*Record: 1* *Title:* BEAUTY AND TEACHING EVALUATION: A COMPARISON BETWEEN FEMALE AND MALE COLLEGE PROFESSORS. *Authors:* Bokek-Cohen, Ya'arit^1 bokek@bezeqint.net Davidowitz, Nitza^1 *Source:* Problems of Education in the 21st Century; 2008, Vol. 7, p15-30, 16p, 2 Charts *Document Type:* Article *Subject Terms:* *COLLEGE teachers *WOMEN college teachers *MALE teachers *SEX discrimination in education *GENDER identity in education GENDER *Author-Supplied Keywords:* beauty premium gender image physical attractiveness role image teaching evaluation *Abstract:* Two studies were conducted in order to examine the impact of beauty on teaching ratings. The purpose of the first study was to compare this impact between women and men. The physical attractiveness of fifty-five instructors was rated by their students and correlated with their teaching ratings that had been collected in the previous semester. More attractive male instructors received higher ratings, but only from female students. The more attractive female instructors did not receive better ratings from male or female students. We conclude that male instructors benefit from a 'beauty premium', while female instructors do not. The purpose of the second study was to confirm this conclusion by examining the 'beauty premium' in an occupation characterized by the fit between role image and gender image. The physical attractiveness of 31 female administrative employees was rated and then correlated with their service evaluation. The more attractive clerks received higher ratings, but only from male raters. We conclude that the gender-based differential in the evaluation bias was caused by a lack of fit between role images and gender images. When the role image corresponds to the gender image, as in the ease of male instructors and female administrative employees, the 'beauty effect' benefits beautiful employees. Our findings have implications for the improvement of teaching evaluation tools and taking physical appearance bias into consideration [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Problems of Education in the 21st Century is the property of Scientific Methodical Center "Scientia Educologica" and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) *Author Affiliations:* ^1 Ariel University Center of Samaria, Israel *ISSN:* 18227864 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Record: 2* *Title:* Student Evaluations and Gendered Expectations: What We Can't Count Can Hurt Us. *Authors:* Sprague, Joey Massoni, Kelley *Source:* Sex Roles, Dec2005, Vol. 53 Issue 11/12, p779-793, 15p *Document Type:* Article *Subject Terms:* COLLEGE teachers GENDER studies SEX role SEX differences (Psychology) GENDER identity QUANTITATIVE research LABORATORY schools UNIVERSITIES & colleges COLLEGE students *Abstract:* Does teacher's gender impact students' evaluations? We critically evaluated the research literature and concluded that the form gender bias takes may not be easily detectible by quantitative scales. To explore this possibility, we did a qualitative analysis of the words that 288 college students at two campuses used to describe their best- and worst-ever teachers. Although we found considerable overlap in the ways that students talked about their male and female teachers, we also saw indications that students hold teachers accountable to certain gendered expectations. These expectations place burdens on all teachers, but the burdens on women are more labor-intensive. We also saw signs of much greater hostility toward women than toward men who do not meet students' gendered expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Sex Roles is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) *ISSN:* 03600025 *DOI:* 10.1007/s11199-005-8292-4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Record: 3* *Title:* Student perceptions of and expectations for male and female instructors: Evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluation. *Authors:* Bennett, Sheila K., Bryn Mawr Coll *Source:* Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 74(2), Apr, 1982. pp. 170-179 *Publisher:* US: American Psychological Association *Other Publishers:* US: Warwick & York *ISSN:* 0022-0663 (Print) 1939-2176 (Electronic) *Language:* English *Keywords:* perceptions of & expectations for female vs male instructors, gender bias in teacher evaluations, college students *Abstract:* 253 undergraduates completed a course evaluation questionnaire that included formal teaching performance ratings, perceptual orientation scales, and indicators of degree and context of student–instructor contact. Ss represented 11 female-instructed courses and 28 male-instructed courses. Male and female instructors were found to be placed within a unitary perceptual frame of reference. Female instructors were perceived as warmer and more potent individuals, but were required by the Ss to offer greater interpersonal support and were judged more closely than male instructors in providing it. Results suggest that although direct gender bias may not be observed in formal student evaluations of their instructors, female faculty members are nonetheless subject to culturally conditioned gender stereotypes. (22 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) *Subjects:* *College Students; *Sex Role Attitudes; *Social Perception; *Student Attitudes; *Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation; Expectations *Classification:* Classroom Dynamics & Student Adjustment & Attitudes (3560) *Population:* Human (10) *Age Group:* Adulthood (18 yrs & older) (300) *Format Availability:* Electronic; Print *Format Covered:* Print *Publication Type:* Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal *Document Type:* Journal Article *Release Date:* 19820101 *Copyright:* American Psychological Association. 