Abstract
In a widely cited and widely talked about study, MacNell et al. (2015) [1] examined SET ratings of one female and one male instructor, each teaching two sections of the same online course, one section under their true gender and the other section under false/opposite gender. MacNell et al. concluded that students rated perceived female instructors more harshly than perceived male instructors, demonstrating gender bias against perceived female instructors. Boring, Ottoboni, and Stark (2016) [2] re-analyzed MacNell et al.’s data and confirmed their conclusions. However, the design of MacNell et al. study is fundamentally flawed. First, MacNell et al.’ section sample sizes were extremely small, ranging from 8 to 12 students. Second, MacNell et al. included only one female and one male instructor. Third, MacNell et al.’s findings depend on three outliers – three unhappy students (all in perceived female conditions) who gave their instructors the lowest possible ratings on all or nearly all SET items. We re-analyzed MacNell et al.’s data with and without the three outliers. Our analyses showed that the gender bias against perceived female instructors disappeared. Instead, students rated the actual female vs. male instructor higher, regardless of perceived gender. MacNell et al.’s study is a real-life demonstration that conclusions based on extremely small sample-sized studies are unwarranted and uninterpretable.
Highlights
In a widely cited and widely talked about study, MacNell et al (2015) [1] examined student evaluation of teaching (SET) ratings of one female and one male instructor, each teaching two sections of the same online course, one section under their true gender and the other section under false/opposite gender
Panel C shows the near identity relationship between the average of 12 items and the average of 15 items, with the correlation r = .998. This suggests that MacNell et al would have obtained nearly identical results if they used all SET items rather than select only 12
Given the hazardous nature of conducting a principal component factor analysis on variables with only 43 participants and three outliers, we used the same 12 items identified by MacNell et al but we examined how the mean of these 12 items correlates with the mean of all 15 items
Summary
In a widely cited and widely talked about study, MacNell et al (2015) [1] examined SET ratings of one female and one male instructor, each teaching two sections of the same online course, one section under their true gender and the other section under false/opposite gender. MacNell et al.’s findings depend on three outliers – three unhappy students (all in perceived female conditions) who gave their instructors the lowest possible ratings on all or most SET items. Students rated the actual female vs male instructor higher, regardless of perceived gender.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
