xbrl in the accounting curriculum

XBRL in the Accounting Curriculum

Roger Debreceny and Stephanie Farewell

ABSTRACT: This position paper argues that the eXtensible Business Reporting Lan-guage �XBRL� be integrated across the accounting curriculum, in a manner relevant tothe temporal stage and content of particular courses within the curriculum. XBRL is ametadata representation language for the Internet, based on the World Wide Webconsortium’s eXtensible Markup Language �XML�. XBRL provides an important foun-dation for the automated transfer of accounting information and associated metadata.The design of XBRL is fine-tuned to meet the particular needs of accounting and relateddisclosures. Several countries have adopted XBRL in a variety of information valuechains, notably in the USA context the Securities and Exchange Commission’s interac-tive data program. XBRL has implications for the totality of the accounting curriculumand pedagogy. A program for the integration of XBRL across a typical accounting cur-riculum is developed. The proposed XBRL assignments, as part of this program, arealigned with Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives. Recommendations are madefor faculty, case and textbook writers, and the leadership of the XBRL and academicaccounting communities.

Keywords: XBRL; accounting education; pedagogy; financial reporting; disclosure;transparency; auditing; accounting information systems; XML.

INTRODUCTION

In this position paper, we argue that the eXtensible Business Reporting Language �XBRL� beintegrated across the accounting curriculum, in a manner relevant to the temporal stage andcontent of particular courses within the curriculum. XBRL is a flexible, open-source knowl-

edge representation language based on the World Wide Web consortium’s eXtensible MarkupLanguage �XML�. XBRL is made up of a specification that governs the manner of adoption;taxonomies built by information consumers that provide a suite of metadata for the particularinformation value chain and instance documents generated by information providers that alignwith both the specification and taxonomies. XBRL facilitates unambiguous Internet reporting ofentity performance data. It empowers stakeholders by allowing them to draw this performancedata directly into their data warehouses and decision models and supports automated repurposingof the data in web-based applications.

There are many current and emerging adoptions of XBRL both nationally and internationally.The most important XBRL adoption from the perspective of accounting education in a U.S.

Roger Debreceny is a Professor at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, and Stephanie Farewell is anAssociate Professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

The authors thank the editor of the Special Issue, Greg Gerard, and two anonymous reviewers.

ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION American Accounting AssociationVol. 25, No. 3 DOI: 10.2308/iace.2010.25.3.3792010pp. 379–403

Published Online: August 2010

379

context is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s �SEC� “interactive data” program. Whenfully implemented, the SEC mandate will require all SEC corporate registrants and mutual fundsto report significant levels of performance information in the XBRL format �SEC 2009a�. Forexample, by 2012 corporate registrants will tag all the textual and numeric data in form 10-Q and10K disclosures in XBRL. This change in the method of reporting represents the most thoroughchange in the disclosure environment for financial reporting in U.S. capital markets since the SECbrought the EDGAR repository of filings in plain text and HTML to the Internet in the early1990s. There are clear implications of the SEC’s interactive data rule both for registrants and usersof financial information �CFA 2009; Wagenhofer 2003� with the potential to change the relativepower relationships between preparers and users �Bloomfield 2008�. Currently, there is no require-ment for auditors to provide assurance on the XBRL filings. There is considerable debate on therole of assurance on XBRL filings that will continue for the foreseeable future �Boritz and No2008, 2009�.

In this paper, we discuss the implications of XBRL for the accounting curriculum and de-scribe a program for integrating XBRL into the accounting curriculum. To support this position werely on the inherent importance of XBRL adoption in the U.S. and elsewhere. The significance ofthis adoption has been noted by the SEC’s Advisory Committee on Improvements to FinancialReporting �ACIFR 2008, Chapter 4�, the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to theU.S. Department of the Treasury �ACAP 2008, Chapter VI�, the six largest international auditnetworks �International Audit Networks 2006, Section 3�, AICPA leadership �Lamoreaux andBonne 2009� and the SEC �Cox 2008�. Additionally, the AICPA notes that XBRL will take agreater role in the CPA exam with forthcoming enhanced integration �Anon 2009�.

We recommend that the study of XBRL be integrated at relevant points in the accountingcurriculum. There is a natural tendency within the accounting academy to place any topic thatincludes computerized technology into the accounting information systems course. This is notappropriate for XBRL. While there is a technology foundation to XBRL, most of the teaching andlearning outcomes relate to accounting and reporting issues. For example, the way that SECregistrants and users of financial statements interact with the U.S. GAAP taxonomy is much moreabout accounting concepts than it is about technology. In this paper, we devise a standard under-graduate accounting curriculum with learning objectives linked to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy�Anderson and Krathwohl 2001�. We then describe how we view the alignment of XBRL with thevarious courses that constitute that curriculum. In so doing, we are cognizant both of the signifi-cant and growing information content within the curriculum and the different levels of XBRLknowledge that are appropriate as students navigate through the curriculum. Similarly, necessaryfaculty knowledge of XBRL will vary. For most faculty, strategic awareness will suffice. Forothers, some understanding of the core XBRL technologies will be important. A limited number offaculty will require moderately detailed knowledge of XBRL at a technical level. We make rec-ommendations for faculty, case authors, textbook writers, and the broader XBRL community.While this paper concentrates on the undergraduate curriculum, there are lessons for both theMasters of Accounting and Masters of Business Administration curricula.

It is rare for change in the accounting curriculum within institutions to be holistic andcurriculum-wide. We seek, therefore, to provide guidance to faculty who teach across the curricu-lum as to how they might integrate XBRL into their courses, on a standalone basis. Availability ofteaching and learning materials is an important element of adoption of new content in the curricu-lum. Accordingly, the paper makes recommendations for textbook authors and case writers.

The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows: the next section provides background onXBRL. Choices that policymakers have when implementing XBRL are set out. A number ofcurrent and planned implementations of XBRL in different sectors both in the U.S. and interna-tionally are introduced to demonstrate the need for the inclusion of XBRL in the accounting

380 Debreceny and Farewell

Issues in Accounting Education Volume 25, No. 3, 2010American Accounting Association

curriculum. The third section discusses program-level integration of XBRL in the accountingcurriculum. We show how the recommended integration of XBRL in the curriculum aligns withBloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives. The following section addresses detailed guidance foreach of the parties involved in the development and delivery of particular courses. The fifth andfinal section sets out our conclusions and describes an agenda for future research on XBRL andaccounting education.

BACKGROUNDIn this section, we present information on the nature of XBRL, XBRL taxonomy design, and

world-wide implementations. Policymakers and designers have many choices as they buildXBRL-facilitated information value chains. These choices include the range and extent of infor-mation transferred, the design of taxonomies, and how information is captured, transformed, anddistributed. We point to a number of current and planned implementations of XBRL. This back-ground sets the scene for a high-level review of integration of XBRL in the accounting curriculum.

Nature of XBRLA complete technical analysis of XBRL is beyond the scope of this article. There is an

overdue but increasing array of introductory �Hoffman and Watson 2009; White 2008a� and moreadvanced �Debreceny et al. 2009� books, teaching guides �White 2008b�, websites �e.g., http://www.xbrl.org, http://www.xbrl.us, http://www.xbrlplanet.org and http://www.xbrleducation.com�and other learning resources on XBRL. We traverse enough of the technical intricacies of XBRLto enlighten later discussion.

There are four primary components in the delivery of XBRL reporting solutions, illustrated inFigure 1. These components are �1� the XML standard; �2� the XBRL Specification; �3� XBRLtaxonomy; and �4� instance documents. We introduce each of these components in turn.

XBRL builds upon the foundations provided by the World Wide Web Consortium’s �W3C�XML standard.1 XML is a flexible method for dissemination of information on the web. XMLovercomes the limited ability of HTML �HyperText Markup Language� to represent the semanticmeaning of concepts. XML underpins many of the applications in daily use on today’s web. Forexample, each time a student subscribes to a blog submission he or she is using Really SimpleSyndication �RSS�, an XML-based service. Apart from the primary XML standard, the W3Cpublishes a family of XML-based standards and XBRL employs a small subset of that family.

The second component is the XBRL 2.1 specification �Engel et al. 2003�. The specificationsystematically leverages XML to facilitate business reporting. The specification is an engineeringdocument that ensures that taxonomy builders and software developers can construct reportingsolutions. While the specification is the intellectual property of the XBRL International consor-tium, it is freely licensed.

The hard work of development of XBRL-enabled information value chains comes in the thirdcomponent, taxonomy design. It is within the taxonomy that the primary metadata relationshipsare expressed, primarily in the linkbases discussed in the previous paragraph. Facts in the instancedocument are tagged against the taxonomy. Again, complete analysis of the role and design oftaxonomies is beyond the scope of this paper �Debreceny et al. 2009, Chapter 3�. A couple ofexamples will suffice. First, taxonomy architects can develop a suite of human-readable labels forany given element. These can be short for use in mobile applications; verbose for reporting ontraditional Web pages and in different languages. Labels can also adjust for given data relation-

1 The http://www.w3schools.com website provides a series of tutorials on XML.

XBRL in the Accounting Curriculum 381


http://www.xbrl.org

http://www.xbrl.org

http://www.xbrl.us

http://www.xbrlplanet.org

http://www.xbrleducation.com

http://www.w3schools.com

ships. For example, the taxonomy architect can assign one label for positive values of a givenquantitative element and a different value for negative values. Second, the taxonomy architect candefine mathematical relationships between elements �e.g., Revenue � CostOfGoodsSold � Gross-Margin�. This capability is clearly important for financial reporting solutions.

As an example, the U.S. GAAP taxonomy includes the element IncomeTaxExpenseBenefitthat has the standard label “Income Tax Expense �Benefit�” and the label “Income Tax Expense�Benefit�, Total” when used to total other detailed tax items in the Income Statement. The tax-onomy refers to the FAS No. 109 and the SEC’s Regulation S-X �SX�, Para 210�h�, as authority.The taxonomy shows that the element is involved in several calculation relationships. It is theparent of a calculation relationship that includes child elements such as “Current Income Tax�Benefit�” and “Deferred Income Tax �Benefit�.” In turn, it is the child of a calculation relationshipwhose parent is “Income �Loss� from Continuing Operations, Including Portion Attributable toNoncontrolling Interest.” As the term “eXtensible” suggests, XBRL allows �but does not mandate�information providers to build extension taxonomies for their own particular reporting needs thatwere not envisaged by the taxonomy architect.

Finally, the instance documents are where the facts for a particular entity are set out andtagged to one or more taxonomies. An instance document published by a given entity will tag toconcepts in the foundation taxonomy for the relevant information value chain. The instance docu-ment has its own metadata on factors such as temporality �e.g., revenue for a period from 1January to 31 March� and context �e.g., budgeted or actual�.To use the example from the previoussection, when an instance document incorporates an income statement that includes Income Tax,as most do, the particular fact will be tagged against the U.S. GAAP element IncomeTaxExpense-Benefit. The instance document will also include metadata on concepts such as period �e.g., period

FIGURE 1XBRL Technology Suite



from 1 January 20xx to 31 December 20xx� and currency �e.g., U.S. dollar�. It may also refer toan extension taxonomy for concepts that are specific to the particular entity. Also included aremetadata on issues such as details of the reporting entity.

Taxonomy Design

The flexibility of XBRL has allowed its use in a wide variety of information value chains. Wesee two primary vectors in the use of XBRL: first, the level of openness in taxonomy design, and,second, the availability of information flowing from the XBRL reporting solution. “Closed” tax-onomies are those that meet the reporting requirements of a particular information consumer.Typically, closed taxonomies are those that meet the well-defined needs of a single informationrecipient. Often, these information flows are in regulatory environments. An instance documentbased on a closed taxonomy may be the XBRL equivalent of a pre-existing paper form, electronicdocument, or spreadsheet. There is typically little by way of public involvement in taxonomydesign or due process review after initial development. Indeed, the taxonomy may not even be inthe public domain. Closed taxonomies are usually developed for a known set of informationproviders and for data points that are well understood and do not require extensions.

Conversely, while open taxonomies are usually developed by a single organization, such asXBRL U.S. or the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation �IASCF�, they em-ploy a strategy that seeks broad input into taxonomy design and content development and qualityassurance. Normally, developers of open taxonomies expect and indeed may encourage extensionsby individual information providers.

Another major strand in taxonomy development is the XBRL Global Ledger �XBRL GL��XBRL International 2009�. XBRL GL facilitates the transfer of reporting information �e.g., man-agement reporting data� and transactional information �e.g., general ledger journal entries� be-tween disparate computer applications �Cohen 2009; Garbellotto 2008a, 2008b�. It comprises afamily of taxonomies that support this exchange of information.

The second vector relates to the end user of information flows. At the closed end of thecontinuum, a very limited number of information consumers keep the information confidential.There are a couple of models at the open end of the continuum. The most open is where there isno information intermediary. A reporting entity places the information on the web, relying eitheron information consumers to point to that repository with, for example, a RSS feed or on searchengines recognizing the telltale fingerprints that XBRL leaves within the instance document. Asecond, and much more common, scenario is for an information intermediary to receive theinformation flows and subsequently make the information available to information consumers,normally in XBRL format. In this scenario, the information intermediary will usually undertake avariety of information quality enhancement tasks. These may include taxonomy quality assess-ment, rules on report preparation, screening of submissions, data validation, and maintenance of adata warehouse.

In Figure 2, we map examples of adoptions in each of the quadrants made up by the inter-sections of each of the two continua �i.e., taxonomy openness and information flow�. In the UnitedKingdom, the tax authority �Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs �HMRC�� have built an XBRLsolution for the filing of corporate tax data �Example 1 in Quadrant 3�. The taxonomy was builtin-house and all information flows are confidential. This is a closed taxonomy with closed dataflows. “Standard Business Reporting” �SBR� projects in the Netherlands, Australia, and othercountries seek to reduce the cost of compliance by small and medium enterprises. There was broadparticipation in taxonomy development �Example 2 in Quadrant 3�. The steering committee in theNetherlands included governmental agencies, professional accounting organizations, the Dutch



accounting standards board, and XBRL Netherlands. All information flowing within the project isconfidential and stays within the governmental sector and is for limited other uses. The taxonomyis moderately open with closed information flows.

An important element of prudential supervision of financial institutions in several countries inEurope is based on reporting to central banks with the Financial Reporting �FINREP� taxonomy�Example 3 in Quadrant 1�. This taxonomy is an extension of the International Financial ReportingStandards �IFRS� taxonomy, fine-tuned for the needs of financial institutions. The IFRS taxonomyis built by the IASCF but with significant public input and formal quality reviews. All of the dataflows are confidential to the bank regulators. The Federal Financial Institutions ExaminationCouncil �FFIEC� bank call report XBRL adoption in the U.S. is quite different �Example 5 inQuadrant 4�. Taxonomy development built on many years of bank call reports and involved theregulator community with limited input from the accounting profession and the XBRL community.The FFIEC data provide the foundation for services such as iBanknet’s website that tracks thehealth of financial institutions on a state-by-state basis �iBanknet 2009�.

The most open of both taxonomies and information distribution is the SEC interactive dataprogram �Example 6 in Quadrant 2�. The SEC outsourced taxonomy development to XBRL U.S.,

FIGURE 2Taxonomy Development versus Information Availability



a not-for-profit organization. There was significant public involvement in the development andreview process with multiple layers of participation, including a publicly available bug-trackingwebsite. Actual corporate and mutual fund filings are available from the SEC website, supportedby a RSS feed. XBRL data from the program are now “mashed up” �i.e., combined with otherdata� in online applications. For example, Freerisk �http://www.freerisk.org� is a service for com-munity risk rating of corporations as a complement or even substitute to the credit rating agencies.Freerisk relies on SEC filings in XBRL as the data foundation for its crowd sourced, or user-generated, ratings process. No doubt, when all SEC filers are reporting in XBRL, there will bemany more innovative uses of the data.

XBRL Adoption

Financial reporting in the United States is being transformed through the adoption of XBRLby the SEC. On January 30, 2009, the SEC released Rule 33-9002, which phases in the require-ment for registrants to furnish XBRL tagged financial information �SEC 2009a�. While the largest500 companies began filing 10-Qs for reporting periods ending on or after June 15, 2009, the rulewill not fully phase in until 2012 when the last group of registrants will furnish not only taggedfinancial statements but also detailed tagged footnotes and additional disclosures. When the imple-mentation is complete, every numeric, monetary, and textual disclosure in the 10-Q and 10-K willhave an appropriate tag from the U.S. GAAP XBRL taxonomy or an entity-specific extension.Because of the inherent complexity of financial reporting, the U.S. GAAP taxonomy is a substan-tial and complex taxonomy with more than 12,000 discrete elements. The tagged statementsincreases the Commission’s ability to effectively and efficiently monitor registrants and reduce therisks of future financial scandals such as those that have plagued the last decade. The SEC alsomonitors the quality of XBRL filings and provides feedback to filers �e.g., SEC 2009b�.

While the SEC interactive data program meets a considerable proportion of the financialreporting undertaken by SEC registrants, there is other information that is not currently required tobe tagged by the SEC. For example, the Management Discussion and Analysis �MD&A� is notrequired to be tagged. The MD&A provides a valuable perspective on forward-looking informa-tion. According to Warren Buffet, information consumers need to know “all the important factsabout current operations as well as the CEO’s frank view of long-term economic characteristics ofthe business. We would expect both a lot of financial details and a discussion of any significantdata we would need to interpret what was presented” �Buffet 2000�. This information could betagged with a common set of XBRL tags from a MD&A taxonomy.

An important driver of long-term adoption of XBRL is the Standard Business Reporting�SBR� project in the Netherlands and elsewhere. SBR seeks to reduce the burden of regulatory andother forms of reporting by small and medium enterprises �SMEs� as well as enhance access tocredit for SMEs. In a recent development, financial institutions in the Netherlands will leverageSBR for credit reporting by SMEs �Ministerie van Financiën 2009�. An Australian version of SBRcommences in July 2010. The project brings together the reporting requirements of the AustralianTaxation Office, Australian Securities and Investment Commission, Australian Prudential Regula-tion Authority, and the state and territory revenue offices �Australian Treasury 2009�. There areSBR developments underway in Singapore and New Zealand.

In this section, we described the XBRL technology suite, reviewed the choices in the designof XBRL taxonomies, and discussed a sample of current and emerging XBRL adoptions. Wedemonstrate that XBRL is in use in a wide variety of information value chains, with financialreporting being the most consistent theme in these adoptions.



http://www.freerisk.org

INTEGRATING XBRL INTO THE ACCOUNTING CURRICULUMIn this section, we describe how XBRL integrates into the accounting curriculum. While it

may seem on the surface that XBRL is a systems topic, it is much more. For example, the issuesand choices faced by accounting standards setters, securities regulators, and individual corpora-tions in the implementation of XBRL-enabled financial reporting value chains are much moreabout accounting principles and practice than they are about XBRL technology. The study ofXBRL should be across the accounting curriculum to facilitate learning. XBRL should be learnedwithin the context of transactional data and domestic and international reporting to stockholders,government entities, and other stakeholders. With the knowledge base developed, students will beprepared to tackle the technical issues that properly belong in the accounting information systemscourse. Our suggested coverage of XBRL builds in the accounting curriculum the same way thatthe breadth and depth of accounting concepts increases. In the introductory courses of the account-ing curriculum core concepts are explored. These include the double-entry bookkeeping systemand the role of accounting information within organizations and the broader economy. Later in theprogram the curriculum broadens �financial and management accounting, systems and auditing�and deepens. So it is with XBRL. Introductory courses might address general concepts and stra-tegic issues. Later in the curriculum, the study of XBRL should more closely relate to the contentin the particular course and be in greater depth.

We describe a XBRL curriculum that aligns with a high proportion of accounting curricula inthe U.S. We concentrate on XBRL in the undergraduate curriculum although many of the issueswe raise also apply to the Masters of Accounting or MBA curricula. We see different intensity andfocus in the various courses within the curriculum. We map the coverage of XBRL in the curricu-lum on the integration of two continua: “perspective” and “intensity.” The perspective continuumhas the end-points of end-user and preparer. The preparer-side is focused on the creation of anXBRL instance document while on the end-user side the focus is on using the XBRL tagged datafor analysis purposes. The intensity continuum has the end-points of introductory and advanced.The introductory end-point would include an overview of XBRL while at the advanced level thecoverage would be detail-oriented. We show how these recommended adoptions of XBRL withinthe curriculum relate to the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives �Anderson andKrathwohl 2001�. We recognize the constraints of a crowded curriculum that is subject to ever-increasing demands from factors such as the integration of IFRS and fair value accounting. Werecommend only the minimum level of study necessary for graduates to appreciate the implica-tions of XBRL. In the next section, we describe in more depth the way in which XBRL could beintegrated into particular courses.

The Accounting CurriculumOver the last couple of decades there have been several calls to fundamentally remake ac-

counting education �AAA 1986; Albrecht et al. 1994; Albrecht and Sack 2000; Van Wyhe 2007,490� that arose from longstanding concerns of the accounting profession �e.g., Perspectives onEducation 1989�. Despite the initiatives of the American Accounting Association and the Account-ing Education Change Commission �Sundem 1999� and marquee initiatives such as Project Dis-covery at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign or other proposals for reform �e.g., Aryaet al. 2003�, the undergraduate curriculum is stubbornly resistant to change. There is a high degreeof similarity in the curriculum between institutions and across time. Alumni that graduated from agiven institution decades previously can often see exactly the same curriculum today down to andincluding the course codes.

We surveyed the curricula at our own institutions and at several others to map the typicalcourses and sequence of courses in the undergraduate accounting curriculum. There are somevariations on the general theme, often driven by state licensing differences. For example, some



programs do not have an AIS course. Others have limited study of taxation. Some programsinclude auditing as a core course, others as an elective. Nonetheless, there is a striking similarityin the design of the undergraduate accounting curriculum; we show the typical curriculum inFigure 3. The curriculum could be used in either two-year �upper division� or four-year businessschools. We show a path through the curriculum that is typical for a student who intends on takingthe CPA exam. There are some thirteen courses in the curriculum that traverses the sophomore tosenior year. In the detailed discussion on courses below, we conflate the two cost and managementand taxation courses.

Other proposals for curriculum reform relate to changes in the overall direction of all account-ing programs or development of niche programs. For example, Tatikonda �2004� makes an im-

FIGURE 3Typical Undergraduate Course Sequence



passioned call for curriculum reform that recognizes the importance of management accounting.Kranacher et al. �2008� propose a new curriculum for a fraud and forensic accounting specialistprogram. We take a more cautious approach. We seek integration of XBRL within the existingcurriculum. While we see that all accounting courses have the potential to integrate XBRL knowl-edge and learning outcomes, the impact is differential. When we came to design the “touch” ofXBRL on the curriculum, we recognized that there should be variation in perspective and inten-sity. We model the coverage of XBRL in the curriculum from two continuum, as previouslydiscussed. First, we view the “perspective” of the discussion. In some courses, the impact ofXBRL on how users interact with business information is the appropriate perspective. Othercourses should have a much stronger focus of the impact of XBRL on preparers and the processof reporting. The second continuum is the intensity of covering XBRL at a policy or at a moretechnical level. We anticipate that some courses would have a “hands-on” component, whichrequires students to use appropriate software, but most will not. In Figure 4, we model all thecourses in the model curriculum against the focus and depth perspectives. For each course, weshow whether they are “hands-on” or “hands-off.”

Our unit of analysis for the impact of XBRL on the curriculum was the individual course.Fortunately, as can be seen in Figure 4, the outcome is well balanced in terms of depth, focus, andthe level of hands-on activity. Further, as students progress through the curriculum they add depthto their understanding of XBRL. For example, the first courses in accounting have limited content

FIGURE 4XBRL Coverage in Accounting Courses mapped to Depth and Focus Perspectives



at an appropriately introductory level. For more advanced courses such as Auditing and Account-ing Information Systems, there is in-depth coverage, albeit within the time constraints of thosecourses.

Alignment with Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning ObjectivesIn this subsection, we discuss how the various ways that XBRL touches the curriculum can be

seen from the viewpoint of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives. Given the diversity ofXBRL-enabled information value chains and the different perspectives, we build student knowl-edge of XBRL across the curriculum. Many of the assignments and exercises we describe in thissection and integrate into the detailed course-by-course discussion in the next section involvehigher-order thinking. For example, requiring students to interact with taxonomic structures, thinkdeeply about the semantic meaning of accounting terms, and be able to make judgments onappropriate mapping outcomes have benefits for learning outcomes relative to information literacy�Jackson and Durkee 2008�, accounting theory, and research skills.

In Figure 5, we show a set of assignments for the various courses in our proposed XBRLcurriculum. These vary from lectures through exercises, cases, and short written papers. These

FIGURE 5Assignment Learning Objectives



learning points correlate to the depth level and focal concentration that we set out in Figure 4. Wenow proceed to align these learning points with Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives�Bloom 1956� as revised by Anderson and Krathwohl �2001�. The revised taxonomy has fourlevels of the knowledge dimension �i.e., “Factual,” “Conceptual,” “Procedural,” and “Meta-cognitive”� and five levels of the cognitive process dimension �i.e., “Remember,” “Understand,”“Apply,” “Analyze,” “Evaluate,” and “Create”�. Factual knowledge refers to terminology �e.g.,schema, taxonomy, instance document�. Conceptual knowledge requires understanding the inter-relationships within the domain �e.g., how the schema, taxonomy, and instance document arerelated�. Procedural knowledge is how to accomplish the task �e.g., create a taxonomy extension ormap financial statement line items�. Meta-cognitive knowledge is knowledge of knowledge �e.g.,knowing which tools to use and how to conduct an instance document examination�. The cognitiveprocess is the process used to learn with depth of processing increasing as you move from simplyremembering to creating. Remembering is the ability to recall or recognize �i.e., recognize “US-GAAP”� as a valid namespace for the U.S. GAAP Taxonomy. Understanding is the ability to usethe knowledge �e.g., summarize how the SEC implementation of XBRL affects financial report-ing�. To apply knowledge is to use it appropriately in a given situation �e.g., classify financialstatement line items to the appropriate taxonomy element�. Analysis is the ability to break apartthe material and explain or differentiate the sub-components �e.g., explaining the role of dimen-sions in note disclosure reporting�. To evaluate requires making judgments or conclusions basedon standards �e.g., examining an instance document to determine compliance with SEC filingrules�. Creation is reorganizing elements or production of a new whole �e.g., creating an instancedocument with taxonomy extension or conducting an attestation examination�. Figure 6 shows the

FIGURE 6Mapping of Bloom Taxonomy to Curriculum Outcomes



mapping of the assignments with the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. When assignments crossedmultiple cognitive process levels or knowledge domains, we indicate the highest level.

Adoption of XBRL in the CurriculumOrganizations adopt technology in three waves. There are early adopters, those that adopt

only after it has proven itself, and late adopters �Lancaster and Taylor 1986; Von Hippel 1997�.Faculty also adopt technology in these three waves. There are early adopters who bring emergingtechnology into the classroom. These early adopters typically develop their own materials. Thenext faculty adopters do so only when sufficient resources have been developed. Finally, the lateadopters incorporate the technology only when outside constituencies demand it. The incorpora-tion of XBRL into the curriculum has followed this path. In the 2002–2003 academic year therewere less than a dozen academics incorporating XBRL into the accounting curriculum within theaccounting information systems course. At that early juncture, faculty were either teaching thevalue proposition of XBRL or were spending equal time on technical application and theory.Interestingly, little has changed in the mix of theory and application in the classroom in theintervening period. XBRL is still being taught primarily in the accounting information systemscourse, albeit by a larger number of faculty. It is now time to move the teaching and learning ofXBRL from the accounting information systems Gulag into the broader accounting curriculum.The role of the leadership of the various sections of the American Accounting Association will beimportant for diffusion. The network effects of innovation diffusion are a clear determinant ofinnovation adoption �Robertson et al. 1996�. Further, in the next section, we make recommenda-tions for textbook authors and case writers. These are clearly important facilitators in the devel-opment of academic innovation.

GUIDANCE ON PROGRAM SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF XBRL IN THECURRICULUM

We now turn our attention to our course-by-course design and recommendations. For eachcourse we address five questions: �1� Why teach it? We address the question why a particularcourse should have an XBRL component. We point out the way that XBRL touches on the typicalcontent within the given course. Of course, the extent of the relationship between XBRL and thecourse content varies considerably between courses. �2� What to teach? What to learn? Weaddress the teaching and learning objectives for the particular course. �3� Possible assignments?We describe possible assignments for the course. �4� Things to avoid? We set out tips and tricksfor faculty that adopt XBRL in their particular course. �5� Advice for? Support for faculty varieswidely by course. We make recommendations to case writers and textbook authors.

Sophomore ClassesThe first course that both accounting and other business majors take is Principles of Account-

ing. Early in most textbooks within this course there is a discussion on the role of accounting inthe functioning of companies and the economy. This is an appropriate point in which to introduceXBRL. We see only a very limited exposure to XBRL at this point. We believe it is sufficient tointroduce students to XBRL. Faculty and textbooks should emphasize the role XBRL plays in theconsumption of accounting information. Students should receive an end-user perspective onXBRL and only at a relatively surface level. At this stage of their development, students often askthe question “Why do I have to study accounting?” Discussion of the important role XBRL playsin corporate transparency including sustainability and capital markets correlates with the world-view of our audience of millennials. We set out more detailed guidance in Figure 7.

The focus remains on users within the introductory cost and management course. Introductionto XBRL GL as a means for transfer of management accounting data between disparate accounting



systems is appropriate in this course. XBRL GL allows transfer of much more than just financialdata between systems. Again, the focus of discussion in this sophomore course should be at theintroductory level only. Unfortunately, at the time of writing, we observe very little discussion ofXBRL within standard cost and management textbooks. This is in stark contrast to the role playedby the Institute of Management Accountants �IMA�, which has had a long-standing strategic focuson XBRL. We discuss more of the challenges of adopting XBRL in the introductory managementaccounting class in Figure 8.

Junior ClassesThe junior year is arguably the most intensive for students in the accounting major. Students

face the two intermediate financial accounting courses that provide the foundation for their evo-lution into financial statement preparers. The study of XBRL in these pivotal courses shouldsupport and integrate with overall learning objectives for those courses, rather than be a stand-alone learning outcome. We set out our more detailed recommendations on the two intermediatefinancial accounting courses in Figure 9 and Figure 10.

Senior ClassesWe now turn to the courses that are typically in the final year of study in the undergraduate

curriculum. A capstone course in the curriculum is Advanced Financial Accounting �see Figure

FIGURE 7Principles of Accounting



11�. The content for Advanced Financial Accounting differs somewhat from textbook to textbook,but a consistent theme is the process of consolidation. There are software applications such asHyperion that assist corporations in the consolidation process. However, in practice, many spread-sheets are used in the consolidation process. A key element of the discussion on XBRL shouldencompass its role in the consolidation process. This may involve the use of both XBRL-GL andfinancial reporting taxonomies �e.g., the U.S. GAAP and IFRS taxonomies, for foreign subsidiar-ies�. When a corporation uses externally determined taxonomies, the quality of the consolidationprocess should improve. Unfortunately, at the time of writing there is a dearth of pedagogicalmaterials.

Now we come to the two-course sequence of Accounting Information Systems �Figure 12�and Auditing �Figure 13�. As we discuss above, faculty teaching in the financial and managementaccounting courses may consider that this is where XBRL “belongs” in the curriculum. There areappropriate aspects of XBRL that should receive coverage in the AIS class. These include moredetailed knowledge of the technical aspects of XBRL. This is the course where, we believe,students should develop more expertise in the construction of instance documents—althoughintroductory instance document creation exercises might well be seen in the Principles or Inter-mediate courses. It is particularly important that students have worked with the U.S. GAAPtaxonomy and financial statements in earlier courses, especially given that such learning is moreproductive when viewed in context. The primary consideration of XBRL in the AIS class shouldbe on the construction and consumption of high-quality instance documents. It is important toexpose students to some of the complexities of XBRL implementation of metadata, particularly inthe various linkbases. Just as accounting standards affect the content of financial accountingclasses, guidance from the SEC, XBRL International, and XBRL U.S. affects the content of XBRLin the AIS class. A second major strand in the AIS class is an introduction to XBRL GL. This suiteof taxonomies is important for linking disparate systems, internal reporting systems, and ensuringthe quality of the close and consolidation process.

FIGURE 8Cost and Management Accounting



The AIS course leads logically to the Auditing course. Given the importance of the productionof financial statements in XBRL format, the standard auditing course should now pay attention tothe role of XBRL. While an audit of XBRL filings is not yet required in the U.S. setting, there isvoluntary assurance on the production of financial statements in XBRL format. The AICPA,PCAOB, and the Center for Audit Quality have all issued guidance in recent years. At the date ofwriting, XBRL is also on the agenda of the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board�IAASB� internationally and the Auditing Standards Board in the U.S. Given the primacy ofXBRL reporting in the U.S. environment, the inherent complexity of financial reporting, thecomplexities of relevant taxonomies, and the choices that reporting entities have, there are manyrisks in production of incorrect or misleading instance documents. We expect that in the future,assurance on XBRL filings will be required. While we are seeing the first coverage of XBRL inauditing textbooks, there is a lack of sufficient teaching materials for the audit class.

XBRL features in the realm covered by both the Government and Nonprofit �GNP� class�Figure 14� and taxation �Figure 15� courses. Governmental agencies both produce and consume

FIGURE 9Intermediate Financial Accounting I



accounting information and reports. Many of the implementations of XBRL internationally havebeen in the government sector. XBRL has been put to use to enhance compliance processes duringthe initial implementation by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority �APRA� in the earlyyears of the millennium. Government instrumentalities and agencies must also report under ac-counting standards that require complex fund disclosures. XBRL is clearly a candidate for enhanc-ing reporting both to and by these agencies. The Association of Governmental Accountants �AGA�has taken a close interest in XBRL. Once again, unfortunately, there are no teaching case studiesto support faculty in the GNP class. The taxation class �particularly Corporate Taxation� is aspecial case of compliance. While we do not see that XBRL will, for the foreseeable future, playa major role in the taxation class, there is a role for discussion of the implications for tax reportingand compliance in the corporate taxation class.

The international accounting course �Figure 16� is one of the most interesting and relevant inwhich to implement XBRL. There are well-developed taxonomies for three of the major familiesof accounting internationally with the U.S. GAAP, IFRS, and EDINET �Japanese GAAP� taxono-mies. There is a strong reflection in these taxonomies that arise from the different institutional

FIGURE 10Intermediate Financial Accounting II



settings under which financial reporting exists in the three environments. Exposure to these threetaxonomies will improve student understanding of differences in reporting context, measurement,and disclosure. Students can consider how automated cross-jurisdictional reporting could facilitateinvestor and analyst understanding and use of reporting data. There are also many interestingissues within areas such as compliance and consolidation.

Finally, we come to the financial statement analysis class �Figure 17�. The potential for XBRLis to allow the analyst to acquire information about corporations that is considerably more detailedand with greater rapidity than is the case currently. There are, however, complexities caused byinter-entity differences and the individual reporting choices made by corporations. End user toolsare increasingly available that allow the student “analyst” to acquire and manipulate this informa-tion. Recent guidance from the CFA Institute addresses the implications of XBRL for investorsand analysts �CFA 2009�. Again, at the time of writing there are no cases available for the financialstatement analysis class. The availability of a large set of XBRL tagged financials filed under theSEC interactive data mandate will present many opportunities for the development of such cases.We see the potential for significant hands-on content in this class, with access to real-time filingdata. This content relates to the use of XBRL data to conduct analysis, rather than cover XBRLtechnical content that belongs elsewhere in the curriculum.

FIGURE 11Advanced Financial Accounting



CONCLUSIONXBRL is a suite of technologies that facilitate automated reporting on the Internet. XBRL has

its roots in the accounting profession and, as a result, specifically targets the needs of the financialreporting community. There are also tools and techniques within XBRL that support the transfer ofmore transactional and operational information with XBRL GL. XBRL is a product of the XBRLInternational consortium that has more than 500 members. We see many examples of internationalXBRL adoption in a variety of information value chains, particularly in compliance and regulatoryenvironments. Although XBRL has been in existence for more than a decade, it is only over thelast two or three years that we have seen rapid adoption. From the perspective of the accountingacademy in the U.S., the single most important adoption of XBRL is the recent mandate by theSEC in its interactive data program. This program requires a variety of reports, by corporate andmutual fund registrants, to be in XBRL format.

There are clear implications for XBRL throughout the accounting curriculum. XBRL is per-vasive. For example, while corporate use of Enterprise Resource Planning �ERP� systems isextensive, it is an intermediate, i.e., supporting technology rather than impacting directly on thefinal product of accounting, such as financial reports. XBRL, conversely, impacts both intermedi-ate �e.g., information acquisition and accounting processes� and final processes �e.g., financialreporting�. As a result, we build a program for the adoption of XBRL into the curriculum in a waythat traverses the curriculum. For the purposes of illustrating XBRL integration into the study ofaccounting, we build a model curriculum aligned with the typical undergraduate accounting pro-

FIGURE 12Accounting Information Systems



gram in the U.S. We show how the study of XBRL fits into each of the courses in the curriculum.We describe two vectors: first, the “perspective” from which XBRL is seen that ranges fromend-user to preparer. For example, the principles of accounting course should take an end-userperspective and Intermediate Financial Accounting should take a preparer perspective. Second, weintroduce an “intensity” vector where we see that different courses will “touch” on XBRL at anintroductory �e.g., Introductory Cost and Management Accounting� or advanced level �e.g., Ac-counting Information Systems�. The learning points in each of these courses are aligned withBloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives. We present detailed guidance on the implementationof XBRL into each of the courses in the typical accounting curriculum. We make suggestions oncoverage and assignments and make recommendations to case and textbook writers. There are anumber of courses where there are presently minimal support materials for faculty.

We discuss the importance of clearly understanding the drivers for the adoption of XBRL inthe classroom. In order for XBRL to receive the attention that we believe it deserves in thecurriculum, there should be action from the leadership of the American Accounting Association

FIGURE 13Auditing



and the various sections within the Association, XBRL U.S., XBRL International, and the variousmembers of the XBRL consortium. These members include each of the major professional ac-counting services firms, software developers, specialist XBRL firms, and information intermedi-aries. There are already strong foundations upon which to build. Academics have been involvedwith XBRL from the outset, indeed in the XBRL pre-history. Bryant University has hosted anacademic competition for students for a creditworthy ten years. The American Accounting Asso-ciation �AAA� has supported Continuing Professional Education �CPE� sessions and a residentialXBRL Workshop for a number of years. These initiatives arose, however, from faculty closelyinvolved with XBRL at a professional and research level. There has been little support of XBRLat a strategic or tactical level from the AAA leadership either in the sections or centrally. Withinthe XBRL community, equally, there has been little recognition of the need to support the aca-demic community to build the next generation of XBRL-aware accountants and auditors. Aca-demics will need access to the XBRL organization and resources in a manner that facilitatesongoing development of educational resources.

While this paper has concentrated on the teaching and learning aspects of XBRL, there is alsoa link to research. XBRL will play an important role in a variety of research questions. Forexample, with automated access to firm-tagged filings, XBRL may significantly impact capitalmarkets research. There are implications for research in forensic accounting, auditing, accountinginformation systems and in the behavioral realm as preparers and users interact with complex

FIGURE 14Government and Not-for-Profit



FIGURE 16International Accounting

FIGURE 15Corporate Taxation



taxonomies. Research is also necessary on XBRL and accounting education. Research on issuessuch as overcoming barriers to adoption by faculty, necessary student skills, aptitudes, and behav-iors are among many important research questions surrounding XBRL in accounting education.

REFERENCES

Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting �ACIFR�. 2008. Final Report of the AdvisoryCommittee on Improvements to Financial Reporting to the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission. Washington, D.C.: Securities and Exchange Commission.

Advisory Committee to the Auditing Profession �ACAP�. 2008. Final Report of the Advisory Committee onthe Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Washington, D.C.: Advisory Commit-tee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Albrecht, W., D. Clark, J. Smith, K. Stocks, and L. Woodfield. 1994. An accounting curriculum for the nextcentury. Issues in Accounting Education 9 �2�: 421–425.

Albrecht, W. S., and R. J. Sack. 2000. Accounting Education: Charting the Course through a PerilousFuture. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.

American Accounting Association �AAA�. 1986. Future accounting education: Preparing for the expandingprofession: Report of the committee of the structure content and the scope of accounting education ofthe American Accounting Association. Issues in Accounting Education 1 �1�: 168–195.

Anderson, L., and D. Krathwohl. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision ofBloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longman.

Anon. 2009. Talking to… Richard DeVore, Ed.D., simulation development leader for the uniform CPAexamination. The Uniform CPA Examination Alert Spring.