1982. *Digital Object Identifier:* 10.1037/0022-0663.74.2.170 *PsycINFO AN:* 1982-24396-001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Record: 4* *Title:* STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS FOR FACULTY GROUPS BASED ON RACE AND GENDER. *Authors:* Smith, Bettye P. *Source:* Education, Summer2009, Vol. 129 Issue 4, p615-624; , 10p, 1 Chart *Document Type:* Article *Subject Terms:* TEACHER effectiveness STUDENT evaluation of teachers TEACHING -- Evaluation EDUCATION, Higher -- Evaluation COLLEGE students -- Attitudes EFFECTIVE teaching *Abstract:* The purpose of this study was to describe student ratings of teaching effectiveness in a College of Education at a Southern Research I institution for faculty groups based on race and gender. Student ratings for undergraduate, graduate, and undergraduate and graduate courses combined, were used to determine the teaching effectiveness for the 190 tenure-track faculty in six groups of faculty (White males, White females, Black males, Black females, male faculty from "Other" racial groups, and female faculty from "Other" racial groups). Of the 36 items on the end-of-course evaluation form, the two global items - overall value of course and overall teaching ability - are reported. On overall value of course, student ratings were very good for four of the six faculty groups and good for the remaining two groups. On overall teaching ability, student ratings were very good for half of the faculty groups and good for the remaining half. Very good indicates a rating above 4.0 on a 5.0 scale while good indicates a rating below 4.0, but higher than 3.0 on a 5.0 scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) *Full Text Word Count:* 4417 *ISSN:* 0013-1172 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS FOR FACULTY GROUPS BASED ON RACE AND GENDER The purpose of this study was to describe student ratings of teaching effectiveness in a College of Education at a Southern Research I institution for faculty groups based on race and gender. Student ratings for undergraduate, graduate, and undergraduate and graduate courses combined, were used to determine the teaching effectiveness for the 190 tenure-track faculty in six groups of faculty (White males, White females, Black males, Black females, male faculty from "Other" racial groups, and female faculty from "Other" racial groups). Of the 36 items on the end-of-course evaluation form, the two global items - overall value of course and overall teaching ability - are reported. On overall value of course, student ratings were very good for four of the six faculty groups and good for the remaining two groups. On overall teaching ability, student ratings were very good for half of the faculty groups and good for the remaining half. Very good indicates a rating above 4.0 on a 5.0 scale while good indicates a rating below 4.0, but higher than 3.0 on a 5.0 scale. Introduction End-of-course student evaluations of teaching effectiveness have been conducted in most institutions of higher education since the 1960s. Student evaluations of teaching effectiveness are used primarily for feedback to faculty for instructional improvement and for making personnel and administrative decisions such as promotion and tenure, merit increases, and awards whether local or national (Marsh & Roche, 1993; Abrami, d'Apollonia, & Rosenfield, 1997). Both of these rationales for use of student evaluations are somewhat controversial (Rifkin, 1995; Donahue, 2000). While student evaluations of teaching effectiveness are the most common measure of effective teaching (Cashin, 1988), their use as legitimate indicators of quality in teaching is questionable (d'Apollonia & Abrami, 1997; Greenwald & Gillmore, 1997; Marsh & Roche, 2000). Likewise, the usefulness of information gathered through student evaluations to improve teaching is unclear (Centra, 1993). Although student evaluations are being increasingly used in personnel decisions (Centra, 1993), there is continuing debate revolving around the kind of measures that should be used in making decisions about promotions, tenure, or salary increases (Cashin & Downey, 1992; Marsh & Dunkin, 1997). The main question is whether there are effective alternative means to evaluate teaching. According to DeFina (1996), a combination of the three forms of faculty evaluations (student, peer, and self) provides a more credible means of assessment than any one method alone. As student evaluations are widely employed in colleges and universities in the United States, the College of Education (COE) at a Southern Research I university is no exception. The college adapted a 36-item student evaluation form that is used in many of the college's nine departments. Some departments in the college have created and standardized a student evaluation form that more adequately reflect their discipline. Whereas, select faculty in some departments have elected to use the online version of the student evaluation form; online student ratings are under consideration on many college campuses because of their potential benefits over traditional paper and pencil systems (Academic Impressions. 2006). However, faculty in the College of Education use some form of standardized student evaluation. Of the 36 items on the evaluation form, the College of Education emphasizes the last two items (#35 - overall value of course, and #36 - overall teaching ability), which, presumably, are used heavily in making personnel decisions regarding promotion, tenure, and merit increases. This practice contributes to the ongoing discussion over the kind of measures used for making decisions about personnel. The Southern Research I University The College of Education at the Southern Research I university is one of the largest in the nation and serves an enrollment of nearly 5,000 students. Of the nearly 5,000 students, approximately 60% are undergraduates and the remaining 40% are graduates. Historically, race and gender faculty representation in the College of Education at the Southern Research I university has not been reflective of the population in society. During an 87-year period (from 1901 to 1988), six Black faculty and six faculty that were Asian-American, Latino, and/or Native-American had been employed in the college (Jerrolds, 1989). During that same time period, the number of male faculty far out numbered female faculty. Currently the College of Education has approximately 216 faculty members where over 81% of faculty is White, 10% is Black including Africans, and the remaining 9% is Asian-American, Latino, and/or Native-American. Included among the 216 faculty members are tenure-track faculty and academic professionals who are non-tenure track faculty. The majority of faculty is tenure-track. Of the tenure-track faculty, a majority is male; however, based on the last year that faculty names were listed in the annual report (College of Education, 2000) the number of female faculty had increased over the previous year (College of Education, 2001). These changes suggest a structural improvement in race and gender diversity in the College of Education. Additionally, it reflects the changing demographics in academe nationally as the number of women and diverse faculty in higher education has increased (Aguirre, 2000; Cataldi, Fahimi, Bradburn, & Zimbler, 2005). The College of Education has a larger number of Black faculty than any College at the University. This creates a unique situation for the college's administration concerning student ratings of teaching, especially in terms of personnel decisions (e.g. promotion, tenure, merit increases, and college/university awards). Although no empirical data are available, anecdotally, both Black male and Black female faculty feel the trend is toward their student ratings being numerically lower than those of any faculty in the college. However, in the absence of empirical research Black faculty's claim or assertion is not supported. However, if Black faculty's assertion is true, the effect of these lower student ratings becomes an issue when making personnel decisions. Therefore, the lack of empirical research on student evaluations of teaching related to race coupled with the changing demographics of higher education (race and gender) were the impetus for this study in the College of Education. There is relatively little empirical, quantitative research on the intersection of race and gender regarding course evaluations (Huston, 2005). The possibility of race bias is a relatively new area of inquiry, which contributes to its shortage in the literature (Hutson, 2005). Few studies were found that dealt with course evaluations and gender and race. Anderson and Smith (2005) and Smith and Anderson (2005) compared Latino and Anglo faculty in their studies on course evaluations and found that among all groups of faculty female Latino faculty received the lowest course evaluations. Hamermesh and Parker (2005) found faculty of color, which included Latino rather than Black faculty, received lower course evaluations than White faculty. Hamermesh and Parker also found that non-native English speaking female faculty received higher course evaluations than non-native English speaking male faculty. Of the three groups of faculty (Hispanic, Asian-American, and White) included in the DiPietro and Faye (2005) study, Hispanic faculty received the lowest course evaluation ratings. Asian-American faculty received slightly better course evaluations than their Hispanic colleagues, but their scores were still lower than the scores of White faculty. The number of African-American faculty in DiPietro and Faye study was too small to draw any conclusions. Purpose The purpose of this study was to describe student ratings of teaching effectiveness for the 190 tenure-track faculty in this study based on gender and race (White, Black, and Other racial groups including Asians, Latinos, and Native Americans) and course level (both undergraduate and graduate, undergraduate, and graduate). The research question that guided this study was: What are the student ratings of teaching effectiveness for all courses, both undergraduate and graduate combined, undergraduate, and graduate on the two global items (overall value of course and overall teaching ability) for faculty groups based on gender and race? Procedure Data were obtained from the university's Office of Test Scoring and Reporting Services (TSARS). The TSARS Office is responsible for scanning student evaluation forms and storing the data. Approval to analyze this data was secured from several sources, including the university's Institutional Review Board. The TSARS Office provided files for courses taught by tenure-track faculty from 2001 to 2004 that used the traditional 36 item end-of-course evaluation. Each file contained a record of the student evaluations for each faculty member in a department for a given semester, but did not include online student evaluations. A database was created for the three-year period, which totaled 31,768 cases. A case is defined as one evaluation form; each form completed by a student is considered a case. The number of cases for each analysis varied substantially from 24,384 to 30,814; the variation is due to missing data -- either incomplete or missing evaluation forms. Current and previous College of Education directories were used to identify faculty characteristics of interest (gender and race). Additionally, each department's home page was used to identify characteristics of faculty that were in question or not easily identifiable. Each faculty was given a designation according to gender and race for data analysis purposes. Faculty gender was coded as male or female. Race was coded as White, Black, and "Other," which included all other faculty (Asians, Latinos, and Native-Americans). Population Student ratings data for 190 tenure-track faculty who used the 36-item student evaluation form adapted by the college were included in the database for this study. Of the 190 faculty, 108 were male (57%) and 82 were female (43%) whereas 156 (82%) were White, 24 (13%) Black, and 10 (5%) were identified as "Other." When faculty was categorized based on gender and race, six groups were produced. Among the faculty groups were: 95 (50%) White males, 61 (32%) White females, 11 (6%) Black males, 13 (7%) Black females, 2 (1%) male faculty identified as "Other," and 8 (4%) female faculty identified as "Other." Instrumentation Effective instruction in the College of Education is based on a 36-item course evaluation form that is completed by students. Many student evaluation forms contain both multidimensional and global (overall) items (d'Apollonia & Abrami, 1997). Multidimensional items measure a single aspect of teaching such as organization, preparation, or interest in subject matter whereas global items measure general impressions such as overall value of course and overall teaching ability. The College of Education course evaluation form contains both multidimensional and global items on a 5-point Likert scale. The course evaluation form is a Scantron page with 36 pre-printed multiple-choice items. The first 8 items seek demographic information related to the student. Items 9-34 are multidimensional and items 35 -36 are global. Possible responses and anchors for the global items, 35 and 36 are: 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Very Good, and 5 = Excellent. This study reports the two global items on the 36-item end-of-course evaluation form, overall value of course and overall teaching ability, respectively. Because of the number of cases in some faculty groups, data were analyzed using only descriptive statistics, that is, means and standard deviations. Results Student Ratings for Both Undergraduate and Graduate Courses Combined Overall Value of Course Three groups of faculty (White female, White male, and male faculty identified as "Other") received mean scores above 4.0 on overall value of course. As designated by descriptors on the end-of-course evaluation form, the mean score equates to a rating of very good. The two male faculty identified as "Other" received the highest mean score of 4.2 on overall value of course followed closely by White female faculty. White male faculty mean scores were slightly above 4.0 (see Table 1). Female faculty identified as "Other" and both Black female and Black male faculty mean scores were below 4.0; female faculty identified as "Other" had a mean score that was slightly below 4.0, Black females mean score was almost a fourth of a point below 4.0, and Black males mean score was a third of a point lower than Black female (see Table Overall Teaching Ability Half of the faculty groups (White female, White male, and male faculty identified as "Other") received mean scores above 4.0 on overall teaching ability. Male faculty identified as "Other" also received the highest mean score on overall teaching ability followed by White female with slightly a fourth of a percentage point lower. White male faculty mean score was slightly more than a tenth of a percentage point lower than White female mean score. Female faculty identified as "Other," Black female, and Black male faculty received a mean rating below 4.0 on overall teaching ability. Female faculty identified as "Other" received a mean score that was less than a tenth of a percentage point below 4.0 whereas Black female faculty mean score was slightly less than a fifth of a percentage point below 4.0. Black male faculty received the lowest mean score, which was slightly more than a half percentage point below 4.0 (see Table 1). Summary of Global Items for Undergraduate and Graduate Courses Combined On both overall value of course and overall teaching ability, three faculty groups (White female, White male, and male faculty identified as "Other") received