Given continuing concerns about the reliability and validity of the now standard end-of-the-semester student evaluations of teaching (SETs) and the overemphasis often placed on SETs by faculty and college administrators in retention, promotion, and tenure decisions, our committee will develop a monograph that explores some alternatives to SETs and focuses on the question of how can we more effectively measure learning that takes place in a college course by accounting students Research shows a high correlation between the amount and level of student learning that takes place and teaching effectiveness (independent of SET scores).
Although accounting educators are supposed to be experts in measurement issues, by using SETs solely or primarily to evaluate "teaching effectiveness" (or allowing such use of SETs) we have done much to abdicate our responsibilities to ourselves, our employer institutions, and most importantly to our students, to determine what constitutes effective teaching strategies and tactics (i.e, those that really promote short- and long-term student learning and the desire and ability of students to be life-long learners about accounting and business issues). We do not totally negate the value of SETs for formative or summative purposes, but agree with Wanda Wallace that as they have evolved and often used, SETs are often the "wrong tool for the job" if the job is to really measure effective and responsible college teaching, and to encourage and foster such teaching, instead of student popularity, ease of the course, etc. We are not naive and do not believe we can convince either accounting faculty or college administrators that SETs should not longer be used. Thus, we are trying to improve the overall process of evaluating teaching effectiveness and measuring student learning by suggesting faculty and college administrators use a combination of SETs and other measures to assess teaching effectiveness and student learning. The main purpose of the monograph is to identify and discuss these "other measures."
The monograph will consist of an introductory chapter discussing the pros and cons of the present SET situation, and other chapters, likely 5-6 chapters, identifying and discussing what needs to be done and what practically can be done, to correct and then discuss and illustrate alternative means of measuring teaching effectiveness and student learning, such as use of peer observation and evaluation of a faculty member's classroom teaching and use of a form of "master learning." For example, is the most effective classroom teacher the one who teaches the students the most about the subject during a semester totally independent of SET scores? The monograph will end with a concluding chapter. The monograph will use the AAA citation style used (e.g., in Issues in Accounting Education). The completed monograph will be sent to T & C members in an attempt to encourage continued debate and discussion about these key issues.
We invite all interested faculty members, college administrators, and others to be actively involved in this important discussion by giving us your thoughts on this critical topic. If you do not agree with the position above, please contact us. Tell us why we are misguided or wrong. After all, we are merely teachers and educators who now find ourselves in an increasingly complex world in which we must often function with fewer resources and often much different types of students than in the past. Therefore, we must become more effective and efficient teachers and must have strategies to identify and actively encourage effective teaching and, in turn, promote student learning.
Please send comments and questions, reactions to this call for papers, and proposals for chapters in the monograph to Ronald Flinn at Creighton University rflinn@creighton.edu or RSFlinn@aol.com. We hope you will agree to develop a chapter for the monograph.
Dr. Ronald E. Flinn
Associate Professor of Accounting
Department of Accounting
College of Business Administration
Creighton University
Omaha, NE 68178-0308