View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Gender Expectations and On-Line Evaluations of Teaching: Evidence from RateMyProfessors.com

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Gender Expectations and On-Line Evaluations of Teaching: Evidence from RateMyProfessors.com
Language: English
Authors: Stuber, Jenny M., Watson, Amanda, Carle, Adam, Staggs, Kristin
Source: Teaching in Higher Education. Aug 2009 14(4):387-399.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2009
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: College Faculty, Teacher Evaluation, Teacher Effectiveness, Evaluation Criteria, Gender Differences, Data Collection, Web Sites, Student Attitudes, Context Effect, Universities, Multiple Regression Analysis, Social Influences, Mass Media Effects
Geographic Terms: Florida
DOI: 10.1080/13562510903050137
ISSN: 1356-2517
Abstract: Using publicly available data from RateMyProfessors.com, we explore whether an instructor's gender influences how students rate that instructor. Although RateMyProfessors.com may not accurately reflect quality teaching, it provides a unique window into how students construct their classroom experiences. Multiple regression analyses of 500 professors from five public universities in the state of Florida fail to reveal significant gender differences in ratings of "overall quality". Using more complex models, we test the hypothesis that female instructors are rated more positively when they display traditionally female traits, namely teaching in a traditionally female field and offering courses that are perceived as easier. Contrary to our expectations, our analyses fail to reveal the use of a gendered yardstick in quantitative evaluations of college instructors. Instead, perceptions of ease appear to be the great equalizer within this on-line context. (Contains 4 tables.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 29
Entry Date: 2009
Accession Number: EJ858151
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE-UogPZYECDenGdtOULGZuAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHa0ZoZIXmk_vLQobwIBEICBmsZp1nXcB21XZFf9EUkOnfWXej-i_xHb-yTUMHN8eeZFbtaP2KpQvME5gvhcTsdxNWxrrPSur2qadI4GaS3giDpLtvn8b99nqLBa2GyIr3_BaARF-8u2A6c_6_vdYo1q6GmOSBEkTfIxXiJzyOINHQVe703AnPvfJyc5YmZFb-uU3J_nyrejq8EjHgJMi2pC-pCTMbJzS9qsBMo=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0043099320;thd01aug.09;2019Mar19.13:22;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0043099320-1">Gender expectations and on-line evaluations of teaching: evidence from RateMyProfessors.com. </title> <p>Using publicly available data from RateMyProfessors.com, we explore whether an instructor's gender influences how students rate that instructor. Although RateMyProfessors.com may not accurately reflect quality teaching, it provides a unique window into how students construct their classroom experiences. Multiple regression analyses of 500 professors from five public universities in the state of Florida fail to reveal significant gender differences in ratings of 'overall quality'. Using more complex models, we test the hypothesis that female instructors are rated more positively when they display traditionally female traits, namely teaching in a traditionally female field and offering courses that are perceived as easier. Contrary to our expectations, our analyses fail to reveal the use of a gendered yardstick in quantitative evaluations of college instructors. Instead, perceptions of ease appear to be the great equalizer within this on-line context.</p> <p>Keywords: student evaluations of teaching; gender; Internet</p> <hd id="AN0043099320-2">Introduction</hd> <p>With the advent of the Internet, college students are able to provide public assessments of their instructors' classroom performance. Websites like RateMyProfessors.com – which boasts that it represents 'over 6,000 schools, 1 million professors, [and] 8 million opinions' – exist apart from particular educational institutions, and encourage students to evaluate their instructors in order to help themselves and their peers make informed decisions about which classes to take. Students are able to rate their instructors in terms of clarity, helpfulness, ease, and even whether they are 'hot'. While researchers debate the validity of on-line assessments as compared to institution-based rating systems (Coladarci and Kornfield [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>]) – and academics debate the validity of student evaluations of teaching more generally – sites like RateMyProfessors.com are socially significant because they offer a window into how students construct good teaching. Indeed, a recent survey of undergraduates enrolled in an introductory course at the authors' home institution suggests that 61% 'almost always' and 13% 'sometimes' consult RateMyProfessors.com when selecting courses (<emph>n</emph>=115), suggesting that these constructions have wide circulation. Moreover, as these websites become more popular, they have the potential not only to reflect student opinion, but to create it.</p> <p>An enduring question within the scholarship of teaching and learning is whether male and female professors are evaluated differently and, more importantly, unequally. Following this tradition we ask: Do students evaluate male and female instructors differently? A cursory glance at the RateMyProfessors.com website would likely yield an answer in the affirmative, as students leave comments like these, for a highly rated female history professor:</p> <p>She's is my favorite teacher I've ever had....she's smart and sexy at the same time. I want a piece of that yeah baby yeah!!!!!!!!!rrrrrr! (<emph>sic</emph>)</p> <p>Really outgoing, and enthusiastic about class and lectures. Also an understanding professor when situations arise. She's also very stylish and nice looking ... grrrr. (<emph>sic</emph>)</p> <p>However provocative, such qualitative comments are worthy of separate, systematic analyses. Instead, we take advantage of multiple regression techniques to ask whether male and female instructors are evaluated using different yardsticks, and whether positive evaluations of female teaching are especially dependent upon adherence to a traditional female gender role. Based on data from RateMyProfessors.com, for a sample of 500 instructors employed at five public universities in the state of Florida, we find no difference in the quantitative ratings of male and female instructors; moreover, we find that female instructors are not penalized for deviating from a traditionally female gender role. They are neither, in other words, evaluated more negatively when they act more 'like men' in the context of their professional roles, nor are they evaluated more positively when they act more 'like women'.</p> <hd id="AN0043099320-3">Gender and the evaluation of good teaching</hd> <p>To what extent and in what ways does gender matter in evaluations of effective teaching? Given the significance of gender in most areas of daily life, it is reasonable to assume that gender would also matter in how college students evaluate their instructors (Sprague and Massoni [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref2">29</reflink>]). The existing research, however, has produced inconclusive results on this question. The prevailing consensus is that there are no consistent gender differences in ratings of overall quality (Feldman [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref3">13</reflink>]; Miller and Chamberlin [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref4">26</reflink>]; Sandler, Silverberg, and Hall 1996). To the extent that researchers have uncovered a significant difference, they have found that men are evaluated more positively than women (Sandler, Silverberg, and Hall 1996). In one comprehensive study conducted at a liberal arts college, men's ratings of overall quality/effectiveness were 0.07–0.24 points (on a five-point scale) higher than women's (Basow [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>]). Yet because these ratings interact with other factors – like age (Arbuckle and Williams [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]), student gender, instructor's rank, and the 'gender typing' of an instructor's discipline (Basow [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]) – it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the impact of gender on student evaluations of teaching.</p> <p>Due to these inconclusive findings, researchers have explored the ways in which students may evaluate male and female instructors <emph>differently</emph>. Because the role of professor has been traditionally defined as a masculine role, one might expect that men would have an easier time meeting the expectations associated with this role, and hence receive higher teaching evaluations. Whether consciously or not, people do not respond well to women who deviate from their traditional gender role (Sprague and Massoni [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref8">29</reflink>], 781); thus, female instructors may come up short when students are asked to evaluate their ability to perform a traditionally male role. Accordingly, some researchers argue that men are evaluated primarily as a professor, while women are evaluated first as a woman, then as a professor (Basow [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]; Sprague and Massoni [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref10">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>The issue, then, may not be that one gender is evaluated more positively than the other, but that each is evaluated using a different yardstick – a pattern that Sprague and Massoni (2005) refer to as 'shifting standards'. With respect to evaluations of teaching effectiveness, this 'shifting standard' means that women are expected to be 'warm, nurturing, physically attractive, flexible, and always available', in addition to exhibiting traits associated with being a professor (Sandler, Silverberg, and Hall 1996, 60), such as being knowledgeable and authoritative. Because they are also expected to grade more leniently, women may be evaluated more harshly when they offer difficult courses or give lower grades (Sinclair and Kunda [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref11">28</reflink>]). When female instructors cannot fulfill these gender expectations – for example, if they teach rigorous courses, large lecture classes, or become physically exhausted during pregnancy (Baker and Copp [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>]) – their evaluations may suffer. Women, then, can achieve high teaching evaluations if they perform the professional expectations of a college instructor, but do so in a manner that is consistent with the female gender role (Andersen and Miller [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>]; Basow [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>]). Yet 'because the social expectations of women are higher in this regard, in order to get equal professional ratings, women must do more than men' (Sandler, Silverberg, and Hall 1996, 60).</p> <p>While the existing research includes important contributions on the topic of gender and the evaluation of teaching, it is limited in that it has typically investigated the impact of gender on perceptions of teaching effectiveness within one classroom or one college campus. Our research adds to the existing research by examining the role of gender within a sample of instructors teaching in diverse disciplines, across several institutions of higher education. Moreover, we use more complex statistical techniques, including interaction terms, to assess the effect of gender on teaching evaluations.