Most tax training providers use a content rather than an inquiry based approach. In 2006 Tax Matrix introduced a composite approach to its in house tax education placing greater reliance on the inquiry based approach but not to the exclusion of the content based approach. We have called this composite approach the “preparatory question” approach

The “preparatory question” approach reflects development of a suggestion put forward by a training client (small firm) that has always had a very strong tax education culture using both external trainers and internal trainers. To date the results using this process are exceptionally encouraging.

We design a set of many short and iterative questions and forward them to you before the session. We ask you to allocate one question for each training participant some days before the session. The questions are generally designed to flag the areas where caution is required or more facts should be extracted, with a view to developing skills capable of being applied in other areas. View an example here.

We are not seeking essays, just simple identification of the steps necessary to reach an answer and thus form a RAP. We focus on the analysis required to answer the question rather than the actual answer and finally to identify by class or name, clients who might be affected by the issue being considered.

We ask each participant to record, in accordance with your firm’s working paper requirements, the steps to reach their response by reference to primary source materials or legislation, rulings etc rather than the MTG. We also ask them to note any assumptions and to list any further questions they would ask the client to elicit sufficient facts to obtain an answer

We expect that most participants will complete the process within 10 minutes.

When the time comes to consider the underlying point in the session that question is addressed by the presenter but the person who was allocated the question is encouraged, anonymously, to put forward their thoughts. Generally they do so very willingly.

We have found almost universally greater participation with participants very willing to publicly address follow up variations to the original question they considered, even at the risk of being wrong.

Quite often the same person will bounce back into the discussion a few minutes later with a further follow-up question. On more than one occasion a file or document has been produced by the firm for further consideration as a result of the question.

This is a significant advance on the traditional tax training participation – “if we keep quiet in the back row we won’t have to say anything”.

References:

Barrows, H.S. and Tamblyn, R. (1980) Problem-based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education, New York, Springer.

Boud, D. and Feletti, G.I. ‘Changing problem-based learning. Introduction to the Second Edition’ in Boud, D. and Feletti, G.I. (eds) (1997) The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning, London, Kogan Page Ltd.

Duch, B.J., Groh, S.E and Allen, D.E ‘Why problem-based learning: A case study of institutional change in undergraduate education’ in Duch, B.J., Groh, S.E and Allen, D.E (eds) (2001) The Power of Problem-Based Learning, Sterling, Stylus Publishing.

Hyden, C. Enquiry based teaching and taxation law. 2007 Australia Tax Teachers Conference.

Jarvis, P. ‘Practice-based and problem-based learning’ in Jarvis, P. (ed) (2006) The Theory and Practice of Teaching, London, Routledge.

Kant, I. (1983) Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics and Morals, Indianapolic, Indiana, Hackett Publishing Company Inc, extracted in Savin-Baden and

Knowles, M. (1980) The Modern Practice of Adult Education, Chicago, Academic Press.

Nyiri, J. (1988) ‘Traditional and practical knowledge’ in Nyiri, J. and Smith, B. (eds) Practical Knowledge, London, Croom-Helm.

Savin-Baden, M. and Major, C.H. (2004) Foundations of Problem-based Learning, Maidenhead, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Schön, D.A. (1983) Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass.