"The Simulated Meeting" Design
Content — Bibliography Format (sample 1)
Evaluation Processes
Gender and Student Evaluations:
An Annotated Bibliography
Developed at the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching
at the University of Michigan
Andersen, K., &Miller, E. D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations
of teaching. Political Science & Politics, 30, 216-219.
Explores the potentially damaging effects of gender bias in student
evaluations of teaching, specifically with regard to student
expectations. Reviews a number of laboratory and "real life" studies
and summarizes their conclusions. Notes the different and conflicting
expectations of students and recommends a broader approach to teacher
evaluations.
Arreola, R. A. (2000). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation
system: A handbook for college faculty and administrators on designing
and operating a comprehensive faculty evaluation system (2nd ed.).
Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
This handbook provides a practical model for developing and using a
comprehensive faculty evaluating system that responds to the specific
needs, concerns, and characteristics of the faculty and administration
of an individual academic unit. It outlines an eight-step procedure
that focuses on the determination of: (1) the faculty role model; (2)
faculty role model parameter values; (3) roles in the faculty role
model; (4) role component weights; (5) appropriate sources of
information; (6) information source weights; (7) how information should
be gathered; and (8) appropriate forms and protocols. It also examines
the selection and development of forms for the student evaluation of
faculty, providing samples of student rating form items is included. An
appendix contains a sample faculty evaluation manual.
Arreola, R. A., & Lawrence, M. (1990). Practical decisions in
developing and operating a faculty evaluation system. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning: Student Ratings of Instruction: Issues for
Improving Practice, 43, 37-55.
When faculty evaluation systems are proposed, students, faculty, and
administrators often think only of questionnaires and assignment of
data processing tasks. Much more must be considered, including
balancing the needs of all constituencies, designing student rating
forms and administration procedures, and the treatment and uses of the
information obtained
Bachen, C. M., McLoughlin, M. M., & Garcia, S. S. (1999). Assessing
the role of gender in college students' evaluations of faculty.
Communication Education, 448(3), 193-210.
Finds that female students rated female faculty especially high across
five teaching dimensions and male faculty comparatively lower, whereas
male students did not evaluate male and female professors as
significantly different. Finds that assessments of faculty were further
influenced by the strength of students' gender schema and that gender
schema may also lead to differential preference for particular teaching
styles.
Baker, P., & Copp, M. (1997). Gender matters most: The interaction
of gendered expectations, feminist course content, and pregnancy in
student course evaluations. Teaching Sociology, 25(1), 29-43.
Explores the changing expectations of students towards a women
professor throughout the course of her pregnancy. The professor made a
conscious effort to standardize her classroom behavior throughout the
course. Nonetheless, students attributed negative reactions and a
general decline in her effectiveness to the debilitating effects of the
pregnancy. Over the course of three semesters teaching the same class,
the professor got pregnant and carried her child to term. Using
qualitative and quantitative teaching evaluation data from the course,
the paper analyzes how students' reactions to their professor shifted
depending on their professor's capacity to fulfill their gendered
expectations. It also examines how the interactions between students'
gendered expectations, their reactions to feminist course content, and
their responses to their pregnant professor influenced the students'
teaching evaluations of the instructor.
Basow, S. A. (1995). Student evaluations of college professors: When
gender matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 656-665.
Student evaluations completed over a period at a private liberal arts
college were analyzed for the effects of teacher gender, student
gender, and divisional affiliation. A significant multivariate
interaction between teacher gender and student gender was found for
each of the 4 semesters examined. Overall, the ratings of male
professors appeared to be unaffected by student gender. In contrast,
female professors tended to receive their highest ratings from female
students and their lowest ratings from male students. This interaction
generally remained when possible confounding factors (such as teacher
rank) were partialed out. The mean ratings received by female
professors also varied as a function of the divisional affiliation of
the course. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Basow, S. A. (1998). Student evaluations: Gender bias and teaching
styles. In L. H. Collins, Chrisler, J.C., & Quina, K. (Eds.),
Career strategies for women in academe: Arming Athena. (pp. 135-156).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Using a quantitative approach, Basow argues that the overall effect of
gender on student evaluations is small, accounting for about 3% of
variance. However, there may be significant interaction effects between
gender and other context variables that may cumulatively disadvantage
female faculty.
Basow, S. A. (2000). Best and worst professors: Gender patterns in students' choices. Sex Roles, 43(5/6), 407-417.
Examined the qualities college students valued or disliked in their
professors and whether they varied by student or professor gender.
Students picked their best and worst professors, described their
qualities, and rated their gender-linked personality traits. Gender
factors operated more strongly in considerations of best versus worst
professors. They also affected descriptions of best professors'
characteristics.
Basow, S. A., & Silberg, N. T. (1987). Student evaluations of
college professors: Are female and male professors rated differently?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 308-14.
Over 1,000 undergraduates evaluated 16 male and female professors in
terms of teaching effectiveness and sex-typed characteristics. Male
students gave female professors significantly poorer ratings than male
professors on the six teaching evaluation measures. Female students
evaluated female professors less favorably than male professors on
three measures.
Bennett, S. K. (1982). Student perceptions of and expectations for male
and female instructors: Evidence relating to the question of gender
bias in teaching evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2),
170-179.
Survey of 253 students in nonscience introductory courses at a liberal
arts college. Bennett finds that students do not have different
standards of reference for male and female instructors, but women are
perceived to be less authoritarian and more charismatic. Female
instructors in departments with fewer than 20% ft women were rated even
higher on these standards. She finds that ratings that are
consequential for performance ratings of men have an equal impact on
women except for the following, which have more effect for women: (1)
professionalism (seen by students as a highly structured instructional
approach), instructional presentation (specifically, being compelling
and self-assured and presenting a balanced interpretation of
viewpoints), and (3) accessibility.
Benokraitis, N. V. (1998). Working in the ivory basement: Subtle sex
discrimination in higher education. In L. H. Collins, J.C. Chrisler,
& K. Quina (Eds.), Career strategies for women in academe: Arming
Athena (pp. 3-43). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Female professors often experience "professional dimunition" through
terms of address, comments about personal appearance on course
evaluations, and direct questions about credentials.
Boice, R. (1993). Early turning points in professorial careers of women
and minorities. In J. Gainen, & R. Boice (Eds.), Building a diverse
faculty: New directions for teaching and learning, 53 (pp. 71-80). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Interviews with 84 male and female faculty illustrate some gender
differences in early career experiences. Women's responses differed
from men's in that they valued teaching but were more affected by
negative experiences as teachers (for example, seeing colleagues as
disinterested in discussing teaching; sensing that students would only
accept them if they were entertainers; realizing that male students
treated them less generously than they would male professors). They
also had fewer opportunities for mentoring or collaborations (research
or teaching). Finally, they reported more instances of illness and
debilitating anxiety while teaching or writing. Critical experiences
for minority women included: loneliness and never feeling a part of the
campus or department, feeling overwhelmed with fears of failure and
helplessness, and deciding to deal with students and colleagues by
becoming tough and quiet. Exemplary women, more than exemplary males,
saw problems as useful challenges.
Brady, K. L., & Eisler, R. M. (1999). Sex and gender in the college
classroom: A quantitative analysis of faculty-student interactions and
perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 127-145.
Students and instructors from 24 classrooms across 8 departments at a
major university were observed in this study to (a) assess for sex
differences in faculty-student interactions and in students'
perceptions of their college classroom environment, (b) compare student
perceptions of their college classroom interaction patterns with
observed faculty-student interactions, and (c) assess a variety of
demographic characteristics together to determine their singular and/or
interactive effects on faculty-student interaction patterns and student
perceptions. Male and female students did not differ in their classroom
participation or perceptions, and instructors did not interact
differently with the male and female students. Student perceptions
strongly correlated with their own behaviors and with instructor
behaviors. Classroom interactions and student perceptions varied on the
basis of different demographic characteristics including instructor
sex, class size, instructor monitoring of gender-race equity in the
classroom, gender relevance of the course, and the sex ratio of the
class.
