A Lightweight Intervention to Decrease 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.

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.

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.

This paper tests how gender stereotypes may result in biased student evaluations of teaching (SET). We thereby contribute to an ongoing discussion about the validity and use of SET in academia. According to social psychological theory, gender biases in SET may occur because of a lack of fit between gender stereotypes, and the professional roles individuals engage in. A lack of fit often leads to more negative evaluations. Given that the role as a lecturer is associated with masculinity, women might suffer from biased SET because gender stereotypes indicate that they do not fit with this role. In two 2 × 2 between groups online experiments (N's = 400 and 452), participants read about a fictitious woman or man lecturer, described in terms of stereotypically feminine or masculine behavior, and evaluated the lecturer on different SET outcomes. Results showed that women lecturers were not disfavored in general, but that described feminine or masculine behaviors led to gendered evaluations of the lecturer. The results were especially pronounced in Experiment 2 where a lecturer described as displaying feminine behaviors was expected to also be more approachable, was better liked and the students rather attended their course. However, a lecturer displaying masculine behaviors were instead perceived as being more competent, a better pedagogue and leader. Gender incongruent behavior was therefore not sanctioned by lower SET. The results still support that SET should not be used as sole indicators of pedagogic ability of a lecturer for promotion and hiring decisions because they may be gender-biased.

The literature on student evaluations of teaching (SETs) generally presents two opposing camps: those who believe in the validity and usefulness of SETs, and those who do not. Some researchers have suggested that ‘SET deniers’ resist SETs because of their own poor SET results. To test this hypothesis, I analysed essays by 230 SET researchers (170 lead authors) and classified the researchers as having negative, neutral or positive attitudes towards SETs. I retrieved their RateMyProfessors.com (RMP) scores and, using logistic regression, found that lead authors with negative attitudes towards SETs were 14 times more likely to score below an estimated RMP average than lead authors with positive attitudes towards SETs. Co-authors and researchers with neutral attitudes, on the other hand, did not significantly differ from the RMP average. These results suggest that personal attitudes towards SETs may drive research findings.

Student evaluation of teaching (SET), one of the most widely used mechanisms for evaluating teaching worldwide, is arguably gender-biased, potentially obstructing women’s access to and advancement in academia. To date, a significant number of studies have focused on interpreting a difference in SET scores by gender as evidence of gender bias. The validity of inferences from many of these studies is in jeopardy if they lack a strong research design that effectively isolates various potential confounding factors. We conducted a systematic literature review of experimental and quasi-experimental studies testing the claim that SET scores are biased against women. Our search identified 21 relevant studies published between 2000 and 2021. We qualitatively analyzed the supporting theories that predict gender-biased SET scores, the study design features used to estimate the instructor’s gender effect, and the findings across studies. The two most dominant explanations across studies are gender stereotypes and expectancy violations theory. We found ingenious methods for simulating a lecture and manipulating the instructor’s gender. SET scales across studies feature up to five types of distinctive questions about teaching performance. Findings across studies suggest that women are more likely to receive lower SET scores than men. However, this review reveals that examining gender bias is far more complex than individual studies portray. We note that the lack of strong supporting theory and tensions in research designs affect the construct and external validity of findings across studies. We discuss implications for fair evaluation of teaching that protect the development of women in academia.

