by

The purpose of this study is to determine characteristics identified by undergraduate and graduate student groups as constituting Quality Teaching. Similarities and differences between the groups are also of interest in the study.

The motivation stems from the importance of teaching, as evidenced by the position statements of the Accounting Education Exchange Commission. Furthermore, attribution theory, teaching as an assessment tool, and the issue of Quality Teaching being of international importance, provide additional impetus for the study.

The sample consists of 243 undergraduate and graduate students with a total of 561 responses. The data was analyzed using frequency and ranking of responses by student groups, as well as correlation analysis.

The survey found that the major attributes that students considered crucial to Quality Teaching were: ability to apply the material to the real world, the professor’s ability to teach at a level comfortable to student, the professor’s concern for students and the ability to make learning fun. Furthermore, there were significant similarities between the characteristics deemed to be important by the two student groups.

The Accounting Education Change Commission, in its first Position Statement, emphasized the importance of teaching. The Statement discussed the importance of instructional methods, teaching and curriculum design, and a measurement and evaluation system that encourages continuous improvement of instructional methods and materials (AECC 1990). Subsequently, Position Statement number five discussed the methods to be used for evaluating and rewarding effective teaching. This Statement called for all interested parties to establish a priority on teaching and identified faculty and administration as leaders who bear the greatest responsibility (AECC 1993).

One way to accomplish the objectives of the Position Statements is by having faculty provide Quality Teaching (QT) to students. QT, in this document, refers to providing services in the classroom that enhance the overall teaching-learning experience. It is student driven and involves a partnership between faculty and students to help build a cooperative spirit leading to greater satisfaction with the educational process and higher student retention and graduation rates.

QT ranks two additional contributions of the process of evaluating effective teaching. One, it serves as an assessment tool. By incorporating student input into the teaching-learning process it aids the faculty member in assessing the appropriateness of the teaching methods employed. Two, it serves as an additional item to be included in the portfolio when evaluating the effectiveness of a faculty member. Hence, QT helps in assessing, evaluating and rewarding effective teaching.

The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows: The next section discusses the motivation and purpose of the study. The third section details the literature review, including a discussion of the relevant theories. The fourth section discusses the data and research design. The following section details the results of the analysis. The sixth section lists conclusions and the last section that outlines the limitations of the study.

Under the first scenario, students are treated as customers. It would be prudent to realize the importance of providing services to customers, keeping their requirements and expectations in mind. If quality services are provided consistently, customer satisfaction should increase, thus leading to positive feedback and an increase in business (increasing enrollments). One way to accomplish this is to elicit a response from customers (students), to gain an understanding of factors they deem important when evaluating the job being done by the service provider (instructor).

Under the second scenario, students are treated as employees. This approach recognizes the importance of having common goals as being necessary for the successful achievement of objectives. One way to set common goals is through a dialogue and an increase in interaction between the parties. One form of dialogue is represented by determining the goals and expectations of employees (students), as they relate to the partnership with employers (faculty).

Further, it would be prudent to realize that different customer and/or employee groups may have different goals and/or expectations. Hence, it may be beneficial to determine and address the resulting needs and expectations of the groups differently. In the current study, these different groups and their related potential differences are represented through the distinction between undergraduate and graduate student groups. The differences between the student groups tend to arise for some of the following reasons, including age, experience, maturity, demands and pressures.

Hence, the purpose of this study is to determine characteristics identified by undergraduate and graduate student groups as constituting Quality Teaching. The related similarities and differences between the two groups is also of interest in the current study.

The issue of QT represents an important aspect of research in higher education. Prior studies have used Attribution Theory and the need for Assessment as motivations for researching the issue of QT. Several studies have had the objective of determining effective teaching from the student’s perspective. A summary of the studies and their related findings can be found in Feldman (1988).

Attribution theory is used to justify the need for collecting and analyzing student data relating to the teaching/learning cycle. Attribution theory seeks to determine what factors (attributes) students deem to be important when reflecting on their education. Prior studies have pointed to the importance of QT as a factor that students considered significant when reflecting on the variables leading to their success or failure.

Smith and Price (1996) conducted a study that found that students regarded their teachers positively, but tended to blame task difficulty and teaching quality for their lack of success. Furthermore, Broder and Dorfman (1994) conducted a study to determine how students weigh teacher and course attributes. Student enjoyment of the learning process and student learning were the two most significant factors that helped explain student satisfaction with the educational process.

Teaching quality is a factor that is used consistently as an assessment tool. It is continuously being assessed by students, faculty, and administrators, who often do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes QT.

The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996) issued a report based on a two-year study that assessed teaching quality. Numerous factors were considered and state-by-state indicators of teaching quality were identified.

Morton et al., (1995) conducted a study where QT was assessed to help provide a vision for an "ideal" teaching program. It identified certain challenges that would have to be overcome before such a program could become a reality, (e.g. connection between theory and practice, lack of focus on the part of the instructor, etc…).

Cooke (1995) conducted a study in which various assessment tools were identified to aid QT practices. These were based on quality literature using ideas forwarded by Albrecht, Glasser, and Deming (e.g. using flow charts, an affinity diagram, a moment-of-truth chart, etc…).

Finally, a survey conducted in 1993 at Kent State University’s Trumbull Campus pointed to the importance of QT (Kent State University 1993). QT was deemed to be the third best service provided by the university, and was responsible for the campus gaining a high overall rating from students.

QT is an issue that is of international importance. Studies have been conducted throughout the industrialized nations, and a few developing nations, in hopes of gaining an idea of the ways to deliver a quality education.

Donald and Denison (1996) surveyed 356 students in a Canadian University seeking answers to what would lead to program improvements. Perceived teaching quality was a significant factor in the minds of students. Further, the most frequently mentioned factor was the development of thinking skills.

Cox (1994) has dealt with providing faculty practical suggestions for efficient and effective teaching, assessment of students and evaluation of teaching quality. This has been done in the context of United Kingdom. The book details various aspects of teaching, from planning to assessing and evaluating.

The current study builds on the work of several authors in the discipline of Business and Economics. Wotruba and Wright (1975) surveyed 350 students in the School of Business Administration at San Diego State University on the ranking of 18 items considered in the evaluation of faculty. Stevens (1978) surveyed 572 students at a College of Business in a southwestern university, Stevens and Marquette (1979) surveyed 135 students enrolled in business courses at Kent State University, and Baum and Brown (1980) surveyed 179 students in the School of Business and Economics at California State University Northridge to determine the ranking and importance of 10 common teaching traits.

The current study adds to this stream of research while modifying the research design of the earlier studies. The instrument used in this study was different, the levels of classes surveyed were more extensive, and all the data was collected from classes with the same instructor, in one discipline, over the course of two academic years.

In the current study, students enrolled at both the undergraduate and graduate levels in Accounting classes, over a period of two years, were surveyed to determine what characteristics they viewed as constituting QT. The instrument consisted of a blank sheet of paper with the words, "I define quality teaching as...," printed on the top. Students were given between two and seven days to return their responses for one bonus point to be added to their total points when determining their grade (total points were 400 in the undergraduate classes and 500 in the graduate classes).

The study included a total sample of 243 responses: 134 responses were from undergraduate students, 109 responses were from graduate students. Most of the responses included a list of factors deemed to constitute QT in the minds’ of students. This accounts for the total responses being greater than the 243 overall responses. There were a total of 301 responses from undergraduate students and 260 responses from graduate students.

The research design involves forming categories based on the responses, and then determining the frequency of responses within the categories. The next step involved ranking the categories of the undergraduate and graduate students. Finally, correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between undergraduate and graduate responses.