a mean score that equated to a rating of very good and three groups of faculty (female faculty identified as "Other," Black female, and Black male) received a mean score that equaled a rating of good. The variability was greater on the ratings for Black female and Black male faculty than it was for the remaining fours groups of faculty. Student Ratings on Global Items for Undergraduate Courses Overall Value of Course Only two faculty groups (White female and male faculty identified as "Other") received mean scores above 4.0 on overall value of course for undergraduate courses. The two male faculty identified as "Other" received the highest mean score of all groups of faculty. White female faculty was the second highest rated faculty with a mean rating a third of a point below the highest rated male faculty identified as "Other." White male, female faculty identified as "Other," and Black female faculty mean scores were close together with ratings that ranged from slightly less than 4.0 to slightly less than a third below 4.0; Black female faculty achieved the lowest mean score of the three aforesaid groups. On the other hand, Black male mean score was slightly above 3.0. Overall Teaching Ability Half of the faculty groups (White female, White male, and male faculty identified as "Other") received mean scores above 4.0 on overall teaching ability for undergraduate courses. Male faculty identified as "Other" mean score was more than a half percent of a point (.59) higher on overall teaching ability than White female faculty. White female and White male faculty mean scores were similar whereby White female rating was a tenth of a point higher than White male. Female faculty identified as "Other," mean score was a fraction of a point higher than that of Black female mean score, which was 3.81. The mean score for Black male faculty was slightly above 3.0. Summary of Global Items for Undergraduate Courses On overall value of course, two faculty groups (White female and male faculty identified as "Other") received a mean score that equated to a rating of very good and four groups of faculty (White male, female faculty identified as "Other," Black female, and Black male) received a mean score that equaled a rating of good. For overall teaching ability, three faculty groups (White female, White male, and male faculty identified as "Other") received a mean score that equated to a rating of very good and three groups of faculty (female faculty identified as "Other," Black female, and Black male) received a mean score that equaled a rating of good. There was greater variability on the ratings for Black female and Black male faculty than any faculty groups. Student Ratings on Global Items for Graduate Courses Overall Value of Course Five of the six faculty groups (White female, White male, female faculty identified as "Other," male faculty identified as "Other," and Black male) received mean scores above 4.0 on overall value of course for graduate courses; this mean score indicates very good on the end-of-course evaluation form. The 60 White female faculty received the highest mean score of all groups of faculty with a rating slightly above 4.3. White male and male identified as "Other" shared similar mean scores that ranged slightly more than a fifth of a point above 4.0. On the other hand, Black male faculty and female faculty identified as "Other" had similar mean scores that were slightly above and 4.0. Black female faculty was the only group that received a mean score was slightly less than 4.0 on graduate courses and overall value of course. Overall Teaching Ability Four of the six faculty groups (White female, White male, male faculty identified as "Other," and Black male) received mean scores above 4.0 on overall teaching ability for graduate courses. Male faculty identified as "Other" mean score was slightly higher on overall teaching ability than the second highest rated White female faculty and the third ranked White male faculty. Black male faculty mean score was less than a tenth of a point above 4.0. Female faculty identified as "Other," and Black female mean scores were slightly less than 4.0 on graduate courses and overall teaching ability. Summary of Global Items for Graduate Courses On overall value of course, five faculty groups (White female, White male, female faculty identified as "Other," male faculty identified as "Other," and Black male) received a mean score that equated to a rating of very good and only one group, Black female, received a mean score that equaled a rating of good. For overall teaching ability, four faculty groups (White female, White male, male faculty identified as "Other," and Black male) received a mean score that equated to a rating of very good and two groups of faculty (female faculty identified as "Other" and Black female) received a mean score that equaled a rating of good. There was greater variability on the ratings for Black female and female faculty identified as "Other" than any faculty groups. Conclusions and Recommendations Three major findings emerged from this study. First, student ratings for undergraduate and graduate courses combined showed that for both global items, overall value of course and overall teaching ability, male faculty identified as "Other" received the highest mean score while Black male faculty received the lowest mean score; Black female faculty received the second lowest mean