An analysis of sex differences in computing teaching evaluations

Gender and age bias is well-documented in academia with many studies demonstrating bias in students' evaluations of instructors. Failure of an instructor to meet gender or age-based expectations can translate to lower scores or negative comments on evaluations. While there is some evidence of bias in students' evaluations of online instructors, current studies have not fully examined the relationship between bias and instructor vocal characteristics. First-year dental students at two institutions were randomly assigned one of four videos on spinal cord anatomy to view. Videos contained identical content but were narrated by individuals of different gender and age (younger man, younger woman, older man, older woman). Students completed a content-based prequiz, watched the video, completed a postquiz, and answered a questionnaire evaluating the video and instructor. Students at Institution A rated the younger man and younger woman highest for nearly every evaluation category. At Institution B students rated the older man and younger woman highest. Results reveal that the older woman's voice received the lowest rankings for nearly every question in both samples. This report confirms the presence of gender and age bias in student evaluations of instructors in an online environment and demonstrates that bias may surface in response to vocal characteristics. Bias may impact older women more significantly than other groups. Differences in results from Institution A and Institution B suggest that factors affecting student perceptions of instructors, and the roles that gender and age bias may play in student evaluations, are complex and may be contextual. Anat Sci Educ 9: 537-544. © 2016 American Association of Anatomists.

The last 40 years have seen a remarkable increase in the teaching of neuroscience at the undergraduate level. From its origins as a component of anatomy or physiology departments to its current status as an independent interdisciplinary field, neuroscience has become the chosen field of study for many undergraduate students, particularly for those interested in medical school or graduate school in neuroscience or related fields. We examined how life science-based neuroscience education is offered at large public universities in the Western United States. By examining publicly available materials posted online, we found that neuroscience education may be offered as an independent program, or as a component of biological or physiological sciences at many institutions. Neuroscience programs offer a course of study involving a core series of courses and a collection of topical electives. Many programs provide the opportunity for independent research, or for laboratory-based training in neuroscience. Features of neuroscience programs at Western universities closely matched those seen at the top 25 public universities, as identified by U.S. News & World Report. While neuroscience programs were identified in many Western states, there were several states in which public universities appeared not to provide opportunities to major in neuroscience. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The use of student evaluations has been shown to be a valid and reliable method of evaluating instruction; however, student surveys designed for general use do not fully meet the needs of foreign language instructors and planners. This article presents a thirty‐five item, scaled questionnaire that includes questions designed to elicit information needed to evaluate foreign language teacher effectiveness and the perceived value of course content, plus data needed to determine relevant characteristics of students taking part in the survey. Uses of the information obtained are discussed. The results of a survey using this questionnaire carried out in first‐ and second‐year Spanish classes at a large public university are presented, in addition to a comparison of data from the administration of the questionnaire in first‐semester Spanish and a second administration three semesters later. Significant improvement in several areas had occurred.

Economic Man in the Classroom

The AACSB, AECC, AAHE and other institutions have recently suggested that colleges and universities reassess their commitment to teaching. Reliance on student evaluations (SEs) of faculty teaching has been criticized in the literature because many SEs include items that students cannot properly assess and exclude demographic and contextual questions that are known sources of response bias. This study surveyed administrators of accounting programs from a cross-section of schools and programs to determine whether there is an association between the weight given teaching and the weight assigned to SEs. The results show a statistically significant inverse relationship between the weight given SEs and the emphasis placed on teaching.

Although student evaluations of teaching (SET) in higher education have recently gained considerable interest, little is known about whether course level influences these evaluations. Accordingly, two datasets, obtained from a large public university in the U.S. Midwest, were analyzed to investigate whether course level makes a difference in SET. The first dataset included 25,306 evaluations across eight course levels collected using the SET questionnaire. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), followed by univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs), was conducted to test whether course level makes a difference in SET scores. To cross-validate the results and ensure generalizability, the same analyses were conducted using a second, smaller dataset (N = 444). MANOVA results revealed a statistically significant effect for course level on the combined SET dimensions across both campuses. All univariate ANOVAs were also significant across both campuses. Follow-up post hoc comparisons, with level 1 as the reference group, were statistically significant, especially for level 8. Overall, these results underscore the importance of accounting for course level when interpreting SET and encourage researchers to include key covariates (e.g., class size, discipline, instructor experience, and student composition) to identify the factors driving course-level differences.

