ERIC ED448628: Do Students and Faculty See Their Interaction Similarly?

14 Pages·2000·0.22 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
HE 033 637
ED 448 628
Langdon, Andrew; Peterburs, Jason; Anders, Katie;
AUTHOR
Steinpreis, Rhea
Do Students and Faculty See Their Interaction Similarly?
TITLE
PUB DATE 2000-00-00
18p.; Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the
NOTE
American Psychological Association (108th, Washington, DC,
August 4-8, 2000).
Reports - Research (143) -- Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)
PUB TYPE
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Behavior Patterns; *College Faculty; College Students;
DESCRIPTORS
Higher Education; Peer Evaluation; *Sex Bias; Student
Attitudes; *Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance;
*Teacher Attitudes
ABSTRACT
Whether or not a sex bias existed in the evaluation of male
and female college professors was studied using computer-generated vignettes
describing professors. A total of 196 subjects participated in this
experiment, 155 of whom were undergraduate students. The remaining 51 were
psychology professors. Subjects read the vignettes, rated the professor's
behavior on a Likert scale, and wrote responses about the professor's
behavior. There were no significant differences in the way either the student
or faculty subjects evaluated the behavior of the faculty in any of the
vignettes, and students and faculty did not differ in the level of
acceptability/unacceptability ratings used to evaluate the professors in any
of the vignettes. Faculty did, however, rank dynamic teaching style as more
important than did the students. Students rank ordered the usefulness of
assignments as more important than did faculty. Students and faculty tended
to have similar views about the appropriateness of interactions between
faculty and students, but they tended to emphasize different qualities.
(SLD)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
Do Students And Faculty See Their
Interaction Similarly?
Andrew Langdon, Jason Peterburs,
Katie Anders and Rhea Steinpreis
Department of Psychology
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
CENTER (ERIC)
EForFis document has been reproduced as
BEEN GRANTED BY
received from the person or organization
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
document do not necessarily represent
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
official OERI position or policy.
1
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
INTRODUCTION
Recent research has investigated whether gender biases exist in the performance
evaluations of different, high-status occupations. Since the 1960's, research has further indicated
that prejudices against women exist, especially when they violate gender stereotypes or hold
gender-atypical professions (Basow & Silberg, 1987), including university professorships.
However, past research involving gender-bias in teacher evaluations has yielded inconsistent
findings (Hammerlie & Highfill, 1991). While evaluations of actual professors have showed
mixed results (Bennett, 1982; Hammerlie & Highfill, 1991) experimenter-generated evaluations
have found a more consistent gender bias against women (Baslow & Silberg, 1987).
Furthermore, Kaschak (1981) found that male professors were perceived as more powerful and
effective, while female professors in "feminine fields" were rated higher on their interpersonal
skills, such as likability and concern for students. Teacher evaluations have an effect on the career
advancement and self-esteem of college professors (Myers & Dugan, 1996), and for this reason it
is necessary to determine whether any biases exist in the evaluation of college professors. The
present study was used to determine whether or not a sex bias existed in the evaluation of
experimenter-generated male versus female college professors. Unlike previous studies, this
experiment used both student and college professor's opinions of interactions between faculty and
students.
SUBJECTS
A total of 196 subjects participated in this experiment. One hundred fifty-five
undergraduate students in introductory psychology classes voluntarily participated in the study.
The remaining 51 subjects were psychology professors at public universities in the State of
Wisconsin which were identified through University of Wisconsin System web page links. This
study was approved by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Institutional Review Board for the
Protection of Human Subjects.
PROCEDURE
Subjects filled out the surveys anonymously. All of the subjects were given a brief cover
letter accompanied by a series of vignettes and a brief demographic survey. Students and faculty
were sent. similar vignettes, except that the students were phrased in such away that the pronouns
indicated that the subject was to identify with the student in the vignette (i.e., "One month before
In contrast, faculty were asked to evaluate the behaviors of another faculty
your paper is due...")
member. The gender of the faculty member depicted in the vignette was identified through the
use of pronouns, and half of all subjects in both groups received vignettes with female faculty and
half received vignettes with male faculty.
All of the subjects were asked to read each vignette and rate the professor's behavior on a
5 point Likert scale. The subjects were then asked to write in free form why he/she found the
professor's behavior in each vignette acceptable or unacceptable. Demographic information
about the subjects was also gathered.
3
RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS
There were no significant gender differences in the way either the student or
faculty subjects evaluated the behavior of the faculty in any of the vignettes.
Furthermore, students and faculty did not differ from each other in the level of
unacceptability/acceptability rating they used to evaluate the professors behavior in
each of the vignettes.
Faculty did rank order dynamic teaching style as significantly more important than
did the students.
Students rank ordered usefulness of assignments as significantly more important
than did faculty.
It is concluded that while students and faculty tend to have very similar views
about the appropriateness of inter-actions between faculty and students, they tend
to emphasize different qualities they look for in an instructor.
4
Student Demographics
GENDER
40% were male (n = 57)
60% were female (n = 85)
YEAR IN SCHOOL
57% were freshman (n = 82)
30% were sophomores (n = 42)
9% were juniors = (n =13)
4% were seniors = 5
AGE IN YEARS
X = 19.9
SD = 3.1
RANGE = 18-49
GRADE POINT AVERAGE
X = 3.04
SD = 0.8
Range = 1.0 - 4.0
Professor Demographics
GENDER
39% were male (n = 20)
61% were female (n = 31)
RANK
2% were instructors (n = 1)
32% were assistant professors (n = 16)
13% were associate professors (n = 7)
53% were full professors (n = 27)
REFERENCES
Basow, S. A., & Silberg, N. T. (1987). Student evaluations of college professors: Are
female and male professors rated differently? Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 308-314.
Bennett, S. K. (1982). Student perceptions of and expectations for male and female
instructors: Evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluations. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 170-179.
Hammerlie, F. M., & Highfill, L. A. (1991). Bias by male engineering undergraduates in
their evaluation of teaching. Psychological Reports, 68, 151-160.
Kaschak, E. (1978). Sex bias in student evaluations of college professors. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 2, 235-243.
Kaschak, E. (1981). Another look at sex bias in students' evaluations of professors: do
winners get the recognition that they have been given? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 767-
772.
8
s
e
l
l
l
b
a
E
a
T
c
y
t
T

p
e
r
E
e
e
n
N
c
v
o
G
c
1
h
I
a
V
(
p

N
w

e
r
I
r

a
o
F
u
l
O
h
u
Y
t
R

c
l
T
d
P
l
L
e
e
e

E
U
S
l
)
c
k
L
U

C
.

g
s
A
e
A
e
T
a
n
l
M
F
k
A
b

i
e
E
a
T
a
r
r
F
t
S
u
t
e

p
E
o
T
d
w
T
e
C
t
T

n
c
E
r
s
E
S
o
c
J
e
t
N
T
B
c
a
s
r
N
G
U
d
e
s

E
I
t
e
j
S
l
V
D
o
b
i
f

U
h
n
N
o
u
T
c

I
r
S
S

5

F
p
r

O

e
:
;
a
R
1
e
h

P
l

r
/
E
b

o
s
E
a
i
L
R
f
h
t

A
s
p
U

M
m
a
e
G
w
c
o
7
c
I
r
F t
a
f
i
y
0
1
r
e
p
e
l
n
u
b
v
e
E
a
=
k
h
T
t
1
p
o
T
w
(
E
e
o

N
c
s
l
n

G
r
c
o
w
u
I
a
V
t
o

o

w
t
N
h

n
r
I

o

i
e
e
F
e
h
d
c
O
Y
h

i
u
R
T
d
t
f
P
t
L

f
e
s
n

S
U
o
E
)
k

U
o
C
L

a
.
s
g
e
A

T
A

a
t
k
l
n
F
A
M
s

b
s
i
e
e
T
E
r
a
a
r
t
S
u
F
t

e

a
p
o
T
d
E
w

C
e
t
T

o

p

T
c
E
r
s
t
S
l
E
o
J
c

t
e
T
B
s
N
c
a
s
N
h
r
U
G
e
s

e
E
t
S
e
I
j
r
D
o
w
V
b
f
o
U
n

o
u
N
s
f
T

r
n
S
S
I
5

p
p
F
a

u

O
:
;
a
t
2
e
R
c

w
l

P
r
e
E
b
o

o
E
r
a
R
f
L
r
h
t

o
A
s
p
U
s
M
c
a

e
y
G

w
c
e
e
c
I
h
h
F
t
a
t
i
t
y
2
e
t
1
i
l
l
b
i
b
a
s
E
s
t
a
T
p
)
a
T
l
.
i
e
l
E
e
a
c
c
N
l
v

b
c
G
g
a
a
a
I
n
V

t
e
w

i
p
N
h
r
e
I
u
o
t

F
c

d
h
e
O
Y
c

c
R
T
p
d
a
n
L
P

e
i

U
S
t
h
u
E
k
o
U
C
L
o
s
s
n
A
A
T
r
n
a
F

a
A
M
5

n
l
e
T
E
o

a
r
S
F
;

h
e
e

o
l
T
E
w
l
c
t
C
b
E
s

E
r
a
T

s
S
o
e
J
T
t
t
T
B
p
c
E
t
s
N
a
U
N
s
e
e
E
u
e
S
G
j
c
D
b
f
d
I
c
U
V
o
u
a
a
T

r
N
S
S
r

p
y
g
I

F
:
r
r
a
3
O
e
e

R
v
d
r
E
P
o
n

R
E
f
u
1

L
U
s

(
A
n
a

M
e
G
w
a
m
1
I
1
f
F
t
o
i
i
t
4
1
e
s
e
l
t
r
b
n
u
a
E
e
t
t
T
c
d
p
T
e
u
e
E
l
t
c
N

s
f
c
G

o
a
w
I
)

V

.
t
w
o
e

r
N
l
a
l
o
l
I
b
t

a
F
h
s
a
Y

O

o
t
T
e
d
R
p
L
t
h
e
P
S

U
e
e

t
k
U
C
c
E

s
s
A
r
L
T
c
u
e
a
A
F
A
a
f
t

M

T
e
e
f
t
S
a
o
E
r
r

e

F
n
T
o
l

w
l
E
C

t
a
5
T

E

r
h
T

s
S
J
o
;
T
B
E
t

e
e
c
s
N
N
U
l
s
r
e
E
G
b
S
e
u
D
j
I
a
b
f
U
V
t
t
o
c
u
T

p
N
e
r
S
S
e
p
I
l

c
F

:
e
a
O
c
4
h

R
a

r
t
E
P

o

y

r
R
E
f
e
r

L
e
s
U
t
A
n
a
v
M
G
w
e
=

I
1

o
F t
(
t
i
3
1