Arya, A., J. C. Fellingham, and D. A. Schroeder. 2003. An academic curriculum proposal. Issues in Account-ing Education 18 �1�: 1–29.

Australian Treasury. 2009. What is SBR? Available at: http://www.sbr.gov.au/en/About_SBR.aspx.

FIGURE 17Financial Statement Analysis



http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/iace.2003.18.1.29


http://www.sbr.gov.au/en/About_SBR.aspx

Bloom, B. S. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. NewYork, NY: D. McKay Co., Inc.

Bloomfield, R. J. 2008. Accounting as the language of business. Accounting Horizons 22 �4�: 433–436.Boritz, J. E., and W. G. No. 2008. SEC’s XBRL voluntary program on EDGAR: The case for quality

assurance. Current Issues in Auditing 2 �2�: A36–A50.Boritz, J., and W. G. No. 2009. Assurance on XBRL-related documents: The case of United Technologies

Corporation. Journal of Information Systems 23 �2�: 49–78.Buffet, W. 2000. Letter to the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Available at: http://

www.berkshirehathaway.com/2000ar/2000letter.html.CFA. 2009. eXtensible Business Reporting Language: A Guide for Investors. Charlottesville, VA: CFA

Institute Centre for Financial Market Integrity.Cohen, E. E. 2009. XBRL’s global ledger framework: Exploring the standardised missing link to ERP

integration. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 6 �2�: 188–206.Cox, C. 2008. Opening statement—Open meeting on the use of technology to improve financial reporting.

Available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2008/spch051408cc.htm.Debreceny, R. S., C. Felden, B. Ochocki, M. Piechocki, and M. Piechocki. 2009. XBRL for Interactive Data:

Engineering the Information Value Chain. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Engel, P., W. Hamscher, G. Shuetrim, D. v. Kannon, and H. Wallis. 2003. Extensible Business Reporting

Language �XBRL� 2.1. XBRL International. Available at: http://www.xbrl.org/Specification/XBRL-RECOMMENDATION-2003-12-31�Corrected-Errata-2008-07-02.rtf.

Garbellotto, G. 2008a. The distinctiveness of XBRL GL. Strategic Finance 89 �5�: 59–60.——–. 2008b. The other side of the bridge: XBRL GL and transactions. Strategic Finance 90 �3�: 57–58.Hoffman, C., and L. Watson. 2009. XBRL For Dummies. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley Publishing.iBanknet. 2009. iBanknet. Available at: http://ibanknet.com/.International Audit Networks. 2006. Global Capital Markets and the Global Economy: A Vision From the

CEOs of the International Audit Networks. PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, GrantThornton International, Deloitte, KPMG International, BDO International, Ernst & Young.

Jackson, S., and D. Durkee. 2008. Incorporating information literacy into the accounting curriculum. Ac-counting Education: An International Journal 17 �1�: 83–97.

Kranacher, M.-J., B. W. Morris, T. A. Pearson, and R. A. Riley. 2008. A model curriculum for education infraud and forensic accounting. Issues in Accounting Education 23 �4�: 505–519.

Lamoreaux, M. G., and P. Bonne. 2009. Preparing for the next opportunity. Journal of Accountancy.Lancaster, G. A., and C. T. Taylor. 1986. The diffusion of innovations and their attributes: A critical review.

Quarterly Review of Marketing 11 �4�: 13–19.Ministerie van Financiën. 2009. Standard Business Reporting Newsletter. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Min-

isterie van Financiën.Perspectives on Education: Capabilities for Success in the Accounting Profession (The White Paper). 1989.

Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Whin-ney, Peat Marwick Main & Co, Price Waterhouse, and Touche Ross. New York, NY.

Robertson, M., J. Swan, and S. Newell. 1996. The role of networks in the diffusion of technological inno-vation. Journal of Management Studies 33 �3�: 333–359.

Securities and Exchange Commission �SEC�. 2009a. Interactive data to improve financial reporting. Availableat: http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2009/33-9002a.pdf.

——–. 2009b. Staff observations from review of interactive data financial statements. Available at: http://sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl/staff-review-observations.shtml.

Sundem, G. L. 1999. The Accounting Education Change Commission: Its History and Impact. Sarasota, FL:Accounting Education Change Commission and American Accounting Association.

Tatikonda, L. U. 2004. Naked truths about accounting curricula. Management Accounting Quarterly 5 �4�:62–73.

Van Wyhe, G. 2007. A history of U.S. higher education in accounting, part II: Reforming accounting withinthe academy. Issues in Accounting Education 22 �3�: 481–501.

Von Hippel, E. A. 1997. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.Wagenhofer, A. 2003. Economic consequences of Internet financial reporting. Schmalenbach Business Re-



http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/acch.2008.22.4.433

http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jis.2009.23.2.49

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2000ar/2000letter.html

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2000ar/2000letter.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2009.5

http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2008/spch051408cc.htm

http://www.xbrl.org/Specification/XBRL-RECOMMENDATION-2003-12-31+Corrected-Errata-2008-07-02.rtf

http://www.xbrl.org/Specification/XBRL-RECOMMENDATION-2003-12-31+Corrected-Errata-2008-07-02.rtf

http://ibanknet.com/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639280601026063

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639280601026063


http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00805.x

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2009/33-9002a.pdf

http://sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl/staff-review-observations.shtml

http://sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl/staff-review-observations.shtml


view 55 �4�: 262–279.White, C. E. 2008a. The Accountant’s Guide to XBRL. 3rd ed. Newark, DE: SkipWhite.com.White, C. 2008b. The Guide & Workbook for Understanding XBRL. 2nd ed. Newark, DE: SkipWhite.com.XBRL International. 2009. XBRL GL key features. XBRL International. Available at: http://www.xbrl.org/

GLKeyFeatures.



http://www.xbrl.org/GLKeyFeatures

http://www.xbrl.org/GLKeyFeatures

Copyright of Issues in Accounting Education is the property of American Accounting Association and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

xbrl in the accounting curriculum

Economy & Finance