Accounting administrators’ perceptions of student evaluation of teaching (SET) information
| Published date | 01 December 2002 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880210446884 |
| Date | 01 December 2002 |
| Pages | 213-222 |
| Author | D. Larry Crumbley,Eugene Fliedner |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Accounting
administrators'
perceptions of student
evaluation of teaching
(SET) information
D. Larry Crumbley and
Eugene Fliedner
Administrator reliance upon student
evaluation of teaching (SET) surveys to
evaluate teaching effectiveness is an important
and sensitive issue facing today's college-level
faculty and administrators. There is growing
controversy in the literature regarding the use
of these instruments as they play a vital role in
the promotion, tenure, and merit process.
Seldin (1993) found that the number of
institutions using SET to evaluate teachers
has climbed from 29 per cent in 1973, to 68
per cent in 1983, and to 86 per cent in 1993.
Currently, SET instruments are used by more
than 94 per cent of accounting departments
within schools of business, eight percentage
points higher than the national usage
(Calderon et al., 1994).
One important reason for the concern
regarding the use of SETs is noted by
Calderon et al. (1994). These authors note
that although 82 per cent of accounting
administrators use multiple information
sources in assessing faculty teaching
performance, 18 per cent of accounting
administrators utilize only SET information.
Most business schools now use SET data for
decision making, and 95 per cent of the deans
at 220 accredited undergraduate schools
``always use them as a source of information''
(Accounting Education Change Committee,
1993)[1].
With the growing use of SET information,
research has increasingly questioned the
validity of these surveys as an indicator of
instructor effectiveness (Bauer, 1996; Boex,
2000; Crumbley, 1995; Drowling, 2000;
Ellis, 1985). There is growing evidence in the
literature that overemphasis on the numerical
results of these survey instruments may be
contributing to an erosion of quality teaching
and scholarship, to a lower level of respect for
teachers, and to a weakening of faculty
positions (Greenwald, 1977; Haskell, 1997;
Sacks, 1996). Registrars at even top schools
believe grades have accelerated faster than
student talent levels. At Bucknell University,
80 per cent of all grades given are As and Bs,
compared to 50 per cent in the 1960s
(Bulkeley, 1997). Emery et al. (2000) state
that ``just like bankers do not let customers set
interest rates on their loans, the business
schools should not allow students to dictate
what topics the curriculum should include or
what grades they should receive.''
The purpose of this research was to elicit
from administrators' viewpoint opinions
The authors
D. Larry Crumbley is the KMPG Endowed Professor in
the Department of Accounting, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA.
Eugene Fliedner is a Professor in the Decision and
Information Sciences Department, School of Business
Administration, Oakland University, Rochester,
Michigan, USA.
Keywords
Evaluation, Individual behaviour,
Impression management, Students, Instructors
Abstract
Most business schools use student evaluation of teaching
(SET) survey data for promotion, tenure, and merit
decision-making purposes. Since most SET questionnaires
focus on students' perceptions of an instructor rather than
learning, there may be an incentive for instructors to
resort to dysfunctional behavior in order to manipulate
SET scores. The purpose of this article is to report the
results of a survey designed to determine if such behavior
occurs from an administrative viewpoint. A total of 773
administrative accounting professors were surveyed, with
a response rate of 45.3 per cent. Although most
administrators believe that a single numerical measure
cannot capture all relevant evaluative data, they do
believe that SET has caused grade inflation and they are
dissatisfied with their current SET system. However, the
majority of administrators would not replace the current
evaluation system with an alternative evaluation system.
Electronic access
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
213
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 10 .Number 4 .2002 .pp. 213±222
#MCB UP Limited .ISSN 0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/09684880210446884
To continue reading
Request your trial