</p> <p>Because the existing literature is inconclusive on the question of gender differences in ratings of overall instructor quality, we begin with a baseline hypothesis:</p> <p>H1: Controlling for rank, we expect no gender differences in ratings of overall quality.</p> <p>Next, we explore the notion that male and female instructors are evaluated using different standards and specifically that females are evaluated using a distinctly feminine yardstick. Since previous research indicates differences in perception for female and male professors due to the expectation that the professor role is a male role, female professors working in male-dominated disciplines may face a double bind in teaching evaluations.</p> <p>H2: All else equal, we expect that female instructors employed in traditionally female disciplines will receive a ratings premium, while those employed in traditionally male disciplines will receive a ratings penalty.</p> <p>This theme also applies to expectations of pedagogy. Although we expect that all instructors will receive more positive evaluations when they are perceived as offering easy courses, we believe that perceptions of easiness will provide a greater boost for female instructors. The converse, of course, is that women will be evaluated more harshly when they deviate from traditional gender expectations and offer courses that are perceived to be more challenging. This leads to our final hypothesis:</p> <p>H3: We expect that female instructors will be evaluated more positively when they are perceived as being an easy instructor. Conversely, we expect that women will be evaluated more negatively when they are perceived as more difficult.</p> <hd id="AN0043099320-4">Research design</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0043099320-5">Participants/data</hd> <p>Analyses are based on data collected during December 2007 from publicly available teaching evaluations posted on RateMyProfessors.com. We collected data for 500 instructors employed at five public universities within the state of Florida (<emph>n</emph>=500). These institutions included Florida State University, the University of Central Florida, the University of North Florida, the University of South Florida, and Florida International University. We used an approach similar to Joy ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]) and selected universities from the geographic region with which we had the most familiarity. This helped ensure that we selected universities within a shared regional context with similar institutional characteristics. With the exception of Florida State – which is a national university and is considered 'more selective' by <emph>U.S. News and World Report</emph> – these institutions have 'selective' admissions policies, enroll students primarily from the state and especially their surrounding counties, and have relatively small residential populations. While no a priori reason exists to suggest that students use RateMyProfessors.com differently in other regions of the country, we make generalizations with caution and note that suspected differences can be explored empirically in future analyses (Joy [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>We created a sample of 100 instructors from each of the five universities, totaling 500 cases. We stratified our sampling to include adequate and equivalent proportions of individuals belonging to the gender-specific disciplines. Within these groups, we randomly sampled males and females in equal numbers. We proceeded as follows. First, we grouped by discipline. Following Sandler, Silverberg, and Hall (1996) we identified disciplines considered traditionally male, traditionally female, and gender neutral. These designations reflect who has traditionally taught and created the knowledge in these fields (Jacobs [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref17">20</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref18">21</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>]), as well as the curriculum content and pedagogic styles used in these disciplines. We defined the hard sciences, engineering, mathematics, and business as traditionally male; the arts and humanities as traditionally female; and the social sciences as gender neutral. After establishing these categories, we initially constrained our sample to instructors with at least 20 ratings (Felton et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref20">15</reflink>]) and then randomly selected equal numbers of males and females from each discipline. Because we had some difficulty identifying sufficient numbers of faculty with at least 20 ratings, we relaxed our criteria and selected instructors with fewer ratings. Among these instructors, 24 are in business, two in the hard sciences, two in the arts and humanities, and one in the social sciences; 25 are female and four are male. Among this subgroup – which includes about 6% of the total sample – each instructor has an average of 15.25 ratings.</p> <hd id="AN0043099320-6">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0043099320-7">Overall quality</hd> <p>RateMyProfessors.com calculates 'Overall Quality' by averaging the 'Helpfulness' and 'Clarity' score given by each student rater. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Raters are asked to rate their instructor's Helpfulness and Clarity using a scale from 1 to 5, according to the following prompts.</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive statistics (n=500).