structure [17,18]. The presentational effectiveness of tree models is highly praised in such a knowledge system where an evolutionary strain is implicated among concepts, or they are distinctively diversified in contexts of meanings or fields of applications [19,20]. This characteristic inherent to the tree model provides the opportunity to redesign the concept map for the Accounting Theory curriculum, where the financial and the non-financial accounting contexts have been distinctly differentiated but still share the same root of accountability.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute an instructor-prepared tree-like concept map stipulated on the Accounting Theory curriculum. Two insights are concluded from this study. First, the concept tree stands for a creative model that visualizes the sophisticated system of accounting theories and concepts, as well as their complex interrelationships. Second, this tree has proven its potential to promote curriculum development, as evidenced by the sequence and cohesion of topics and a meaningful linkage to exam design. An additional contribution made by this paper is the enrichment of the concept mapping methodology. In doing so, this paper constructs a concrete account to explore the tree-shape as a particular mapping technique that has been rarely studied and inadequately exemplified in literature.

### **2. Concept Map in Accounting Education and a Critique of the Old Curriculum Map**

The theoretical ground of concept mapping is traced back to Ausubel's meaningful learning theory [21,22], which is based on the idea that memory-testing or rote learning cannot achieve an efficient learning process. In Ausubel's view, a successful learning process requires a platform or scaffolding through which new knowledge can be absorbed and integrated to the previously-attained knowledge. This platform or scaffolding comes from the notion of "advance organizers", which refers to a knowledge construction method where general or abstract ideas work to depict an overview to assimilate new knowledge, and fragments of texts are reasonably linked [23,24].

Ausulbel's meaningful learning theory [21–23] provides critical insights for Novak's groundwork for the development of concept mapping [1,24], which has been versatile and flexible in its application for a variety of educational purposes. The underpinning idea of concept mapping is that meaningful learning can be realized by means of graphic representation, where the already-acquired knowledge pieces are organized into an integrated system, and this system opens to new knowledge as its future components [1,10,25,26]. Novak and Gowin [1] refine three fundamentals of Ausubel's learning theory as the base of concept mapping:


Concept mapping has been regarded as an effective teaching and learning tool in accounting education. Relevant studies fall into to three schemes: making instructor-prepared accounting concept maps, teaching accounting students how to make concept maps, and assessing effectiveness of concept maps. These research themes are shown in the Table 1.

In the first scheme, the researchers themselves act as the creators of concept maps and use these maps as educational tools for the purpose of enhancing students' understandings of academic content. In the second scheme, the researchers, as concept map educators, equip students with the knowledge of how to design concept maps. Consequently, students create their own concept maps from a particular topic of accounting, and they are expected to be able to use this useful tool in other fields of accounting and non-accounting disciplines. The third scheme targets assessing the effectiveness of concept maps in contributing to the improvement of education quality; this is normally done by comparing students with experience using concept maps in the curriculum with those who have no such experience.



This paper appertains to the first research scheme in an attempt to redesign a concept map to improve the Accounting Theory curricula. Given that current literature has highly appraised the student-generated concept mapping activities and teacher-student interactive mapping process for their contributions to an active learning environment, teacher-prepared or expert-made concept maps maintain an essential role in teaching practices [5,9,31]. Schewendimann emphasizes that teacher-made concepts "could support integrative understanding" and that, compared to student-generated maps, teacher-made maps seemingly "have an equally positive effect on improving students' achievement" [5] (p. 82). In particular, students suffering weak verbal ability or insufficient prior knowledge benefit greatly from expert-made or instructor-prepared concept maps by recalling more central ideas from these maps than from texts [5].

The new curriculum concept map developed in this paper provides an alternative to the old version of mapping (Simon 2007), which draws on a narrow financial accounting perspective and makes weak presentations of the connections between concepts [10]. Simon's map is shown in Figure 1.

Simon's work stands as the singular concept mapping attempt for the Accounting Theory curriculum in previous literature, but it suffers from some serious limitations [10]. First, drawing on a financial orientation, this map has lost its comprehensiveness in depicting up-to-date curriculum knowledge system, where the accounting academy has highlighted non-financial development and theorized accountability as the accounting base [12–15].

Second, Simon's map fails to capture the intricate interconnections among accounting theories, concepts, and models. This problem places this map at a disadvantage in teaching some curriculum themes that draw on these interrelationships, such as accounting evolution and sector-specificity of accounting practices (that is, practices of the same accounting principles vary significantly across different accounting sectors).

Third, the linking phrases such as "can be" and "e.g." substantively used in this map are too simple, superficial, and unprofessional to effectively characterize the relationships between concepts. Canas, Novak, and Reiska comment that "excellent maps are explanatory, not descriptive"—that is, the quality of maps depends on their "depth of explanation" (p. 15) [8]. Therefore, the real problem

for concept mappers is not an ability to identify concepts to be linked, but the ability to determine propositions to provide a clear explanation, including the professional narratives labeled on these links [8]. Kinchin highlights that concept mapping expertise is evidenced in "technical terms to apply in linking phrases to increase the explanatory power of the map" (p. 291) [32]. Simon's map tends to be of underdeveloped maps, which, as Kinchin critiques, "have used simple linking phrases to join the concepts together" (p. 298) [32].

**Figure 1.** The old version of the curriculum concept map for (financial) Accounting Theory, sourced from Simon (2007) [10] with trivial modifications.

All the aforementioned problems are tackled in this paper by means of a new curriculum concept map using a tree model. How this concept tree is designed and how it differs from the previous mapping work are subjects further discussed in the following sections.

### **3. Design of the Concept Tree for the Curriculum of Accounting Theory**

### *3.1. The Tree Concept Map and Accounting Theory Knowledge*

The tree form of concept maps, or the concept tree model, has been recognized in literature as one of the basic structures of concept maps [17,18]. Normally, concept trees are suitable for a knowledge system where concepts can be sorted into distinctly comparative classes and sub-classes. Recent development of the accountability perspective provides the opportunity to use a concept tree to (re)model the knowledge system of accounting theories. First, theorizing accountability as the base of accountings has become a generally accepted perspective and a robust thread throughout various accounting practices [13,15,33]. An accountability structure involves two interrelated social actors, called "accountor" and "accountee", where the accountor has an obligation to give an account that justifies her/his performance to the accountee [34–37]. As Shearer notes, "accounting practices enact accountability" (p. 569) [15], and accountability pervades the entire accounting phenomenon. To illustrate this, the ultimate purpose of traditional financial accounting is to enable a governing body of the reporting entity to discharge accountability to shareholders [37]. Comparatively, the objective of sustainability accounting is for the entity to discharge accountability to stakeholders [33,38–41].

Second, the diversification of accounting contexts/sectors is justified from an analytic perspective of accountability. Table 2 presents the accountability relationships that regulate practices in the three main accounting contexts/sectors, including corporate financial accounting, public-sector accounting, and sustainability accounting.


**Table 2.** Accountability and accounting contexts/sectors.

Note: this table integrates knowledge claims from [33,35,42].

### *3.2. The Sketch of the Concept Tree*

In this redesign, the concept tree comprises the root, the trunk, the branches, the twigs, and the sub-twigs, all of which correspond to di fferent concepts in di fferent levels of the curriculum knowledge system.

Root: accountability denotes the root of the knowledge system, for it is the base of all accounting practices.

Trunk: the trunk is symbolized by the traditional (corporate) financial accounting as the mainstream accounting knowledge sphere. Financial accounting acts as the prototype for other accounting systems, including public-sector accounting and sustainability accounting. Both non-financial accounting systems entail a stage of simulating the traditional financial accountancy. It has been a zealous belief that public sector accounting originates from, mirrors, and keeps in line with corporate financial accounting [43–45]. Likewise, sustainability accounting is developed from the track of the financial accounting system [12,46].

Branches: sustainability accounting and public-sector accounting are denoted as two branches diversified from the trunk, which stands for the mainstream (corporate financial) accounting. Their emergence and development are attributed to critical stances against the conventional accountancy, and standards and practical models associated with the two accounting systems are comparable to but significantly di fferent from the financial accounting venue [12,44]. For example, sustainability accounting standards are inhered with non-financial and not-for-profit elements in establishing the accounting scopes, principles, and procedures [39,40]. Barton compares public-sector accounting and corporate financial accounting, attributing the considerable variances between the two systems to "di fferences in the roles and operating environment of governments and business" [44].

Twigs and sub-twigs: twigs signify academic schools and streams within an accounting context/sector (branch). Associated with the schools or streams are sector-specific standards, principles, and theories, which are denoted as sub-twigs. For example, the stream of capital market research is a twig of the financial accounting branch, including sub-twigs such as the e fficient market hypothesis. There are lower levels of sub-twigs, such as the practical models to operationalize the standards and the principles. For example, the historical cost alternative (sub-twig) is operationalized into lower-level sub-twig models of economic value, net realized value, replacement cost, and deprival value.