Brooks, V. R. (1982). Sex differences in student dominance behavior in
female and male professors' classrooms. Sex Roles, 8(7), 683-690.
Male graduate students exhibited significantly more aggressiveness
(interruptive behavior) than female students in both male and female
professors' classes, although more male aggressiveness occurred in
female professors' classes. Male students were more verbally assertive
in female professors' classes only. Among students, aggressiveness was
predominantly cross-sex, rather than same-sex.
Burns-Glover, A. L.,& Veith, D. J. (1995). Revisiting gender and
teaching evaluations: Sex still makes a difference. Journal of Social
Behavior & Personality: Special Issue: Gender in the workplace,
10(6), 69-80.
Explores sex biases in college students, through their rating of
desirability of traits and behaviors in 3 supposed applicants for a
university teaching position. Subjects, after being presented with a
brief scenario regarding the fictitious applicants, were required to
review the sex-stereotyped list and then rate desirable traits, using a
standardized list of 52 traits and a student-generated list of 25
preferred behaviors of a "great professor." Results show that masculine
traits were preferred over feminine, and trait preferences were
affected by the sex of the professor. Subjects had different
preferences based on the sex of the professor, and the pattern of such
evaluations was significantly predicted by the sex of the rater. The
sex-biased pattern was clearer for male, than for female, raters.
Cashin, W. E. (1995). Student ratings of teaching: The research revisited. IDEA paper No. 32.
This paper attempts to summarize the conclusions of the major reviews
of the literature on student ratings of teaching. It is an update of a
paper by the same name published as IDEA Paper No. 20 from the Center
for Faculty Evaluation and Development in 1988. Viewing student ratings
as data rather than evaluations may help to put them in proper
perspective. Studies have considered the multidimensionality of student
ratings and their reliability and validity. They have been compared to
student learning outcomes, the self-ratings of the instructor, and the
ratings of others, and possible sources of bias have been studied.
There are probably more studies of student ratings than of all the
other data used to evaluate college teaching combined, and there are
certainly enough studies to allow some conclusions. In general, student
ratings tend to be statistically reliable, valid, and relatively free
from bias and need for control. Nevertheless, they are only one source
of data about teaching and must be used with multiple sources of data
to make judgments about all the components of teaching.
Centra, J. A.,& Gaubatz, N. B. (2000). Is there gender bias in
student evaluations of teaching? Journal of Higher Education,71(1),
17-33.
This study examined gender differences in student evaluation of
teaching through two analyses. In the first, female and male student
ratings in the same classes were compared for female and male
instructors. In the second analysis, ratings by all male students are
examined for how they differed for male and female instructors. Data
came from 741 college classes, each of which had an enrollment of at
least 10 female students and 10 male students from 21 colleges and
universities. The student evaluation from was the Student Instructional
Report II from the Educational Testing Service. Multivariate analysis
of variance was used to investigate the mean differences of the
dependent variables. In this study, in contrast to past studies, female
students gave higher ratings to female instructors on three of eight
scales for all disciplines combined, while male students gave male
instructors higher ratings on only one scale, course organization and
planning. Male and female students did not differ in their rankings of
male teachers. For the total sample of classes, when more favorable
ratings were given, they were largely by female students to female
instructors. Overall, results support the conclusion that gender
differences among instructors are related more to their gender-related
approaches to teaching than to their overall effectiveness.
Dukes, R. L., & Victoria, G. (1989). The effects of gender, status,
and effective teaching on the evaluation of college instruction.
Teaching Sociology,17(4), 447-57.
Examined the effects of gender, status, and effective teaching on the
evaluation of college instruction. Scenarios manipulating the status of
professors relative to these variables were presented to subjects. Some
gender bias was determined; however, effective teaching was the most
important influence on evaluations.
Fandt, P. M.,&Stevens, G. E. (1991). Evaluation bias in the
business classroom: Evidence relating to the effects of previous
experiences. Journal of Psychology, Interdisciplinary &
Applied,125(4), 469-78.
A study of teaching evaluations in colleges of business administration
found that male instructors were rated higher than female instructors.
When previous experiences with female instructors existed, the female
instructors were rated higher.
Feldman, K. A. (1992). College students' views of male and female
college teachers: Part I--Evidence from the social laboratory and
experiments. Research in Higher Education, 33(3), 317-75.
Among findings of a review of research on college students'
preconceptions of male and female college teachers were that, in the
majority of studies, students' global evaluations of male and female
teachers as professionals were not different, though in a minority of
studies, male teachers received higher overall evaluations than did
female teachers.
Feldman, K. A. (1993). College students' views of male and female
college teachers: Part II--Evidence from students' evaluations of their
classroom teachers. Research in Higher Education, 34(2), 151-211.
Research on college students' evaluations of their male and female
teachers is synthesized and compared with results of research on
student evaluation of hypothetical male and female teachers. Results
suggest the interaction of gender, teacher characteristics/behaviors,
and student perceptions and expectations is complex. Although a
majority of studies have found that male and female college teachers do
not differ in the global ratings they receive from their students, when
statistically significant differences are found, more of them favor
women than men. Across studies, the average association between gender
and overall evaluation, while favoring women, is so small as to be
insignificant in practical terms.
Fernandez, J.,& Mateo, M. A. (1997). Student and faculty gender in
ratings of university teaching quality. Sex Roles, 37(11-12), 997-1003.
Studied the assertion that student and faculty gender, and their
interaction, have little or no real effect on student ratings of
university teaching quality, using 1,304 students from a Spanish
university. Results, taking into consideration statistical significance
and effect size, support the assertion. Implications for higher
education are discussed.
Freeman, H. R. (1994). Student evaluations of college instructors:
Effects of type of course taught, instructor gender and gender role,
and student gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 627-630.
The college curriculum is often separated into divisions or course
types (e.g., natural science, the arts) that may be perceived to differ
in the extent to which they use expressive feminine attributes (e.g.,
affectionate, sensitive) and toolal masculine attributes (e.g.,
assertive, forceful). In Experiment 1, the effects of course type,
student gender, and instructor gender and gender role on student
evaluations of instructor effectiveness were examined. In Experiment 2,
students' perceptions of the importance of various gender role
characteristics in instructors of different course types were explored.
Results suggest that instructor gender role is more important than
instructor gender in affecting student evaluations. Both female and
male students preferred instructors (science instructors, in
particular) who possessed both feminine and masculine characteristics,
regardless of the gender of the instructor.
Goldberg, G., & Callahan, J. (1991). Objectivity of student
evaluations of instructors. Journal of Education for Business, 66(6),
377-8.
Over 60 undergraduate business courses in 3 quarters were evaluated by
more than 4,000 students. Student ratings of business course
instructors were influenced by expected grades, course level, and
instructor gender, and status.
Goodwin, L. D., & Stevens, E. A. (1993). The influence of gender on
university faculty members' perceptions of "good" teaching. Journal of
Higher Education, 64(2), 166-85.
Responses of 250 college faculty to questions about "good" teaching
were analyzed by gender, rank, and discipline. Overall, few gender
differences were found. Those that emerged include greater female
faculty interest in student self-esteem, class
interaction/participation, and seeking outside assistance in improving
teaching. Male faculty valued student evaluations more.
Grasha, A. F. (1994). A matter of style: The teacher as expert, formal
authority, personal model, facilitator and delegator. College Teaching,
42(4), 142-9.
Administered a teaching style inventory to 381 faculty from 200 U.S.
colleges and universities. Women were slightly less likely to have an
expert teaching (e.g., transmits information and expertise, challenges
students to enhance competence) or a formal authority (e.g., provides
feedback, establishes goals, expectations and rules of conduct)
teaching style. They were more likely to score higher on facilitator
(guides and consults with students) and delegator (is a resource for
students as they work autonomously) scales. Instructors who used
facilitative and personal (emphasis on direct observation and role
modeling) styles were more satisfied with their courses.
Haemmerlie, F. M.,& Highfill, L. A. (1991). Bias by male
engineering undergraduates in their evaluation of teaching.
Psychological Reports, 68, 151-60.
This study assessed the gender biases of male engineering
undergraduates when evaluating a college teacher of a technical course.
Students (n=126) rated a hypothetical calculus teacher on a variety of
personal, interpersonal, and professional dimensions. Evidence of a
pro-male bias was found with regard to what subjects thought the
teacher's personal attitudes and interpersonal behavior would be toward
students.
Hancock, G. R., Shannon, D., & Trentham, L. (1993). Student and
teacher gender in ratings of university faculty: Results from five
colleges of study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 6(3),
235-48.
Potential instructor and student gender interaction in student ratings
of faculty across different university colleges of study were studied
through 29,519 completed student questionnaires. The relationship of
gender differences in ratings to the particular college shows no
predictable pattern. The impact of gender differences at other levels
is discussed.
Hartung, B. (1990). Selective rejection: How students perceive women's studies teaching. NWSA Journal, 2(2), 254-263.
Survey of students in required general education courses about what
they liked best and least about the class. Although women's studies and
ethnic studies courses may receive high quantitative ratings, students
used more pejorative language to describe them than courses in history
or political science, and instructors of these classes were accused of
being biased. Hartung finds that students use similar negative
adjectives to describe women's studies and ethnic studies courses;
however, the extent of critical comments was much greater for the
former. Equal numbers of male and female students presented complaints
about the women's studies courses, although the qualitative nature of
their complaints differed.
Kierstead, D., D'Agostino, P.,& Dill, H. (1988). Sex role
stereotyping of college professors: Bias in students' ratings of
instructors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 342-4.
The impact of three variables on students' ratings of instruction was
assessed: (1) social contact between instructor and students; (2)
instructor's facial expression; and (3) instructor's gender. Findings
with 40 male and 40 female college students indicate that students
expect female instructors to excel in both stereotypically masculine
and feminine domains.
Langbein, L. I. (1994). The validity of student evaluations of teaching. Political Science & Politics, 27(3), 543-5.
As of 1988, 805 of all liberal arts colleges used systematic student
ratings as all, or part of, the means for evaluating teachers. The
validity of systematic student ratings of college teachers is discussed.
Ludwig, J. M., & Meacham, J.A. (1997). Teaching controversial
courses: Student evaluations of instructors and content. Educational
Research Quarterly, 21(1), 27-38.
Experimental study in which undergraduates in an intro psychology
course rated biographical sketches (gender and race were manipulated)
and brief syllabi (the "high controversy" syllabus treated racism and
sexism, while the "low controversy" course addressed "more general
social problems") of fictitious instructors. The authors found no
support for the hypothesis that students will give low evaluations of
effectiveness to minority and female instructors who present
controversial material in their courses. Students rated both course
syllabi as more controversial when taught by a Black instructor or a
female instructor, and the race and gender course was rated most
controversial when taught by a Black female. Although there was no
significant overall difference in student ratings, students who
perceived a course as controversial were more likely to indicate that
the instructor: (1) shows important relationships between topics, (2)
asks questions that challenge them to think, and (3) provides
opportunities to bring up or discuss issues related to the course.
Students who rated a class as very controversial were more likely to
report that: (1) the instructor asks questions that challenge them to
think, (2) the instructor provides opportunities to bring up or discuss
issues related to the course, and (3) course activities and materials
are difficult. Among female students, white male instructors were rated
least likely to show important relationships between topics and Black
males most likely. Among male undergraduates, white female instructors
were thought least likely to connect topics and Black females most
likely.
Lueck, T. L., Endres, K. L.,& Caplan, R. E. (1993). The interaction
effects of gender on teaching evaluations. Journalism Educator, 48(3),
46-54.
Finds an interaction between student gender and instructor gender on
teaching evaluations in mass communication. Shows that male students
rated male instructors higher and that female students rated female
instructors higher.
Miller, J.,& Chamberlin, M. (2000). Women are teachers, men are
professors: A study of student perceptions. Teaching Sociology, 28(4),
283-298.
Sociology students' perceptions of their instructors' educational
attainment levels are examined empirically. The authors find gender
disparities: students misattribute in an upward direction the level of
education actually attained by male graduate student instructors, while
they misattribute in a downward direction the level of formal education
attained by women, even when the female faculty member is a full
professor. The misattributions are linked to the imputed statuses
"teacher" for women and "professor" for men, regardless of the actual
positions held or the credentials earned by faculty members and
graduate student instructors. The authors suggest that a process of
marginalization explains the empirical findings - a process that is
attributed by others, but chosen by the self, regardless of the social
and economic costs incurred.
Moore, M. (1997). Student resistance to course content: Reaction to the gender of the messenger. Teaching Sociology, 25(128-133.
Anecdotal first-person evidence demonstrates student resistance to
college courses on feminist theory, focusing on how resistance
fluctuates according to professor gender. Different forms of resistance
are identified, including theories disregarded because they are
derogatory to men, structural forces dismissed by contradictory
individual experiences because they create individual discomfort and
evidence minimized through victim blaming. A class experiment used to
reduce such resistance is described, where a course introduction on
feminism is first delivered by a female and then a male professor. In
general, the male professor is perceived incorrectly as more qualified
and less biased. Students evaluate their own reactions and resistance
to each introduction, discovering their individual biases.
Moore, M., & Trahan, R. (1997). Biased and political: Student
perceptions of females teaching about gender. College Student Journal,
31(4), 434-44.
141 students at a state university were asked to evaluate syllabi. The
course topics were varied: Sociology of Gender, Classical Social
Theory, and Issues in the Family, as was the sex of the hypothetical
instructor. For the Sociology of Gender course, students were more
likely to indicate for female instructors that the course topics
reflected instructor biases, course topics appeared to be too
political, exams and papers appeared to be subjective and dependent on
instructor opinions, and that the instructor had a political agenda.
Female and male students rating the course (with a female instructor)
found that the topics reflected the instructor's biases, while male
students indicated that the topics appeared to be too political. (For
the other two courses, there were no significant differences dealing
with these bias-related questions.) However, there were no overall
significant differences in whether students would want to take
Sociology of Gender if the instructor were a man or a woman.
Moore, V. A. (1996). Inappropriate challenges to professorial authority. Teaching Sociology, 24, 202-6.
Interviewed 17 professors at New England colleges and universities: 3
white men, 4 black men, 5 white women, 5 black women. Found that women
who looked young, both black and white, experienced inappropriate
challenges persistently. To counteract this perception, women used
strategies such as dressing professionally, not coloring gray hair, and
talking about credentials and experiences on first day. Other
influences on credibility raised by respondents were: teaching topics
considered to be male (e.g., political power) or identity-associated,
instructor race, and instructor sexuality. However, Moore finds that
challenges by students are not the primary concern of faculty because
collegial and administrative challenges can prevent these professors
from becoming "full members of the club" (p. 204).
Pease, J. (1993). Professor Mom: Woman's work in a man's world. Sociological Forum,8(1), 133-9.
This essay identifies parallels between the traits assigned to gender
work roles and the teaching/research divisions of labor at research
universities. The character and definition of undergraduate teaching at
research universities is very similar to what has often been described
as "women's work."
Rowden, G. V.,& Carlson, R. E. (1996). Gender issues and students'
perceptions of instructors' immediacy and evaluation of teaching and
course. Psychological Report, 78, 835-9.
This study reports on relationships between teachers' immediacy and
students' evaluations of the course and teacher, and differences among
these variables based on teachers' and students' gender. Analysis
showed that for 197 undergraduate students (105 women and 92 men)
immediacy, course evaluations, and evaluations of their teachers (104
men and 92 women) were positively correlated. There were no differences
by gender for immediacy, but three gender differences were found:
female instructors received higher teacher and course ratings than
their male peers, and female students with male instructors rated the
course lower than any other gender grouping.
Rubin, R. B. (1981). Ideal traits and terms of address for male and
female college professors. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 41(5), 966-74.
Examined students' perceptions of college professors' ideal traits to
ascertain possible influences of sex-role stereotyping (Exp I) and the
terms of address students use with their professors in public and
private contexts (Exp II). In Exp I, 20 undergraduates compiled a list
of 34 ideal traits of professors divided among 5 categories: intellect,
professionalism, communication ability, openness, and nurturing.
Another 127 subjects were divided into 3 groups, each of which assigned
the ideal traits to a male, female, or unspecified-sex professor. Only
slight differences in the assignment of openness and nurturing traits
to male and female professors were found, and there was no significant
difference between male and female Ss who assigned the traits. In Exp
II, 72 subjects were asked how they would address each of their
professors in private and in public. Few contextual differences were
found; however, female professors, especially those in the 26-33 age
group, were addressed by first names more often than their male
colleagues. Also, female Ss used the familiar terms more often than
male subjects.
Sandler, B. R. (1991). Women faculty at work in the classroom. Communication Education, 40(1), 6-15.
Reviews recent research on the different ways in which male and female
students communicate with women and men faculty. Concludes with
recommendations women faculty may implement to reduce behaviors that
create and sustain a "chilly" classroom climate.
Seldin, P. (July 21, 1993). The use and abuse of student ratings of professors. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A40.
Student ratings have become the most widely used source of information
on teaching effectiveness in higher education. Such evaluations are
easy to abuse, however, and do not always lead to improvements in
teaching. Student evaluations should never be the sole source of
information on a teacher's effectiveness in class. The best way to get
at the complexity and individuality of teaching is to compile a
teaching portfolio that includes not only student ratings but such
things as other teachers' observations, reviews of the instructional
materials used, and an essay by the faculty member on why the teaching
was done in a particular way. The reliability of student ratings is
discussed, and guidelines for using them are provided.
Sidanius, J.,& Crane, M. (1989). Job evaluation and gender: The
case of university faculty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
19(2), 174-97.
Assessed the effect of sex on performance evaluations in data drawn
from a course instructor survey completed by 4,662 female students and
4,241 male students and by 102 students not indicating their sex. 254
male university instructors and 147 female university instructors
participated. Male faculty were given significantly higher evaluations
on global teacher effectiveness and academic competence than female
faculty. Female faculty were not found to be rated as more sensitive to
student needs than male faculty. When making overall, global judgments
of faculty performance, students seemed to place more weight on
academic competence for male faculty than for female faculty.
Simpson, R. D. (1995). Uses and misuses of student evaluations of
teaching effectiveness. Innovative Higher Education, 20(1), 3-5.
While student evaluations of teaching performance can provide useful
feedback on faculty, particularly on dimensions of course delivery,
there are serious limitations. Bias and distrust are often overlooked
in interpreting student ratings. An inappropriate use is in
rank-ordering faculty in a department. Student evaluation data must be
integrated with other sources of information on teaching quality.
Siskind, T. G.,& Kearns, S. P. (1997). Gender bias in the
evaluation of female faculty at the citadel: A qualitative analysis.
Sex Roles, 37(7-8), 495-525.
Investigates the possibility of gender bias in student ratings of
female faculty at The Citadel. Four (Caucasian) female faculty members,
one at each level of academic rank, and four (Caucasian) male cadets
were interviewed to determine their views on bias in the instructional
process, especially with regard to ratings of faculty by students. From
the data the authors concluded that there is a contradiction between
beliefs about gender bias and the actual presence of bias for both
faculty and students. Women are subjected to a double standard, and in
the military setting of The Citadel, non-tenure track female faculty
are doubly penalized. Faculty women believe gender bias is part of the
institutional culture, and contrapower harassment in ratings of female
faculty by male students is likely.
Statham, A., Richardson, L., & Cook, J. A. (1991). Gender and
university teaching: A negotiated difference (ed. Vol.). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
This book examines university teaching from several perspectives: what
male and female professors do in the classroom, their perceptions and
feelings about teaching, and how students respond. Data were gathered
by observing professors in their classrooms, doing selected
unstructured interviews , and soliciting evaluation feedback from their
students. This triangulation of data provides a richness of information
and insight into the process of university teaching.
Sullivan, S. J. (1999). How gender identities affect interactions
between professors and students. (Report No. CS 510200). Oktibbeha,
Mississippi. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 437 676).
This paper explores written reports about socially constructed female
gender roles and allows examination of how dominant viewpoints
continually affect the evolution of women's roles as schoolwomen,
focusing on societal evaluation of women's roles. Data for the paper
were collected by 5 groups of students in a Communication Theory
course. The groups were assigned to develop a theory based on their
descriptions and explanations about the types of interactions that
occur between women and men faculty and their students. The paper
concludes that a combination of typical male task-oriented instruction
with typical female relational-type instruction is important to
teaching ability and effectiveness.
Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G.,& Myers, D. G. (1989). Joan
Mckay versus John Mckay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations?
Psychological Bulletin,105(3), 409-29.
Examines research using a classic, influential experiment conducted by
Goldberg (1968), showing that women were likely to rate male authors
(e.g., John T. McKay) more favorably than female authors (e.g., Joan T.
McKay) of identical articles. Although replications of this study have
been inconclusive, Goldberg's research is still frequently cited as
demonstrating an evaluative bias against women. A quantitative
meta-analysis of research using Goldberg's experimental paradigm shows
that the average difference between ratings of men and women is
negligible. Furthermore, although the effect sizes are not homogeneous,
the difference remains negligible when other factors such as sex of
subject or year of publication are taken into consideration. Several
explanations for the heterogeneity of effect sizes and the
inconsistency of findings are discussed.
Tatro, C. N. (1995). Gender effects on student evaluations of faculty.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28(3), 169-73.
To identify gender differences in student ratings of their instructors,
college students completed a questionnaire concerning their
instructor's attitudes and effectiveness. Data analysis indicated that
female instructors received higher ratings than male instructors, and
female students gave higher ratings than male students. Expected grade
significantly affected students' ratings.
Wachtel, H. K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching
effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment & Evaluation on Higher
Education, 23, 191-212.
This paper presents a brief review of the existing research on student
written evaluations of the teaching performance of college and
university instructors. First, a short historical background is given.
Wigington, H., Tollefson, N., & Rodriguez, E. (1989). Students'
ratings of instructors revisited: Interactions among class and
instructor variables. Research in Higher Education, 30(3), 331-44.
In order to determine how situational variables influence students when
they evaluate an instructor, the individual student as the unit of
analysis was used. Interactions between three variables related to
class (type, level, and size) and three related to instructor
(reputation, rank, and sex) were examined.
Winocur, S., Schoen, L., & Sirowatka, A. (1989). Perceptions of
male and female academics within a teaching context. Research in Higher
Education, 30(3), 317-29.
Undergraduate students were exposed to videotaped lectures that
differed on two dimensions: sex of lecturer, and style of presentation
(affiliative or toolal). Analyses revealed that students'
perceptions of lecturers are dependent largely on lecturing style.
Affiliative lecturers were seen as more effective as well as more
confident, professional, and approachable.
Content Overview / File Formats
Interaction Overview (Actors and Use Case)
Graphics Overview
Architecture Overview (Simulation Engine, Analysis Engine Options)
Full Resources storyboard
Link to this Page
Project Organization
ADEPT Goals
ADEPT Tool Design
ADEPT Tool Development
ADEPT Project Schedule
ADEPT Minutes
ADEPT Prototypes
Related Links
Georgia Tech Resources
Outside Resources