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Characteristic</td><td>Mean</td><td>Standard deviation</td><td>Range (minimum–maximum)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Overall Quality</td><td char=".">3.60</td><td char=".">0.880</td><td char=".">1.0–4.9</td></tr><tr><td>Easiness</td><td char=".">3.19</td><td char=".">0.808</td><td char=".">1.2–4.8</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Gender</td></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td char=".">0.50</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td char=".">0.50</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Institution</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Florida International University</td><td char=".">0.20</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Florida State University</td><td char=".">0.20</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> University of Central Florida</td><td char=".">0.20</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> University of North Florida</td><td char=".">0.20</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> University of South Florida</td><td char=".">0.20</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Discipline</td></tr><tr><td> Arts and Humanities</td><td char=".">0.25</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Business</td><td char=".">0.25</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Physical Sciences, Math, Engineering</td><td char=".">0.25</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Social Sciences</td><td char=".">0.25</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Rank</td></tr><tr><td> Senior (tenured) (%)</td><td char=".">12.4</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Junior (tenured or tenure track) (%)</td><td char=".">26.8</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Non-tenure eligible (%)</td><td char=".">60.8</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0043099320-8">Helpfulness</hd> <p>Helpfulness is defined as a professor's helpfulness and approachability. Is this professor approachable, nice and easy to communicate with? How accessible is the professor and is he/she available during office hours or after class for additional help?</p> <hd id="AN0043099320-9">Clarity</hd> <p>A professor's organization and time management skills can make a great difference on what you get out of the class. How well does the professor teach the course material? Were you able to understand the class topics based on the professor's teaching methods and style?</p> <p>The 'overall quality' scores for professors in this sample range from 1.0 to 4.9, with an average rating of 3.6.</p> <hd id="AN0043099320-10">Gender</hd> <p>We determined each instructor's gender by looking at gender references ('he' or 'she') made by students in their qualitative comments. We use contrast codes (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref21">9</reflink>], chap. 8) to provide a focused test of our gender differences hypothesis, where females are coded as 1 and males are coded as –1.</p> <hd id="AN0043099320-11">Gendered discipline</hd> <p>We created a variable for the gendered nature of each instructor's discipline, as defined above. When students rate a professor, they select a departmental affiliation based on a standard list of options provided by the website. We first coded gender-neutral disciplines as 0, traditionally female disciplines as 1, and traditionally male disciplines as 2, and subsequently created a series of effect codes using 'Gender Neutral' as the base group (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref22">9</reflink>], chap. 8).</p> <hd id="AN0043099320-12">Easiness</hd> <p>We extracted each instructor's 'easiness' rating from RateMyProfessors.com. Students rate easiness according to the following prompt:</p> <p>Some students may factor in the easiness or difficulty of the professor or course material when selecting a class to take. Is this class an easy A? How much work do you need to do in order to get a good grade?</p> <p>Students rate each instructor from 1 to 5, where 5 represents 'easiest' and 1 represents 'most difficult'; the website averages these individual scores into an overall Easiness rating for each professor. The scores for 'easiness' among professors in this sample range from 1.2 to 4.8, with an average rating of 3.19.</p> <hd id="AN0043099320-13">Rank</hd> <p>Given that female instructors tend to hold lower-rank or part-time teaching positions (Sandler, Silverberg, and Hall [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref23">27</reflink>]), we used instructor's rank as a control. We gathered this data by looking up each instructor's rank on their university's website. If the instructor was no longer employed by the university we used other search methods, including correspondence with departmental assistants or chairs. We coded this variable into three categories as follows: 0, senior tenured (full professor); 1, junior tenured or tenure track (associate or assistant professor); and 2, non-tenure track (lecturers, lab instructors, visitors, adjuncts, etc.). We then transformed these codes into a series of effect codes using 'Senior Rank' as the base group (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref24">9</reflink>], chap. 8).