Instructor evaluations are influenced by implicit age and gender bias, with lower ratings and negative feedback given to instructors believed to stray from stereotypical age and gender norms. Female instructors exhibiting typically male-associated qualities such as leadership and authority, are often negatively impacted. Implicit bias also influences evaluation of digital resources and instructors, regardless of students' positive learning outcomes. As digital learning resources become the norm in education, it is crucial to explore the impact of implicit bias at various educational levels. In this study, undergraduate and graduate students were randomly exposed to one of five digital tutorials; four experimental tutorials presenting identical anatomy content with narrators of different gender and age, and a control tutorial featuring origami (paper folding) instructions without audio. Learning outcomes were measured by pre-quiz vs. post-quiz comparisons using repeated measures MANOVA. Implicit bias was analyzed by evaluation response comparisons using repeated measures MANOVA and three-way MANOVA. Post-quiz scores increased significantly in the four experimental groups (P<0.05) but not in the control (P=0.99). The increased performance was not statistically different across the four experimental groups (P>0.26), suggesting that learning occurred irrespective of the instructor gender and age. Students' evaluations were consistently higher for the experimental resources than the control. There was no significant difference in evaluations across the four experimental groups but compared to the control, younger male and younger female narrators received significantly higher ratings for approachability, acceptance, inclusivity, and care for student learning. The study highlights important considerations for digital resources development and interpretation of student evaluations.

Anonymous student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are used by colleges and universities to measure teaching effectiveness and to make decisions about faculty hiring, firing, re-appointment, promotion, tenure, and merit pay. Although numerous studies have found that SETs correlate with various teaching effectiveness irrelevant factors (TEIFs) such as subject, class size, and grading standards, it has been argued that such correlations are small and do not undermine the validity of SETs as measures of professors’ teaching effectiveness. However, previous research has generally used inappropriate parametric statistics and effect sizes to examine and to evaluate the significance of TEIFs on personnel decisions. Accordingly, we examined the influence of quantitative vs. non-quantitative courses on SET ratings and SET based personnel decisions using 14,872 publicly posted class evaluations where each evaluation represents a summary of SET ratings provided by individual students responding in each class. In total, 325,538 individual student evaluations from a US mid-size university contributed to theses class evaluations. The results demonstrate that class subject (math vs. English) is strongly associated with SET ratings, has a substantial impact on professors being labeled satisfactory vs. unsatisfactory and excellent vs. non-excellent, and the impact varies substantially depending on the criteria used to classify professors as satisfactory vs. unsatisfactory. Professors teaching quantitative courses are far more likely not to receive tenure, promotion, and/or merit pay when their performance is evaluated against common standards.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to use an affordance approach to understand how university faculty use and value their workspace and respond to proposed spatial changes. Design/methodology/approach A mixed method survey was given to faculty in the college of engineering at a large public American university. Data were analyzed using an affordance lens. Findings The analysis indicates that the majority of engineering faculty highly value private offices and appears resistant to non-traditional workspace arrangements. Research limitations/implications The authors performed the analysis with a relatively small sample (n=46). Practical implications University administrators need to communicate with faculty and take their opinions on spatial changes seriously. Changes to space may affect STEM faculty retention. Social implications This paper could affect the quality of work life for university faculty. Originality/value The paper provide needed research on how faculty use and value their workspace while discussing the implications of alternative workspaces within the academy. Theoretically, the authors contribute to ongoing research on relationship between material and social aspects of organizational spaces.

How beauty works. Theoretical mechanisms and two empirical applications on students' evaluation of teaching

Previous research has linked teachers' physical attractiveness and students' evaluations of teaching. We expanded on this literature by using data from RateMyProfessors.com (RMP), a database popular among college students. Additionally, we examined the unique variance that physical attractiveness explains in student evaluations of teaching while controlling for factors previously shown to predict teaching evaluations (e.g., rater interest, ease of professor or course). We selected student evaluations from 2,281 professors listed on RMP. After controlling for the number of student ratings, rater interest, and ease, we found that physical attractiveness (i.e., hotness) accounted for over 8% of the variance in student evaluations of teaching.

Women are underrepresented as instructors in engineering, computing, and technology classes. One factor that disadvantages women in the classroom are student evaluations of teaching (SETs), as research finds they contain significant gender bias. This may contribute to the dearth of women in computing education, as SETs are used in decisions about contract renewals, hiring, tenure, and promotion. The double-bind is one cause of gender bias in SETs, meaning that it is more difficult for women than for men in leadership positions (such as being a professor) to be perceived as both competent and likable. We examine a lightweight intervention's impact on gender bias caused by the double-bind. Specifically, we conducted a field experiment in which the woman professor of a CS1 class for non-majors gave students in the intervention condition additional, positive exam feedback via email. We hypothesized this would increase students' perceptions of the professor's likability, which would then increase her SETs. We find that the intervention increased top-performing students' ratings of the professors' likability. We also find that the professor received significantly higher SETs the semester she sent the intervention emails. While women should not have to alter their behavior to accommodate students' gender biases, this intervention may be a useful survival strategy for women impacted by gender bias in SETs.

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.

Investigates the factors affecting student evaluation of teaching (SET). A total of 170 teaching evaluations conducted at the Nanyang Business School (Singapore) were analysed by regressing the overall teaching index on the following variables: subject characteristics (stream, year and type), class characteristics (format, size, time and day), evaluation characteristics (response, time and day), and teacher characteristics (age, gender and rank). Indicates that better teaching evaluation is associated with a smaller class size and a larger number of evaluation responses. Also, teachers of middle‐level subjects receive relatively poorer SET results. Further, SET administered in the later part of the week attract better student evaluation. Finds that teacher characteristics have no significant impact on SET results. Confirms the existence of potential biasing factors, hence, SET should be used with caution and not be the only method of evaluating teachers.

A Review of:&#x0D; Downey, K., Zhang, Y., Urbano, C., &amp; Klinger, T. (2014). A comparative study of print book and DDA e-book acquisition and use. Technical Services Quarterly, 31 (2), 139-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2014.875379&#x0D; &#x0D; Abstract&#x0D; &#x0D; Objective – To compare usage of demand-driven acquisition (DDA) e-books with print books to help determine if one acquisition model better serves the needs of library users and return on investment.&#x0D; &#x0D; Design – Case study.&#x0D; &#x0D; Setting – Library system of a large American public university. &#x0D; &#x0D; Subjects – 22,018 DDA e-book discovery records, 456 purchased e-book records, and 20,030 print item records were examined.&#x0D; &#x0D; Method – The researchers examined usage statistics, circulation statistics, and cost measures of DDA e-books and print books. E-books were purchased in 2012 and print books were purchased by the start of the DDA project (January 2012).&#x0D; &#x0D; Main Results – All but one of the 456 DDA-triggered e-books had repeated use within the first year, totalling 2,484 user sessions. 90% of the triggered e-books had 2-9 user sessions, and over half had at least 4 user sessions. E-books were most used in classes N (fine arts), P (Language and Literature), and R (Medicine). E-books in T (Technology) had a lower percentage of user sessions compared to other subject areas. 712 (3.2%) of the e-books in the discovery pool were used without triggering a purchase. Usage of e-books in the discovery pool (those used but not triggering a purchase) showed a consistent use of e-books by subject. E-books in Class B (Philosophy, Psychology, Religion) were used more in the discovery pool without actually being purchased, suggesting a light use of a wide range of books in this subject area. In contrast, Class R (Medicine) saw less use in the discovery pool than what was actually purchased, suggesting heavier and more focused use of triggered e-books in this area. Only 62.5% of the 20,030 purchased print books included in the study were used in the first 1 to 2.5 years they were added to the collection (i.e., 37.5% were not used in that time period). Half of the print books were used no more than once (once or no use), and more than 90% were used fewer than 10 times. Print books in Class Q (Science) contributed to only 7.5% of the total circulations, suggesting print books are underused in this subject area. 10.2% of total circulation of print books in Class R (Medicine) suggests print books are better used in this area. Print acquisition and use occur more often in classes N (Fine Arts) and P (Language and Literature). The average cost for DDA e-books was of $98.52 per book. The average price per print book was $59.53. The unit cost per print book was $17.73 per use. Depending on various measures, cost per use for e-books ranged from $17.73 to $29.15 per use. (If the measurement included the free use of non-triggered DDA books, the cost per use was $18.07, essentially the same as the print cost).&#x0D; &#x0D; Conclusion – Both print books and DDA e-books are proportionately distributed across most subject areas. Although DDA and print cost per use are equal, DDA leads to much more active use overall.