The results of the data analysis are discussed in this section. First, the frequency of responses to the various categories by undergraduate students are discussed, followed by the responses of graduate students for the various categories. Next, the ranking to the various categories is discussed and the results are compared between the two student groups using correlation analysis.

As evidenced in Table 1, the most important factor contributing to QT, in the view of the undergraduate respondents, was relating the material to the "Real World." More than 19% of the students pointed to this factor. The second major factor of QT related to the level of instruction in the classroom. There was a general call for faculty to teach at the level of the students (12.6%), and to be able to determine whether students are following the material being presented or not (11.6%). Students viewed faculty concern for them favorably (10%).

Believing enthusiasm to be contagious, students called for more enthusiastic faculty (7%) who make learning fun (7%). There was also a desire for faculty to communicate clearly (6%), and for the teaching in the classroom to be exam-oriented (5%). Faculty accessibility (4.6%), an open and friendly nature (4.3%), and enjoyment derived from helping students (3.3%) were also identified as factors leading to QT.

The last group of factors was mentioned by a small number of students. These included having clear objectives, being fair, having a sense of humor, respecting students, giving credit for effort and knowing student names. All of these factors combined for approximately 9% of the responses with no one factor making up more than 2.5% of the responses.

Table 1 shows that as many as 25% of the graduate students believed that relating the material to the real world was the number one factor leading to QT. There was also a call for teaching at the level of the students (15.7%). Students viewed making learning fun as a high priority (9.6%), along with faculty exhibiting concern for students (8.8%). The last major factor considered by graduate students to constitute QT was the ability of the faculty member to know if the students were following the material (7.6%).

There was a call for faculty to communicate clearly (5.7%), to be fair (5%), and to have clear objectives (4.2%). The remaining factors included the importance of exam-oriented teaching, faculty pleasure in helping students, and faculty’s ability to be available, enthusiastic, open, friendly, and humorous. These last group of factors accounted for approximately 16.5% of the student responses.

The next part of the analysis involved ranking the responses of the undergraduate and graduate students. As evidenced from Table 2, the most important factor overall was the ability of the faculty to relate the material to the "Real World." More than 22% of all respondents noted this characteristic as being present in QT. Teaching at the level of the students was the second most relevant category for both the undergraduate and graduate student groups (14%).

Similar responses were found between the student groups, although the ranks were not the same regarding the next three relevant characteristics. These factors were: faculty knowing if students were following them, having concern for students and making learning fun. Communicating clearly, being available and enjoying helping students were the additional factors that were similar between the groups.

Significant differences in ranks were found between the groups for the following characteristics. The biggest difference dealt with the issue of faculty being fair. While it ranked number 7 for graduate students it was number 13.5 for the undergraduate students. Enthusiasm was number 5.5 for undergraduate and 11.5 for graduate students. Having clear objectives, exam-oriented teaching, and being open and friendly were the other characteristics that differed between the student groups.

This section discusses the results of the correlation analysis of the data. The analysis was performed using two measures of correlation (Pearson’s and Spearman’s). While Pearson correlation is used for comparing the frequencies of responses, Spearman’s correlation is used to compare the rankings of the responses by the students.

** Significant at the .01 level.

As can be observed from Table 3, the correlation coefficient between the responses of the student groups, based on frequencies, was .920 (significant at .01). This reflects similarities in the responses between the undergraduate and graduate groups. One possible reason for the similarities between the responses could be a blurring of the line between the groups, given an increasing number of undergraduate students being represented by non-traditional students with work experience.

Further, when Spearman’s correlation was used, based on the ranked data, the correlation coefficient was .694 (significant at .01). There was less agreement using this measure as opposed to Pearson’s correlation. In this case, the order of importance between the groups was altered, with the undergraduate group giving importance to personal skills while the graduate students emphasized learning.

The results of the analysis indicate that there are similarities in the responses of the undergraduate and graduate students, based on characteristics they view as being important in QT. The most significant one, in both cases, was relating the material to the real world. The next was teaching at the level of the students. The rankings of the factors, though, indicated a lesser degree of similarity with each group having some differences.