Research findings tend to confirm anecdotal observations that instructors’ teaching evaluations are influenced by students’ grades, making some instructors feel pressured to reduce the academic rigor of their course in an attempt to get higher evaluations. To reduce this pressure, the current study tested whether distributive justice may explain the relationship between grades and student evaluation of teaching (SET) and how the fair process effect may moderate the relationship between distributive justice perceptions regarding grades and SET. Relying on the extant literature of procedural justice, we hypothesized that when students perceive no fair process that determines their grades, then: (a) the relationship between distributive justice perceptions and SET will be stronger and (b) the indirect effect of grades on SET via distributive justice perceptions will be stronger. Conversely, under conditions of strong fair process perceptions, these relationships will be attenuated. Using a survey of undergraduates’ perceptions of course fairness, we found support for our proposed hypotheses. We discuss the implications of our findings for higher education faculty.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to characterize implicit gender bias among residents in US Emergency Medicine and OB/GYN residencies.MethodsWe conducted a survey of all allopathic Emergency Medicine and OB/GYN residency programs including questions about leadership as well as an implicit association test (IAT) for unconscious gender bias. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the Likert-type survey responses and used standard IAT analysis methods. We conducted univariate and multivariate analyses to identify factors that were associated with implicit bias. We conducted a subgroup analysis of study sites involved in a multi-site intervention study to determine if responses were different in this group.ResultsOverall, 74% of the programs had at least one respondent. Out of 14,234 eligible, 1634 respondents completed the survey (11.5%). Of the five sites enrolled in the intervention study, 244 of 359 eligible residents completed the survey (68%). Male residents had a mean IAT score of 0.31 (SD 0.23) and females 0.14 (SD 0.24), both favoring males in leadership roles and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01). IAT scores did not differ by postgraduate year (PGY). Multivariable analysis of IAT score and participant demographics confirmed a significant association between female gender and lower IAT score. Explicit bias favoring males in leadership roles was associated with increased implicit bias favoring males in leadership roles (r = 0.1 p < 0.001).ConclusionsWe found that gender bias is present among US residents favoring men in leadership positions, this bias differs between male and female residents, and is associated with discipline. Implicit bias did not differ across training years, and is associated with explicit bias.

The Language of Praise in Russian Students’ Evaluation of Teaching

According to Piaget's theory 'formal operational' stage being started at the age eleven of a child. This time is vital for a learner to develop logical thinking, deductive reasoning and abstract thinking. This time also started the upper primary level of a learner. So the author chose class-VI for his study. The main aim of the author to find gender bias in the Bengali medium textbooks class-VI of W.B.B.S.E (West Bengal Board of Secondary Education), edition 2021. For this purpose, first collect data by observation of the text books of class-VI. The author used column charts, pie charts, and correlation tables to analyse the data and observed that gender bias in Bengali, English, History and Physical Education text books and no significant gender bias in Geography, Mathematics and Science text books.

Cultural constraints on the emergence of women as leaders

The impact of gender discrimination on a Woman's Mental Health

Is Adam Worth More Than Eve?

This article explores patterns of change in the advancement of academic women’s leadership at universities in Ghana. Referred to as the ‘glass ceiling’, women generally suffered great setbacks in their advancement in leadership positions, although recent events have led to the appointment and election of women into top-level leadership positions at universities. At a conference at the University of Ghana, organised by the Merian Institute for Advanced Studies in Africa in September 2022, one attendee commented that “It seems the women are taking over”, due to the number of women occupying top-level positions at the university. Existing literature on women’s leadership at the universities have not adequately explored the implications of the recent appointment of women vice-chancellors on the perception of women’s leadership and advancement of the careers of other women at universities. This article sets out to investigate the challenges women face in the advancement of their careers, and implications of the recent appointment of women into leadership positions. Using a feminist decolonial lens, it inductively analyses semi-structured interviews with key academic women as well as men in leadership positions at selected universities, backed with the authors’ experience as female academics, and employment records. It adds to knowledge on the gradual advancement of women to top leadership positions at universities.

Research on women's leadership in management has shown significant interest for over the past sixty years. These studies delve into various aspects of women's leadership, perceptions of women as leaders, the suitability of women and men in leadership positions, and the barriers faced by women in holding leadership roles. Although more prevalent in developed countries and industries with a higher percentage of women in leadership positions, interest in women's leadership is steadily growing. This research provides crucial insights into understanding the barriers and experiences faced by women in leadership roles, with the aim of reducing gender gaps in leadership.