</p> <hd id="AN0043099320-14">Analytic strategy</hd> <p>We examined our hypotheses using multiple regression, in which we regressed Overall Quality onto several predictors. To reduce multicolinearity and aid in interpretation we used contrast codes to provide a focused test of gender differences (males [–1] vs. females [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>]) and effect codes for the remaining categorical predictors, and centered all continuous predictors; we also conducted regression diagnostics using methods described by [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref26">8</reflink>] and others (2003, chap. 4). Neither of the models demonstrated problematic multicolinearity (e.g. variance inflation facto (VIF) values larger than 10 or tolerance values less than 0.10); nor do the observations in the current study demonstrate problematic influence, e.g. SDBETA (standardized beta coefficient that results from the deletion of the ith case) (in SPSS) values larger than one. Finally, to control for inflated Type I error, we adapted Fisher's least significant difference (<emph>LSD</emph>), i.e. protected <emph>t</emph> (Carmer and Swanson [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]), to the multiple regression case. This technique first tests whether a set of indicators significantly predicts the criterion and then uses ordinary <emph>t</emph>-tests to examine pair-wise comparisons only in the context of a statistically significant <emph>F</emph>-value for the set.</p> <hd id="AN0043099320-15">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0043099320-16">Models 1 and 2</hd> <p>Models 1 and 2 examined our first hypotheses. Model 1 regressed Overall Quality onto Gender to examine the relation of Gender to Overall Quality. Gender did not significantly relate to Overall Quality in Model 1. Model 2 tested the same relationship controlling for Instructor's Rank. This set of predictors did significantly predict Overall Quality (shrunken <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups>=0.03; <emph>F</emph> [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib496" id="ref29">496</reflink>] = 5.64, <emph>p</emph>=0.001). Gender did not relate significantly to Overall Quality after controlling for Instructor's Rank. However, results did indicate a significant relationship between Overall Quality and Junior status, controlling for other variables. This relationship accounted for 3% of the variance. Table 2 summarizes the results.</p> <p>Table 2. Regression analyses (n=500) predicting Overall Quality from Instructor's Gender alone (Model 1) and controlling for Instructor's Rank (Model 2).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Model 1</td><td>Model 2</td></tr><tr><td>Variable</td><td>β</td><td>SE β</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><p><inline-graphic href="cthe_a_405186_o_ilm0001.gif" /></p></td><td>β</td><td>SE β</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><p><inline-graphic href="cthe_a_405186_o_ilm0002.gif" /></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">91.43</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">78.95</td><td char=".">–</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">−0.05</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">−1.15</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">−0.08</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">−1.80</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Junior</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">0.15</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">2.24</td><td char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Non-tenure eligible</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">−0.03</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">−0.44</td><td char=".">0.02</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0043099320-17">Models 3 and 4</hd> <p>Models 3 and 4 examined our second hypothesis. Model 3 regressed Overall Quality onto Gender and Gendered Discipline, controlling for Instructor's Rank, and significantly predicted Overall Quality (shrunken <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups>=0.07; <emph>F</emph> [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib494" id="ref31">494</reflink>] = 8.10, <emph>p</emph><0.001). In this model, controlling for other variables, non-tenure status significantly predicted Overall Quality, accounting for 3% of the variance; traditionally male disciplines also provided significant prediction, accounting for 4% of the variance. Controlling for other variables in the model, traditionally male disciplines predicted lower Overall Quality scores. No other variables in the model were statistically significant. Table 3 summarizes the results.</p> <p>Table 3. Regression analyses (n=500) predicting Overall Quality from Instructor's Gender, Instructor's Rank, and Gendered Discipline (Model 3), and including the Discipline by Gender interaction (Model 4).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Model 3</td><td>Model 4</td></tr><tr><td>Variable</td><td>β</td><td>SE β</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><p><inline-graphic href="cthe_a_405186_o_ilm0003.gif" /></p></td><td>β</td><td>SE β</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><p><inline-graphic href="cthe_a_405186_o_ilm0004.gif" /></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">65.19</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">65.10</td><td char=".">–</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">−0.08</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">−1.87</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">−0.04</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">−0.81</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Non-tenure</td><td char=".">0.15</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">2.19</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">0.14</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">2.15</td><td char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Junior tenure</td><td char=".">−0.05</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">−0.69</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">−0.05</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">−0.72</td><td char=".">0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Traditionally female</td><td char=".">−0.06</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">−1.06</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">−0.06</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">−1.06</td><td char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Traditionally male</td><td char=".">−0.23</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">−4.40</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">−0.24</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">−4.40</td><td char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Gender</td></tr><tr><td> Traditionally female</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">1.26</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td> Traditionally male</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">1.08</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Model 4 regressed Overall Quality onto Gender, Gendered Discipline, and the Gender by Gendered Discipline interaction, while controlling the contribution of Instructor's Rank. This set of predictors significantly predicted Overall Quality (shrunken <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups>=0.07; <emph>F</emph> [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref32">7</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib492" id="ref33">492</reflink>] = 6.04, <emph>p</emph><0.001) and accounted for 7% of the variance in Overall Quality. Although the set of variables significantly predicted Overall Quality, the addition of the interaction added neither predictive power relative to Model 3; nor interaction term demonstrated statistically significant prediction on its own. Thus, while instructors in traditionally male disciplines receive lower quality ratings, women instructors in these disciplines do not receive lower ratings relative to men; they are not, in other words, penalized for 'deviating' from the traditionally female roles within higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0043099320-18">Models 5 and 6</hd> <p>Models 5 and 6 examined our third hypothesis. Model 5 regressed Overall Quality onto Gender and Easiness, controlling for Gendered Discipline and Instructor's Rank; this model predicted a significant amount of the variance in Overall Quality (shrunken <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups>=0.51; <emph>F</emph> [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref34">8</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib491" id="ref35">491</reflink>] = 64.74, <emph>p</emph><0.001): controlling for other predictors, Easiness predicted a full 50% of the variance in the model. Moreover, its addition to the model resulted in a substantial increase in the predictive power of the model generally, with the shrunken <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> increasing from 0.07 to 0.51. Aside from the contribution of other variables, easy instructors received higher Overall Quality ratings.</p> <p>Lastly, Model 6 regressed Overall Quality onto Gender, Easiness and the Gender by Easiness interaction, while controlling for the contribution of Gendered Discipline and Instructor's Rank. Although the set of variables significantly predicted Overall Quality, the addition of the interaction term added no predictive power relative to Model 5 and did not demonstrate statistically significant prediction on its own. Thus, while classes that are rated as easier receive higher quality ratings, contrary to our expectations, gender neither does predict quality nor does it significantly affect the relationships in the model. Using Cohen's criteria (1988), the effect of gender is both small and non-significant. These findings suggest that female instructors are neither uniquely penalized for teaching classes that are perceived as being more difficult, nor are they uniquely rewarded for teaching classes that are perceived as easier. Table 4 reports the results of Models 5 and 6.</p> <p>Table 4. Regression analyses (n=500) predicting Overall Quality from Instructor's Gender, Instructor's Rank, Gendered Discipline, Discipline by Gender Interaction, and Easiness (Model 5), and including the Easiness by Gender interaction (Model 6).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Model 5</td><td>Model 6</td></tr><tr><td>Variable</td><td>β</td><td>SE β</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><p><inline-graphic href="cthe_a_405186_o_ilm0005.gif" /></p></td><td>β</td><td>SE β</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><p><inline-graphic href="cthe_a_405186_o_ilm0006.gif" /></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">90.22</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">90.08</td><td char=".">–</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">−0.60</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">−0.61</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Non-tenure</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">0.12</td><td char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Junior tenure</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">−0.49</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">−0.50</td><td char=".">0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Traditionally female</td><td char=".">−0.07</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">−1.71</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">−0.07</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">−1.72</td><td char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Traditionally male</td><td char=".">−0.08</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">−2.14</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">−0.09</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">−2.16</td><td