Laboratory experiment finds improved academic performance in affirmative accounting students using STEM scaffolds, indicating instructional design relevance.
Purpose This study explores accounting as a STEM field and examines the effectiveness of two STEM components as scaffolding tools in accounting vocational teaching–learning for affirmative students. The components are a technology-based accounting-specific learning management system (LMS) and a mathematics-based instructional method (Accountamatics). Design/methodology/approach This laboratory experiment employed a one-group pretest–posttest design involving 24 vocational students from an affirmative area enrolled in a seven-week accounting course at an AACSB-member business school in Indonesia. Gender and regional origin were controlled. Data were analyzed using linear regression and paired t-tests. Equivalent but non-identical pretest and posttest instruments were used to reduce potential bias from its research design. Findings The results indicate that the STEM components had a significant positive effect on academic performance, while gender and regional origin had no notable influence. This suggests that STEM can serve as an effective scaffold in affirmative accounting education. Research limitations/implications The study supports the integration of STEM-based learning in affirmative regions; however, findings may differ in areas with varying contextual characteristics. Practical implications The results underscore the potential of STEM components, such as an accounting-specific LMS and a mathematics-based instructional method, to function as effective scaffolding tools in affirmative accounting education. Social implications This study contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by offering best practices for implementing STEM-based accounting instruction for affirmative students. Originality/value This study proposes a novel STEM-based instructional design for accounting and addresses the underexplored area of its application for affirmative students.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Warsono et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: