Gender Bias In Student Evaluations Research Articles

Can you mitigate gender bias in student evaluations of teaching? Evaluating alternative methods of soliciting feedback

Student evaluations of teaching can be unreliable indicators of effective teaching and affected by implicit bias. We conduct a randomized experiment at a selective U.S. liberal arts college in which we vary both the instrument and timing at which we solicit student feedback to assess whether either intervention can mitigate gender disparities in qualitative evaluation comments. External evaluators with expertise in teaching evaluation scored the positivity, specificity, and constructiveness of student comments in control and treatment groups. We find neither intervention is successful in mitigating gender disparities. Students that receive an alternate prompt which highlights the potential for implicit bias and asks them to articulate and apply their own criteria for effective teaching penalize female faculty at similar rates as those receiving a more standard evaluation prompt. We also find no evidence that delaying solicitation of student feedback until the start of the next semester, when students face less stress and fatigue, reduces the gender gap in the positivity of feedback. Instead, we find substantial evidence that the positivity of qualitative student evaluations is affected by student, instructor, and course characteristics across all study conditions. The results suggest that bias in student evaluations may be difficult to mitigate.

The Persistence of Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching: The Role of Gender Stereotypes

The Persistence of Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching: The Role of Gender Stereotypes

Evaluating student evaluations: evidence of gender bias against women in higher education based on perceived learning and instructor personality

Given student evaluations are an integral part of academic employment and progression in higher education, it is crucial to explore various biases amongst students that may influence their ratings. Several studies report a clear gender bias in student evaluation where male instructors receive significantly higher ratings as compared to female instructors. However, there is very limited research about gender biases in underrepresented samples such as South Asia and the Middle East. We examined whether perception of male and female instructors differed in terms of how they facilitate learning and level of engagement, using an experimental design. Six hundred and seventy-one university students were asked to watch a video of an online lecture on psychology, delivered by either a male or female lecturer, after which they were asked to evaluate their experience and instructor personality characteristics. To ensure consistency across content, tone, delivery, environment, and overall appearance, photorealistic 3D avatars were used to deliver the lectures. Only gender as a factor was manipulated. Given the racial representation in the region, a total of four videos were developed representing males (n = 317) and females (n = 354) of White and South Asian race. Overall, male instructors scored significantly higher in variables representing personality characteristics such as enthusiasm and expressiveness compared to female instructors. Participants did not however view male and female instructors to be different in terms of presentation and subject knowledge. Findings related to facilitating learning suggest that male instructors were perceived to have made instructions more interesting, kept participants' attention for longer, and were more interesting compared to female instructors. In terms of engagement, male instructors were perceived to be more expressive, enthusiastic, and entertaining, compared to female instructors. Given the experimental design, these findings can clearly be attributed to gender bias, which is also in line with previous research. With an underrepresented sample, an online platform delivery, and inclusion of multiple races, these findings significantly add value to the current literature regarding gender stereotypes in higher education. The results are even more concerning as they provide strong evidence of gender bias which may contribute to subconscious discrimination against women academics in the region.

Examining gender bias in student evaluations of music teacher educators

ABSTRACT Through a randomised controlled experimental design, the purpose of this study was to determine whether the gender of a music teacher educator influenced student perceptions of professional and interpersonal teaching skills. Participants (N = 146) completed a student evaluation questionnaire after viewing five-minute teaching videos of a professor leading a lecture and mentoring a student teacher. The teaching videos were scripted and directed by the researchers. The female professor in this experiment scored significantly higher than the male professor on interpersonal measures (p < .001), however there was no significant difference between the male and female professor on professional quantitative measures. The male professor received a greater proportion of positive comments in the open response section of the questionnaire (p < .05) and significantly more positive comments related to professional traits (p < .05) than the female professor. These results suggest students may perceive professional and interpersonal teaching qualities differently in male and female music teacher educators.

A multicenter study of gender bias in student evaluations of teaching in pharmacy programs

IntroductionStudent evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used to assess effectiveness of teaching. Studies conducted to assess the presence of gender bias in SET have produced mixed results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the presence and degree of gender bias in SET of didactic courses in United States pharmacy programs. MethodsA three-year, retrospective, multi-institutional analysis of anonymous SET data were analyzed from required didactic courses. Analysis included gender, SET questions, mean scale score, and number of students responding to each question. A hierarchical linear model was used to compare the gender difference with the normalized SET scores as the outcome. ResultsA total of 2114 SET scores were included from seven pharmacy schools across eight campuses. Analysis of the results revealed that the combined data were skewed secondary to one institution whose results fell significantly outside the mean. When this school was excluded, the difference between SET scores did not differ by gender, b = 0.021, t(1,702) = 0.69, P = .49, with similar SET scores for female faculty (mean = 4.41, SD = 0.35, range = 2.54–5) and male faculty (mean = 4.44, SD = 0.32, range = 2.67–5). ConclusionsAfter secondary analysis, the aggregated data showed no significant difference between ratings of male and female instructors. However, there were differences within individual programs. This illustrates the importance of applying assessment principles to SET to determine the presence of bias so that continuous quality improvement strategies may be applied.

Contradicting findings of gender bias in teaching evaluations: evidence from two experiments in Denmark

A series of studies have found gender bias in student evaluations of teaching. Evidence from several observational studies show that women are evaluated lower than men. These findings are supported by experimental studies aimed at isolating the effect of a possible gender bias from other differences between male and female teachers. In this paper, we conduct two experiments in Denmark to test whether a similar gender bias is present in a national context that is generally considered among the most gender equal. Study one investigates differences in the evaluation of two similar presentations by teachers reported to be either male or female. Study two focuses on the evaluation of teaching material prepared by teachers presented as men and women respectively. The two studies arrive at similar conclusions: There is no gender bias in favor of men in the evaluations made by students. The paper discusses the implications of these findings. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2048355 .

Gendered mundanities: gender bias in student evaluations of teaching in political science

ABSTRACT Much research has been undertaken on gender bias in student evaluations of teaching (SETs) in universities, with inconsistent findings. We undertake a qualitative analysis of the comments in four years of SETs in a school of political science and international relations in a highly regarded Australian university. We ask, can the same evaluations produce different results when analysed qualitatively rather than quantitatively? And do students evaluate male-identified and female-identified teachers differently, and if so what are the differences? We show that qualitative analysis can reveal gender bias that is invisible in quantitative analysis. We find that female-identified staff are evaluated more positively than their male counterparts for undertaking time-intensive, stereotypically feminine, emotional labour. Male-identified staff are evaluated more positively for their technical expertise and teaching style. This suggests SETs evaluate gender-stereotypical behaviour rather than only teaching quality, and has significant implications for their use in universities.

Gender bias in student evaluation of teaching or a mirage?

In a recent small sample study, Khazan et al. [1] examined SET ratings received by one female teaching (TA) assistant who assisted with teaching two sections of the same online course, one section under her true gender and one section under false/opposite gender. Khazan et al. concluded that their study demonstrated gender bias against female TA even though they found no statistical difference in SET ratings between male vs. female TA (p = 0.73). To claim gender bias, Khazan et al. ignored their overall findings and focused on distribution of six “negative” SET ratings and claimed, without reporting any statistical test results, that (a) female students gave more positive ratings to male TA than female TA, (b) female TA received five times as many negative ratings than the male TA, and (c) female students gave “most low” scores to female TA. We conducted the missing statistical tests and found no evidence supporting Khazan et al.’s claims. We also requested Khazan et al.’s data to formally examine them for outliers and to re-analyze the data with and without the outliers. Khazan et al. refused. We read off the data from their Figure 1 and filled in several values using the brute force, exhaustive search constrained by the summary statistics reported by Khazan et al. Our re-analysis revealed six outliers and no evidence of gender bias. In fact, when the six outliers were removed, the female TA was rated higher than male TA but non-significantly so.

Motivated reasoning and faculty interpretation of student evaluation research

In higher education, student evaluation surveys are an important tool for the assessment and improvement of teaching. Despite decades of investigation, research has yet to resolve disagreement about gender bias in student evaluations. One cause of disagreement may be motivated interpretation of research based on preexisting beliefs about gender bias. The current study examined how faculty members’ (N = 436) initial beliefs about gender bias and student evaluations influenced their interpretation of research on the topic. Participants read a summary of a study that either supported or refuted their initial beliefs about bias and then evaluated the study. Analysis of participants’ initial beliefs showed that 54% believed that student evaluations have a gender bias, 19% believed there is no bias, and 27% were neutral. Although participants believed that scientific evidence is relevant to the issue of gender bias in student evaluations, their initial beliefs affected perceptions of the study. Participants tended to view the study as stronger and more convincing when the results supported their initial belief. There was little reported attitude change after reading the summary. Overall, the current research suggests that motivated reasoning may contribute to the disagreement about the scientific status of gender bias in student evaluations.

Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching: ‘Punish[ing] Those Who Fail To Do Their Gender Right’

A significant body of work problematises the assumption that student evaluations of teaching (SET) actually measure teaching quality. This is concerning, given that SET are increasingly relied upon not only to evaluate candidates for employment (so job acquisition is influenced by flawed data) but also to inform performance metrics for those in employment (so job security is influenced by flawed data). This paper presents qualitative research conducted at a large public university in Australia. The findings suggest that student evaluations of teaching seem to measure conformity with gendered expectations rather than teaching quality, with particularly negative effects for women. The integration of SET into performance management practices within institutions of higher education could be entrenching inequalities amongst university staff that could ultimately disadvantage female academics.

Small samples, unreasonable generalizations, and outliers: Gender bias in student evaluation of teaching or three unhappy students?

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.

Gender Bias in Student Evaluations – Corrigendum

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching: Students’ Self-Affirmation Reduces the Bias by Lowering Evaluations of Male Professors

Students evaluate male professors higher than female professors. In a study that we presented to participants as a test of a new form for student evaluations of teaching (SETs), we examined if self-affirmation (contemplating elements that positively contribute to one’s self-image) reduced the gender bias. Belgian students (n = 568), who were randomly assigned to self-affirm (through either a value-affirmation task or self-superiority priming) or not, read a vignette prompting them to imagine that they had received a good or a bad grade from a male or a female professor. They evaluated the course, the professor, and the form. Non-self-affirmed participants showed a gender bias after a bad grade, disadvantaging the female professor. Self-affirmation eradicated the gender bias by lowering evaluations for the male professor, suggesting that the gender bias involves overvaluing male rather than derogating female professors. Without self-affirmation, the positivity of the SETs was correlated with participants’ evaluation of the SET form itself. Self-affirmation inflated the correlation for the male professor and eradicated it for the female professor. Having students self-affirm before SETs may be useful when SETs are obligatory only. An even better approach is asking SETs before students learn their grades or simply abolish SETs as a factor in hiring and promotion decisions.

Mitigating gender bias in student evaluations of teaching.

Student evaluations of teaching are widely believed to contain gender bias. In this study, we conduct a randomized experiment with the student evaluations of teaching in four classes with large enrollments, two taught by male instructors and two taught by female instructors. In each of the courses, students were randomly assigned to either receive the standard evaluation instrument or the same instrument with language intended to reduce gender bias. Students in the anti-bias language condition had significantly higher rankings of female instructors than students in the standard treatment. There were no differences between treatment groups for male instructors. These results indicate that a relatively simple intervention in language can potentially mitigate gender bias in student evaluation of teaching.

Gender bias in student evaluation of teaching among undergraduate business students

While half of undergraduate students in business are women, only one in five full professors in business in the US are female. According to the pipeline theory, this discrepancy should correct itself through time and more women join the ranks of full professors. However, the pipeline seems to leak, as the adjustment is slow. Student evaluations of teaching (SET) is one of the measures used to evaluate faculty. If there is a gender bias in student evaluations, where female faculty is valued less than male faculty, this could contribute to the leaky pipeline by reducing women’s promotion possibilities. Looking at student evaluations among undergraduate business students at an Icelandic university in 127 courses from 2010 to 2015, I estimate the difference between SET for male and female faculty, using random-effects ordered logit regressions. I find that female faculty receive lower evaluations than male faculty in a simple model. In a model linking each of the covariates with gender I find an even greater gender bias for full-time faculty, while female part-time instructors receive higher SET than their male counterparts.

Gender Bias in Student Evaluations

ABSTRACTMany universities use student evaluations of teachers (SETs) as part of consideration for tenure, compensation, and other employment decisions. However, in doing so, they may be engaging in discriminatory practices against female academics. This study further explores the relationship between gender and SETs described by MacNell, Driscoll, and Hunt (2015) by using both content analysis in student-evaluation comments and quantitative analysis of students’ ordinal scoring of their instructors. The authors show that the language students use in evaluations regarding male professors is significantly different than language used in evaluating female professors. They also show that a male instructor administering an identical online course as a female instructor receives higher ordinal scores in teaching evaluations, even when questions are not instructor-specific. Findings suggest that the relationship between gender and teaching evaluations may indicate that the use of evaluations in employment decisions is discriminatory against women.

Students' Gender Bias in Teaching Evaluations

The goal of the study was to investigate if there is gender bias in student evaluations. Past research has shown that gender has an impact on the way students' process and percieve classroom interactions. Results from this study revealed that there is some gender bias at work when students evaluate their instructors. However, it does not significantly affect evaluations in an enormouse way.

Sexism in Science: Demystifying the Dangers

Originally published in Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 2000, Vol 45(3), 290-292. The reviewer found neither of the books (see record 1998-06460-000; see record 1998-06748-000) to be wholly successful, even on their own terms. The reviewer contends that Women In Science: Meeting Career Challenges is by far the more basic book. She describes it as mostly a compilation of true tales of horror from contemporary science laboratories. It is further noted that the book is anecdotal in the good sense of providing personal accounts in which the voices of the separate authors have character, vividly detailing how sexism was manifest in each case. However, the intended audience for this collection is not completely obvious. The reviewer concludes that whether as a practical guide or as a vicarious support group directed to women scientists actually facing such career challenges, the book falls short. On the other hand she found that Career Strategies For Women In Academe: Arming Athena will surely be a useful book for all women in the social, behavioral, and physical sciences. Its editors assume from the start that the reader knows women in academic careers face numerous and debilitating obstacles, and the editors set out to document as precisely as possible, problems like achieving pay equity, measuring gender bias in student evaluations, peer disparagement, surviving tenure review, and sexual harassment. The reviewer maintains that the strategies contained in this book are clearly the best there are to offer, although they are still fairly flimsy armor against the expected onslaught of anticipated slings and arrows. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)

Is There Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching?

Is There Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching?

Is There Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching?

Given the widespread use of student evaluations of teaching for tenure and promotion decisions, it is important to be aware of possible bias in the evaluations. One definition of bias is if a teacher or course characteristic affects teacher evaluations, either positively or negatively, but is unrelated to criteria of good teaching, such as increased student learning. Class size, for example, affects evaluations in that teachers of classes with under 15 students get higher evaluations. But if students learn more in small classes than they do in large classes, perhaps because small classes allow for more personal attention, then class size is not truly biasing the evaluations; rather, the evaluations are reflecting increased learning. A second, more general, definition of bias is when a known characteristic of students systematically affects their ratings of teachers. The gender of the student, particularly how it interacts with the gender of the teacher, is an example of this possible bias in student evaluations. Do male students tend to rate women teachers lower than men teachers because of a gender bias, especially in fields that are male dominated, such as the natural sciences? Do female students judge women teachers to be more effective than men because they feel more comfortable with them? These are important questions that directly affect the validity of the evaluations when used for personnel decisions. Ideally student evaluations should be related to what they learn from a teacher and not to gender or to other personal characteristics of the teacher (e.g., age, ethnicity). Studies that have investigated gender bias have thus far produced conflicting results. Some studies have found no (or extremely small) differences between the evaluation of female and male instructors on the basis of student gender alone (Basow & Distenfeld, 1985; Basow & Howe, 1987; Bennett, 1982; Elmore & LaPointe, 1974; Harris, 1975; Kaschak, 1981). Other studies reported gender bias, with male students rating female instructors lower than male instructors (Basow & Silberg, 1987; Etaugh & Riley, 1983; Kaschak, 1978; Lombardo & Tocci, 1979; Paludi & Bauer, 1983). Two studies conducted in actual classrooms did not report gender bias in overall evaluations. Bennett's (1982) used a course evaluation questionnaire that included teaching performance ratings, perceptual orientation scales, and indicators of the degree and context of student-instructor interaction. Her data included the evaluations of 11 female and 28 male instructors by 253 students enrolled in nonscience introductory courses at a liberal arts college. Female and male students did not differentiate between faculty members of different gender. Although there was no evidence of direct bias in formal student evaluations of instructors, there was evidence of gender related differences in regard to student-instructor relationships and instructor warmth, support, and accessibility. Elmore and LaPointe (1974) found no interaction between faculty gender and student gender in their analysis of 38 pairs of courses (paired on the basis of course number and gender of instructor) evaluated by 1,259 students. The courses were selected from a variety of departments and colleges within one research university. No attempts were made, however, to compare results from various disciplines or results for students in the same classes. Research that reported gender bias included Basow and Silberg's (1987) study of 16 pairs of instructors (paired on rank, discipline, and years of experience), in which male students rated female instructors less favorably than male instructors. Similar results by Kaschak (1978) and Lombardo and Tocci (1979) were found in a simulated rather than actual classroom setting. In these studies female students saw no difference in the effectiveness of male and female teachers. Feldman conducted two reviews of students' views of male and female college teachers. …