Based on the analysis section, the following conclusions can be drawn from the study. First, the overwhelming importance given to "Real World" applications of the information needs to be acknowledged. One way that faculty can benefit from the research and findings would be to show the importance of the issues and concepts using everyday applications. Second, students have pointed to the importance of faculty teaching at their level. It is important to note that the technical competence of the faculty member is necessary, but it might be beneficial to assess the level of students, to teach at that level and to bring it up over time.

One major group of characteristics that emerges from the data is the importance placed on the faculty member demonstrating overall concern for the student and making learning fun. One way to address this might be by personalizing the teaching-learning experience and making it all-inclusive. Furthermore, the input of students might help to determine how they enjoy learning and make it a more pleasurable activity.

It is interesting to note that the responses of the groups are similar to a large extent. One potential reason for this might be the increasing age and experience level of undergraduate students in the sample, thus blurring the lines found in a more traditional undergraduate and graduate student population. This might benefit faculty in terms of minor changes being required when teaching undergraduate versus graduate students. Overall, this study has provided evidence of the factors that constitute QT and instructor’s can use the results of the study to determine their demeanor in class and strategies to be followed to lead to greater teaching and learning.

The following limitations may be present in the study. First there is a self-selection bias. Since the undergraduate students have choices in their selection of class times and faculty, the sample of students may represent a group that is predominant during the time of day, which may be different from the traditional or typical undergraduate student. Second, since all the students were from a university in the Midwest it might reflect the views of the region.

Accounting Education Change Commission. (1990). "Position Statement No.

One: Objectives of Education for Accountants." Issues in Accounting

Education. September.

. (1993). "Evaluating and Rewarding Effective Teaching: Issues

Statement No. 5." Issues in Accounting Education . 8(2), 436-439. Fall.

Baum, P., & W.W. Brown. (1980). "Student and Faculty Perceptions of Teaching

Effectiveness." Research in Higher Education. 13(3), 233-242.

Broder, J.M., & J.H. Dorfman. (1994). "Determinants of Teaching Quality: What’s

Important to Students?" Research in Higher Education. 35(2), 235-49.

April.

Cooke, Brian. (1995). "A Quality Classroom: Quality Teaching Tools That Facilitate Student

 Success." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the NISOD International Conference on

 Teaching Excellence (Austin, TX, May 23, 1995).

Cox, Bill. (1994). "Practical Pointers for University Teachers. Teaching and

Learning in Higher Education." Kogan Page Limited, England, U.K.

Donald, J.G., & B.D. Denison. (1996). "Evaluating Undergraduate Education:The

Use of Broad Indicators." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.

21(1) 23-39. March.

Feldman, K.A. (1988). "Effective College Teaching from the Students’ and Faculty’s View."

 Research in Higher Education. 28(4) 291-344.

Morton, M.L., et al. (1995). "A Variety of Ideal Visions: A Study of Teacher

Education." Papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western

Smith, J.O., & R.A. Price. (1996). "Attribution Theory and Developmental

Students as Passive Learners." Journal of Developmental Education.

19(3) 2-4,6. Spring.

Stevens, G.E. (1978). "Teaching by whose Objectives? The View of Students

And Teachers." Unpublished Manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED 193 580).

Stevens, G.E., & R.P. Marquette. (1979). "Differing Student and Faculty

Perceptions of Teaching Effectiveness and the Value of Student

Evaluations." POD Quarterly. 1(4) 207-219.

"Survey Results of 1993 Graduates, Kent State University Trumbull Campus."

(1993). Kent State University, Warren, Ohio.

"What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future." (1996). Report of the

National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, New York, NY.

Wotruba, T.R., & P.L. Wright. (1975). "How to Develop a Teacher-Rating

Instrument: A Research Approach." Journal of Higher Education. 46(6)

653-663