Evidence for gender bias in interpreting online professor ratings

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Dr Ronni Michelle Greenwood Autumn  Introduction  Method  Results  Discussion.
Advertisements

Looking Good, Teaching Well? Linking Liking, Looks, and Learning Regan A. R. Gurung, Kristin M. Grudzielanek, and Christina J. Tosh Attractiveness is a.
Estimation and Reporting of Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects in Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare.
Method Introduction Mixed groups ANOVAs were performed and then followed up using the LSD procedure (p =.05) to look at the relationship between gender,
Method IntroductionResults Discussion Effects of Plans and Workloads on Academic Performance Mark C. Schroeder University of Nebraska – Lincoln College.
Maria Cristina Matteucci, Dina Guglielmi
Student Technological Mastery: It's Not Just the Hardware Wm. H. Huffman, Ph.D. Ann H. Huffman, Ph.D.
One Voice Conference: Gender Attitudes Towards School Board Governance: Professional Leadership and Policy Orientation Patricia Neville, Michael Rubino,
AFT 7/12/04 Marywood University Using Data for Decision Support and Planning.
Romantic Red: Red Enhances Men’s Attraction to Women Andrew J. Elliot and Daniela Niesta University of Rochester Elliot, A., & Niesta, D. (2008 November).
Student Engagement Survey Results and Analysis June 2011.
McMillan Educational Research: Fundamentals for the Consumer, 6e © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Educational Research: Fundamentals.
Attractive Equals Smart? Perceived Intelligence as a Function of Attractiveness and Gender Abstract Method Procedure Discussion Participants were 38 men.
Descriptive Research Study Investigation of Positive and Negative Affect of UniJos PhD Students toward their PhD Research Project Dr. K. A. Korb University.
Business and Management Research
A Comparison of General v. Specific Measures of Achievement Goal Orientation Lisa Baranik, Kenneth Barron, Sara Finney, and Donna Sundre Motivation Research.
Writing an abstract Does consulting with the professor result in greater improvement on the grade of a revised written assignment? John Moeller and G.R.
Greek Affiliation and Success in College Ev A. Lynn Practicing Until Perfect University Introduction When students enter college, they have the choice.
EFFECTS OF DETAILED CUSTOMIZATION OF STUDENT AVATARS ON TEACHER EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS.
Experimental Psychology PSY 433 Chapter 5 Research Reports.
MADELEINE A. FUGÈRE, ALITA J. COUSINS, & STEPHANIE A. MACLAREN Presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Please contact Dr.
Exercises Causal Comparative Research Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şehnaz Şahinkarakaş.
Condom Use as it Relates to Partner Perception and Self-Efficacy Taryn D. Larribas, University of San Francisco Hypotheses It was hypothesized that condom.
Figure not at all somewhat mostly extremely Using the above scale, please rate your physician on the following characteristics assuming that.
Wedded Bliss: Dual Incomes and Shared Finances Amanda Swope & Dr. April Phillips Northeastern State University, Broken Arrow Introduction There are many.
University of Texas at El Paso
Quantitative Literacy Assessment
Statistics & Evidence-Based Practice
Kaitlyn Patterson & Wendy Wolfe
Better to Give or to Receive?: The Role of Dispositional Gratitude
Further Validation of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II: Gender Measurement Invariance Harmon, K. A., Shigemoto, Y., Borowa, D., Robitschek, C.,
Lecture 11: Honours Thesis Structure
Sexual Imagery & Thinking About Sex
The Potential Mediating Role of Emotion Dysregulation
Experimental Psychology
Improving Student Engagement Through Audience Response Systems
Predictors of Parenting Self-Efficacy in Parents Attending College
Introduction Method Results Conclusions
Political dissonance: The effect of political ideology on premarital sex Destini A. Smith, Lakin N. Douglas, Damien R. Jones, Alison J. Patev, & Kristina.
Paranormal Experiences are Predictive of Poorer Mental Health
Effects of Targeted Troubleshooting Activities on
Parts of an Academic Paper
CHAPTER 4 Creative Marketing Project Event
Results and Discussion
Data, conclusions and generalizations
UNECE Work Session on Gender Statistics Belgrade November, 2017
Friendship Quality as a Moderator
Introduction Results Hypotheses Discussion Method
College Students’ Attitudes About Who Should Adopt Timothy Dugas and Sara Sohr-Preston Southeastern Louisiana University Abstract To examine factors possibly.
My, But We are Impressive
Kayla McCaleb, Sara Sohr-Preston, and Karen Phung
Experimental Psychology PSY 433
Mental Health Counseling & Excessive Force
Chapter Eight: Quantitative Methods
An Exploration of the Perceived Femininity of Language Learning
Asist. Prof. Dr. Duygu FIRAT Asist. Prof.. Dr. Şenol HACIEFENDİOĞLU
Ontario`s Mandated High School Community Service Program: Assessing Civic Engagement After Four Years S. D. Brown, S.M. Pancer, P. Padanyi, M. Baetz, J.
Indiana University School of Social Work
Laura M. Sylke & David E. Szwedo James Madison University Introduction
Student Satisfaction Results
Writing the IA Report: Analysis and Evaluation
CHAPTER 4 Creative Marketing Project Event
General Social Competence (18)
Attitudes of Post Graduates Diploma in Education(PGDE) Teachers Towards Teaching Profession. Introduction: Attitude is defined as predisposition to respond.
"Evaluating Students' Evaluations of Teaching: Bias and Beyond"
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample DISCUSSION/CASE STUDY
Effects of Sexualization in Advertisements
The Effect of Lineup Structure on Individual Identification
Exercises Causal Comparative Research
Experimental Psychology PSY 433
Presentation transcript:

Evidence for gender bias in interpreting online professor ratings Deanna Robertson and Sara Sohr-Preston Department of Psychology, Southeastern Louisiana University INTRODUCTION METHOD RESULTS Table 1 Summary of F values from ANCOVA College students use tools such as the website Rate My Professors (RMP) to evaluate their professors and seek information about potential professors for future classes. Ratings on these websites indicate whether students are satisfied with the education they receive from their professors. Relatively little is known, however, about potential biases present in such professor ratings. One area of concern is gender bias in professor ratings. Emerging research has suggested that college students tend to rate male professors more favorably than female professors (e.g., Abel & Meltzer, 2007). Given that these publically accessible ratings may influence students’ decisions about enrolling in classes and even administrator decisions regarding hiring and tenure/promotion, potential biases should be examined. Participants included 300 students (62 males, 238 females; 73.20% Caucasian; mean age = 19.62, SD = 1.72; mean GPA = 3.15, SD = .62) who completed a survey on demographic information, ratings of a hypothetical professor, and ratings of their current psychology professor (not included in this investigation). The professor ratings were created for the current study and were meant to encompass topics mentioned on sites like RMP. Furthermore, the hypothetical professors were listed with average scores of the type presented on RMP. Both male and female professors were listed with the exact same scores: 3.2 out of 5 for Helpfulness 4.2 out of 5 for Clarity 4.0 out of 5 for Easiness 3.8 out of 5 for Overall Quality For the current study, it was hypothesized that there would be differences between the ratings for male and female hypothetical professors. Of the participants, 296 provided complete data for items included in the analyses summarized. Comparisons were conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with professor sex entered as the independent variable, professor rating as the dependent variable, and participant sex as a covariate. Results of analyses of covariance (ANCOVA), which controlled for the participant’s own sex, revealed statistically significant (p < .05) mean differences for speaking loudly enough to be heard, knowing students by name or face showing videos, and giving extra credit. In all cases, females were rated higher. See Table 1 for summary of ANCOVA results. Explains topics clearly .12 Speaks loudly enough to be heard 4.19 Dresses professionally .14 Arrives on time .72 Has clear grading policies 3.30 Test cover lecture material .97 Tests cover readings 1.12 Is helpful 1.10 Is polite to students .01 Smiles 1.93 Knows students by name or face 5.55 Is consistent .81 Exhibits respect toward students 2.49 Is physically attractive 2.32 Is physically fit .57 Uses current examples .44 Shows videos 4.74 Performs in-class demonstrations .76 Gives extra credit 5.21 Has attractive hairstyle 2.76 Tells funny jokes .24 Shares relevant examples .09 Wears flattering clothing 1.80 Appears to be in good mood .90 Gives handouts 3.28 Breaks down complicated topics Displays confidence .21 Seems to enjoy teaching Hands back quickly 1.66 Is available outside of class .74 Discussion of relevant topics 2.08 CONCLUSIONS The findings of this investigation support that there are some potential differences in ratings when comparing male and female professors on the same scales. Since the ratings were of professors not yet met, and descriptions were similar except for sex, they can be interpreted as reflecting expectations of potential professors. It may be beneficial to examine how students’ ratings affect class registration and how well the student does in the class. The current study provides basis that there may be a gender bias in how students evaluate and anticipate characteristics of female professors compared to male professors. Given the preliminary nature of these findings, further replication and expansion of this study are encouraged. OBJECTIVES The current investigation compared students’ ratings of either a male and female hypothetical professor addressing a variety of specific areas of evaluation (summarized in Table 1), while controlling for participant sex. Note. Bolded F values are statistically significant (p < .05) CONTACT Deanna Robertson – deanna.robertson@selu.edu Dr. Sara Sohr-Preston – sara.sohr-preston@selu.edu