scores. Second, for undergraduate student ratings and both global items, overall value of course and overall teaching ability, male faculty identified as "Other" received the highest mean score while Black male faculty received the lowest mean score followed by Black female faculty. Last, for graduate student ratings, White female faculty and male faculty identified as "Other" received the highest mean scores on overall value of course and overall teaching ability, respectively. Black female faculty received the lowest mean score for graduate ratings on both overall value of course and overall teaching ability while female faculty identified as "Other" received the second lowest score on both global items. The data indicate that there was a tendency for Black male faculty to receive the lowest mean score on the overall items under investigation, overall value of course and overall teaching ability; they were lower on four of the six mean scores. There was also a noticeable trend toward Black faculty both male and female to receive a low mean score. A low mean score indicates a rating below very good or below 4.0 on a 5.0 scale. Therefore, Black faculty's assertion that their student ratings are lower than any other faculty has been confirmed by the data. The final trend was toward female faculty receiving lower mean scores than male faculty whereby female faculty identified as "Other" and Black female faculty received lower mean scores than White female faculty. Since the use of student ratings as an indicator of quality in teaching is questionable, it appears that alternative means to evaluate teaching should be explored. The implementation of alternative measures of teaching effectiveness such as peer-evaluation and/or self-evaluation is offered. Self-evaluation can provide concrete evidence of good teaching and a commitment to its improvement (Taylor, 1994). An example of self-assessment is the development of a Teaching Portfolio, which can document personal and professional growth overtime (DeFina, 1996). Colleagues are better able to judge course design and instructional materials (Rifkin, 1995); thus, peer evaluation could become an ongoing process. DeFina (1996) recommended that a combination of student, peer, and self-evaluation would provide a more credible assessment of teaching effectiveness than any form of evaluation alone. The question or debate of effective alternative means to evaluate teaching has not been resolved and thereby remains an issue as decisions concerning promotion, tenure, merit pay, and awards (College, University, National, and/or International) are based to a great extent on student ratings. Consequently, these decisions that are made in part based on student ratings affect a faculty's career particularly Black male and Black female faculty who receive lower student ratings. As the demographics in higher education change nationally to include more women and minority faculty (Aguirre, 2000; Cataldi, Fahimi, Bradburn, & Zimbler, 2005), results of this study provide empirical data on student ratings of teaching effectiveness for faculty generally and diverse faculty specifically. Table 1 Student Ratings for Overall Items (35-36) based on Faculty Groups for 3 Academic Years <#toc> Legend for Chart: A - Faculty Group B - Overall Value of Course Undergrad/Grad(a) M C - Overall Value of Course Undergrad/Grad(a) SD D - Overall Value of Course Undergraduate(b) M E - Overall Value of Course Undergraduate(b) SD F - Overall Value of Course Graduate(c) M G - Overall Value of Course Graduate(c) SD H - Overall Teaching Ability Undergrad/Grad(a) M I - Overall Teaching Ability Undergrad/Grad(a) SD J - Overall Teaching Ability Undergraduate(b) M K - Overall Teaching Ability Undergraduate(b) SD L - Overall Teaching Ability Graduate(c) M M - Overall Teaching Ability Graduate(c) SD A B C D E F G H I J K L M White Male n = 95 4.06 1.00 3.92 1.02 4.23 0.94 4.19 0.98 4.05 1.01 4.34 0.92 White Female n = 61 4.22 0.97 4.02 1.08 4.36 0.86 4.32 0.99 4.15 1.13 4.43 0.86 Black Male n = 11 3.40 1.32 3.10 1.32 4.08 1.03 3.47 1.37 3.22 1.40 4.04 1.09 Black Female n = 13 3.78 1.12 3.69 1.13 3.92 1.07 3.83 1.18 3.81 1.18 3.87 1.16 Other Male n = 2 4.28 0.88 4.33 0.84 4.22 0.96 4.59 0.70 4.64 0.67 4.50 0.72 Other Female n = 8 3.91 1.06 3.84 1.00 4.00 1.14 3.91 1.14 3.85 1.05 3.98 1.23 Note. Mean scores are based on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Very Good, and 5 = Excellent. Note. Data (M, SD) are generated for items 35-36 from the evaluation forms completed by students. (a) = ratings for both undergraduate and graduate students. (b) = ratings for undergraduate students only. (c) = ratings for graduate students only. n = the number of faculty members. References <#toc> /<#bib1up> Abrami, P. C., d'Apollonia, S., & Rosenfield, S. (1997). The dimensionality of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice (pp. 321-367). New York: Agathon Press./ /<#bib2up> Academic Impressions. (2006). implementing an online student rating program: Web conference. Retrieved from: https://www.academicimpressions.com/web conferences/0706-student-rating.php/ /<#bib3up> Aguirre, A. (2000). Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace: Recruitment, retention, and academic culture. Washington, DC: Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446723)/ /<#bib4up> Anderson, K. J., & Smith, G. (2005). Students' preconceptions of professors: Benefits and barriers according to ethnicity and gender. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27(2), 184-201./ /<#bib5up> Cashin, W. E. (1988). Student ratings of teaching: A summary of the research. (IDEA paper no. 20). Manhattan: Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development./ /<#bib6up> Cashin, W. E., & Downey, R. G. (1992). Using global student rating items for summative evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 563-572./ /<#bib7up> Cataldi, E. F., Fahimi, M., Bradburn, E. M., & Zimbler L. (2005). 2004 National study of postsecondary faculty (NSOPF:04) report on faculty and instructional staff in fall 2003. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 485364)/ /<#bib8up> Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass./ /<#bib9up> College of Education. (2000). 2000 annual report. Retrieved from http://www.coe.uga.edu/dean/annualreport/2000/faculty.html/ /<#bib10up> College of Education. (2001). 2001 annual report. Retrieved from http://www.coe.uga.edu/dean/annualreport/2001/faculty.html/ /<#bib11up> d'Apollonia, S., & Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1198-1208./ /<#bib12up> DeFina, A. (1996). An effective alternative to faculty evaluation: The use of the teaching portfolio. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 561)./ /<#bib13up> DiPietro, M. & Faye, A. (2005). Online student-ratings-of-instruction (SRI) mechanisms for maximal feedback to instructors. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Professional and Organizational Development Network, Milwaukee, WI./ /<#bib14up> Donahue, P. (2000). Evaluating teaching. ADE Bulletin, 126, 46-47./ /<#bib15up> Greenwald, A. G., & Gilmore, G. M. (1997). No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring course workload and difficulty in student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 743-751./ /<#bib16up> Hamermesh, D. S. & Parker, A. M. (2005). Beauty in the classroom: Instructors' pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 369-376./ /<#bib17up> Huston, T. (2005). Research report: Race and gender bias in student evaluations of teaching. Retrieved from: http://www.seattleu.edu/cetl/cetl%5f006.htm./ /<#bib18up> Jerrolds, B. W. (1989). The history of the College of Education, the University of Georgia. Athens, GA: College of Education, The University of Georgia./ /<#bib19up> Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1993). The use of students' evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 217-251./ /<#bib20up> Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (2000). Effects of grading leniency and low workloads on students' evaluations of teaching: Popular myth, bias, validity or innocent bystanders? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 202-228./ /<#bib21up> Marsh, H. W., & Dunkin, M. J. (1997). Students' evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice (pp. 241-320). New York: Agathon Press./ /<#bib22up> Rifkin, T. (1995). The status and scope of faculty evaluation. ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges, Los Angeles, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 385 315)/ /<#bib23up> Smith, G., & Anderson, K. J. (2005). Students' ratings of professors: The teaching style contingency for Latino/a professors. Journal of Latinos and Education, 4(2), 115-136./ /<#bib24up> Taylor, L. (1994). Reflecting on teaching: The benefits of self-evaluation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 19(2), 109-122./ ~~~~~~~~ By Bettye P. Smith, Professor, Department of Workforce Education, Leadership, and Social Foundations University of Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Record: 5* *Title:* Students' stereotypes of professors: an exploration of the double violations of ethnicity and gender. *Authors:* Anderson, Kristin^1 andersonk@uhd.edu *Source:* Social Psychology of Education; 2010, Vol. 13 Issue 4, p459-472, 14p *Document Type:* Article *Subject Terms:* *WOMEN college teachers *TEACHING methods *EDUCATION, Higher -- Curricula *TEACHERS -- Rating of *HISPANIC American college teachers STEREOTYPES (Social psychology) ETHNICITY GENDER *Geographic Terms:* UNITED States *Author-Supplied Keywords:* Gender Hispanics Latinos Stereotyping Teaching evaluations *Abstract:* This study examined students' stereotypes of professors based on professor ethnicity, gender, teaching style, and course taught. An ethnically diverse sample of undergraduates ( N = 594) rated hypothetical professors on several dimensions including perceived warmth, professional competence, and difficulty. Evidence consistent with response amplification and expectancy violation theories was found. Women professors were viewed as more warm than men professors even though their course syllabuses were identical. Students' ratings of women and Latina/os were, in some cases, based on their teaching style and the courses they taught, whereas ratings of Anglo men were not. Implications for women and Latina/os in the academy are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Social Psychology of Education is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) *Author Affiliations:* ^1 Social Sciences Department, University of Houston-Downtown, One Main St. Houston 77002 USA *ISSN:* 13812890 *DOI:* 10.1007/s11218-010-9121-3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Record: 6* *Title:* THE EFFECTS OF GENDER, STATUS, AND EFFECTIVE TEACHING ON THE EVALUATION OF COLLEGE INSTRUCTION. *Authors:* Dukes, Richard L.