Investigates the impact of gamified simulations on professional scepticism in accounting students, highlighting effective learning strategies.
Professional scepticism is essential in accounting practice but remains difficult to develop through traditional lecture-based instruction. This study examines how a single, gamified investigative simulation, PwC's Investigate! , develops professional scepticism as an enacted capability within a final-year forensic accounting module. Drawing on Experiential Learning Theory, complemented by Self-Determination Theory, Flow Theory and TPACK, the study advances a conceptual model linking experiential, motivational and technological conditions to scepticism outcomes. Reflective commentaries from 104 students across nine cohorts (2014/15–2022/23) were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Findings indicate consistent outcomes across cohorts: students enacted sceptical judgement by questioning evidence, recognising bias, resisting premature conclusions and justifying decisions collaboratively under time pressure. Three design principles emerge: authentic uncertainty must be embedded so that judgement is required rather than optional; collaborative accountability should normalise sceptical challenge and reflective assessment should consolidate metacognition and professional identity. The study challenges the assumption that developing professional scepticism requires extended or resource-intensive intervention, demonstrating that a single, well-designed experiential activity reliably produces higher-order professional capabilities and broader employability outcomes, offering a practical and scalable model for educators seeking to address the graduate expectation–performance gap. The study shows how the purposeful alignment of forensic content, experiential pedagogy and technology operationalises the higher-order judgement capabilities that contemporary employers, professional bodies and curriculum benchmarks identify as central to excellent accounting education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Judith Wylie (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: