A BSTRACT Student evaluations of teachers are an important part of the university decision-making...
-
Upload
dylan-black -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
2
Transcript of A BSTRACT Student evaluations of teachers are an important part of the university decision-making...
ABSTRACTStudent evaluations of teachers are an important part of the university decision-
making process. Therefore, factors beyond objective teaching capabilities that
affect such evaluations must be examined. Undergraduate students may be
influenced by online information about potential instructors, including the
subjective ratings at sites such as ratemyprofessor.com. Instructor gender has long
been hypothesized to affect undergraduate ratings of instructors, but analytical
results about their impacts have been inconsistent. However, certain patterns of
gender and student evaluations have emerged: female teachers are rated lower by
male students1, female teachers in traditionally male fields are rated especially
low2, and aspects such as professionalism and authority are rated lower in females
than in males3. Using an online teacher evaluation site, we explore hypotheses
about the effects of gender on teaching evaluations at two universities. Field of
research and judgments about instructor appearance were analyzed to gain insight
into this vital but unresolved dynamic in student perceptions. These results are
essential in understanding and addressing the impact of gender biases on the
content of digital information.
1 Basow, Susan A. ,20002 Centra, John A. and Noreen B. Gaubatz, 20003 Basow et al., 2006
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics
N Overall Rating Helpfulness Clarity Easiness
U-Chicago Chemistry Males Hot Not Females Hot Not English Males Hot Not Females Hot Not
746
512
1124
1227
4.22 (.442)2.92 (.996)
4.74 (.270)2.66 (1.12)
4.13 (.467)3.80 (.601)
4.16 (.605)3.57 (1.19)
4.18 (.620)2.96 (1.04)
4.74 (.219)2.51 (1.25)
4.29 (.467)3.82 (.721)
4.21 (.678)3.58 (1.34)
4.24 (.359)2.87 (1.03)
4.72 (.342)2.81 (1.11)
4.00 (.786)3.75 (.561)
4.10 (.564)3.58 (1.13)
3.45 (1.49)2.54 (.986)
4.08 (.998)2.20 (1.05)
3.30 (.684)3.40 (.763)
3.01 (.795)3.22 (.977)
Urbana-Champaign Chemistry Males Hot Not Females Hot Not English Males Hot Not Females Hot Not
1340
518
1025
1522
4.46 (.672)3.34 (1.18)
3.88 (.609)2.66 (1.09)
4.63 (.386)3.48 (1.00)
4.52 (.499)3.59 (.907)
4.46 (.734)3.33 (1.24)
3.82 (.637)2.65 (1.24)
4.57 (.442)3.38 (1.04)
4.58 (.414)3.76 (.968)
4.48 (.654)3.37 (1.15)
3.96 (.665)2.68 (.973)
4.66 (.368)3.58 (1.09)
4.47 (.608)3.42 (.980)
2.67 (1.05)2.56 (.809)
2.56 (.550)2.29 (.664)
3.41 (.486)3.04 (.793)
3.44 (.479)3.09 (.963)
The mean is reported with standard deviation in parentheses
Figure 1: Interaction of Sex/Department on Overall Rating at UIUC
“Something is hot in this class, and I'm not talking about the Bunsen burner.”
An Analysis of Gender by Department on ratemyprofessor.comRachel Williams (University of Wisconsin) and Michelle Dillon (University of Washington)
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONStudent ratings in this sample appear to be more dependent upon department than upon sex, with males and females in the English department being rated more highly than males and females in the Chemistry department on all measures. Individuals rated as “Hot” were also rated more highly on all measures, but non-“Hot” females were not rated significantly lower than non-“Hot” males. Descriptive words for females centered on maternal capacities, although females were not rated as easier or more helpful overall. Male instructors were often described in terms of chumminess. Unexpectedly, results showed a three-way interaction between the university, the department, and the sex of the instructor. Female instructors in Chemistry who taught at UIUC were rated much more negatively than their counterparts at UIC. This indicates that previously inconsistent data concerning sex and student evaluations may be attributable to differences in the sample populations, a finding that merits further investigation.
Figure 2: Interaction of Sex/Department on Helpfulness at UIUC
SexDeptSchoolHotSchool*SexDept*SchoolSex*DeptSchool*Sex*DeptHot*Sex
Constant
1
-.12 (.11).60 (.12)***
3.5 (.06)
2
.58 (.10)***
.16 (.12)
3.5 (.06)
3
.45 (.12)***
1.0 (.10)***
3.5 (.05)
4
-.05 (.13)
1.0 (.08)***
.04 (.19)
3.5 (.05)
5
-.12 (.15).60 (.13)***
.10 (.11)
-.28 (.31)-.15 (.28).26 (.27)
1.1 (.52)**
3.5 (.06)
6UIUC
-.31 (.16)*
.42 (.18)**
1.0 (.14)***
.69 (.25)***
3.3 (.11)
R-SquaredAdj. R-SquaredN
.07
.06292
.07
.07292
.24
.23292
.19
.18292
.10
.08292
.28
.26148
The coefficient is reported with standard error in parentheses*, **, and *** indicate significance at the 90%, 95%, and 99% level, respectively
Table 1: Linear Regression Results for Overall Ratings (Bootstrap replications=50)
METHODOLOGYData were collected from ratemyprofessor.com, a publically accessible student evaluation website. Two
universities (University of Illinois Chicago and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) were chosen for their
close proximity and extended presence on the site. Ratings from the Chemistry department and English
department from each university were examined: easiness, helpfulness, clarity, overall rating (an average of
the previous three; all ranged from 1 to 5) and hotness (indicated by a chili pepper; this rating was
dichotomous) were recorded. Every instructor from each Chemistry department and every third instructor
from each English department were included, due to the inclusion of 3 times the English department
instructors on the site. Linear regressions with bootstrapping were used to analyze the data, due to slightly
non-parametric data. Comments left by students were also examined for sex-biased patterns.
STUDENT COMMENTS
Common positive adjectives for males: “cool,” “funny,” “smart”
Common positive adjectives for females: “nice,” “helpful,” “caring”
Common negative adjectives for males: “arrogant,” “unfair,” “boring”
Common negative adjectives for females: “condescending,” “harsh,”
“boring”