^1 Victoria, Gay^1 *Source:* Teaching Sociology; Oct89, Vol. 17 Issue 4, p447-457, 11p *Document Type:* Article *Subject Terms:* *EFFECTIVE teaching *COLLEGE teachers *SOCIOLOGY -- Study & teaching *EDUCATIONAL evaluation GENDER SOCIAL status *Abstract:* This research examined the effects of gender, status, and effective teaching on the evaluation of college instruction. Each of 144 undergraduate subjects in six political science and sociology classes rated the teaching effectiveness of college instructors who were represented in four scenarios depicting knowledge of the subject, enthusiasm for teaching, rapport with students, and organization of the course. Within each scenario the variables of quality of teaching, gender of the professor, and status of the professor were manipulated in an experimental design. Although statistical interactions revealed some gender bias, effective teaching had by far the most important influence on teaching evaluations,/em>. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Teaching Sociology is the property of American Sociological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) *Author Affiliations:* ^1 University, Colorado, Colorado Springs. *ISSN:* 0092055X ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Record: 7* *Title:* The Impact of Gender on the Evaluation of Teaching: What We Know and What We Can Do. *Authors:* Laube, Heather^1 hlaube@umflint.edu Massoni, Kelley^2 massoni@ku.edu Sprague, Joey^3 jsprague@ku.edu Ferber, Abby L.^4 aferber@uccs.edu *Source:* NWSA Journal; Fall2007, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p87-104, 18p *Document Type:* Article *Subject Terms:* *TEACHERS -- Rating of *SEX role in the work environment *WOMEN teachers *STUDENT evaluation of teachers *GENDER inequality *TEACHERS -- Tenure SOCIAL conditions *Author-Supplied Keywords:* faculty assessment gender teaching evaluations tenure & promotion *Abstract:* The importance of teaching evaluations to the tenure and promotion of women faculty cannot be underestimated. Administrators routinely consider classroom teaching in hiring, tenure, promotion, and salary decisions and increasingly rely most heavily on quantitative student ratings. Scholars who have attempted to determine whether/how gender enters into students' evaluations of their teachers generally fall into two camps: those who find gender to have no (or very little) influence on evaluations, and those who find gender to affect evaluations significantly. Drawing on insights developed from sociological scholarship on gender and evaluation, we argue that the apparent inconsistency on the question of whether student evaluations are gendered is itself an artifact of the way that quantitative measures can mask underlying gender bias. We offer concrete strategies that faculty, researchers, and administrators can employ to improve the efficacy of the system of evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of NWSA Journal is the property of Johns Hopkins University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) *Author Affiliations:* ^1 Assistant Professor of Sociology and Women's and Gender Studies, University of Michigan-Flint ^2 Department of Sociology, University of Kansas ^3 Professor of Sociology, University of Kansas ^4 Associate Professor of Sociology and Director of Women's Studies, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs *ISSN:* 10400656 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Record: 8* *Title:* The Interaction Effects of Gender on Teaching Evaluations. *Authors:* Lueck, Therese L.^1 Endres, Kathleen L.^1 Caplan, Richard E.^2 *Source:* Journalism Educator; Autumn93, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p46-54, 9p *Document Type:* Article *Subject Terms:* STUDENT evaluation of teachers TEACHERS -- Rating of EFFECTIVE teaching WOMEN teachers EDUCATION, Higher JOURNALISM COLLEGE students SEX differences JOURNALISM -- Study & teaching PERFORMANCE evaluation TEACHERS -- Evaluation *Author-Supplied Keywords:* PERFORMANCE AND PROGRAM EVALUATION *Abstract:* To gauge the effect of gender on student evaluation ratings, the authors used the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI). They emphasized the need not only to compare evaluation results of men and women, but also to match instructors by teaching experience, type of class, size of class, and gender of student. The study included 8 different professors (4 males, 4 females), 5 different types of classes, and 243 students. Same-gender bonding between instructors and students on the course evaluations seems to be demonstrated in this study. Not only did the male students rate the male instructors higher, but the female students rated the female instructors higher. The opposite of these statements was also true. While the male students did not rate the instructors, as a whole worse, than did the female students, they did consistently rate the male instructors higher. While the female students did not rate the instructors, as a whole, better than did the male students, they did consistently rate the female professors higher than they did the male professors. *Author Affiliations:* ^1 Assistant professor of communication, University of Akron. ^2 Associate professor of communication, University of Akron. *ISSN:* 00225517