MEASURING EDUCATIONAL IMPACT BEYOND THE CLASSROOM: A DUAL STUDENT–COMMUNITY EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR ACCOUNTING EDUCATION PROGRAMMES

Abstract

Accounting schools increasingly conduct University Social Responsibility (USR), Knowledge Transfer Programme (KTP), and Service-Learning Malaysia–University for Society (SULAM) initiatives to extend learning beyond the traditional classroom. Evaluation of these initiatives, however, often emphasises participation, completed activities, satisfaction, institutional indicators, and awards. Such measures establish implementation and reach but do not, by themselves, demonstrate learning, behavioural transfer, community capacity development, or longer-term results. Three related evaluation gaps therefore remain: an emphasis on outputs rather than outcomes, the tendency to privilege student evidence over community-partner outcomes, and the lack of an integrated approach that connects programme implementation with multi-level evaluation of change. This theoretical conceptual paper proposes a dual student–community evaluation framework for accounting education programmes by integrating the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model (reaction, learning, behaviour, and results) with a programme logic model linking needs, inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes. The conceptual contribution lies in assigning complementary functions to the two models: the logic model explains how a programme is expected to generate change, while Kirkpatrick structures the level at which change is assessed. These functions are applied through two related but non-substitutable evaluation pathways for students and community partners. Three Faculty of Accountancy programmes; i-Asnaf ACT and Financial Literacy, SULAM with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and the Secondary School Accounting USR Programme, are used as illustrative, rather than representative, cases because they reflect different forms of accounting-related community engagement, beneficiary groups, and intended outcomes. The framework proposes beneficiary-specific indicators, evidence sources, evaluation periods, community participation in defining success, clear distinctions between outputs and outcomes, and assessment of contribution rather than claims of causality unless sufficient evidence supports attribution. The framework provides accounting educators, faculty administrators, and community partners with a structured basis for defining programme success, selecting appropriate evidence, planning follow-up evaluation, distinguishing programme outputs from educational and community outcomes, and reporting programme contributions without unsupported causal claims.