char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Gender</td></tr><tr><td> Traditionally female</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">1.32</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">1.31</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td> Traditionally male</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">0.71</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">0.75</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Easiness</td><td char=".">0.70</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">20.93</td><td char=".">0.50</td><td char=".">0.70</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">20.86</td><td char=".">0.50</td></tr><tr><td>Gender – easiness</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">0.31</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0043099320-19">Discussion and conclusions</hd> <p>Previous research has shown few consistent differences in students' quantitative evaluations of male and female instructors' overall quality. Instead, researchers argue that male and female instructors are evaluated differently, rather than unequally. Their findings document a pattern in which female instructors are expected to adhere to a traditional female gender role, and are rewarded for doing so. We use publicly available data from RateMyProfessors.com to test the hypothesis that female instructors are evaluated more positively when they adhere to a traditional female gender role and are penalized when they deviate from this role. Our analyses, however, do not find support for this hypothesis. The small numerical difference we do observe between male and female instructors is not statistically significant, meaning that it may reflect nothing more than random chance. Moreover, while all instructors teaching in traditionally male fields are rated more negatively than those in other fields, women do not receive a unique penalty when they teach in fields like math, biology, or accounting. Our findings also reveal that all instructors benefit from perceptions of easiness. Women, however, are neither uniquely rewarded for being easy nor are they uniquely penalized when they are perceived as being more difficult.</p> <p>The good news, then, is that these analyses fail to reveal the use of a gendered yardstick in course evaluations posted at RateMyProfessors.com. The potentially bad news, however, is that at least with respect to the evaluations posted at this particular site, the primary yardstick they do use is perceived easiness. Extant research has produced inconclusive findings regarding the impact of perceptions of easiness on ratings of overall quality or effectiveness (Aleamoni [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>]; Feldman [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref37">14</reflink>]). Indeed, some argue that instructors who are perceived as 'easy' might actually be very good instructors; instructors who provide appropriate workloads and use accurate methods to assess student learning (Gillmore and Greenwald [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref38">16</reflink>]; Marsh and Roche [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref39">25</reflink>]). RateMyProfessors.com may function as a unique space in which students are able to communicate with each other about a limited set of teaching-related attributes, wherein perceptions of easiness occupy an especially powerful niche. Indeed, the website occasionally emails its members advertising their site as a place 'to find out which professors hand out easy A's and which ones don't' (Electronic mailing list, 14 January, 2008). Based on these analyses, then, it seems that within this particular on-line world, perceptions of easiness may be a gender equalizer. As such, future researchers may wish to explore how gender impacts perceptions of easiness.</p> <p>How can we make sense of the fact that these analyses fail to reveal the use of a gendered yardstick in student evaluations of college instructors, when such patterns have been documented in the research? While we have no way of testing this assertion with these data, one explanation may be that the gendered yardstick is being eroded as a new consumer orientation toward education – one that gives greater emphasis to easiness and customer satisfaction – may be taking hold. A more reasonable explanation, however, may be that the limited number of quantitative measures available at RateMyProfessors.com conceals the nuanced ways in which gender influences teaching evaluations. We know, for example, that perceptions of gender roles interact with other factors like age (Arbuckle and Williams [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>]) and ethnicity, making it difficult to arrive at simple generalizations regarding the impact of gender on ratings of overall quality. Moreover, because women are generally expected to be more attractive than their male counterparts, female instructors who are perceived as attractive may be evaluated more positively than those who are not (Gurung and Vespia [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref41">17</reflink>]). While RateMyProfessors.com does offer students the opportunity to evaluate their instructor's attractiveness (those who receive a positive 'hotness' rating are designated with a red chilli pepper), it is difficult to use this variable in statistical analyses because it contains little variation: very few instructors are actually rated as hot, and negative hotness ratings are not visible on the website. That being said – and consistent with our overall results – we did not find any difference between male or female instructors in the likelihood of being awarded a chilli pepper (56 males and 53 females, out of 250, received at least one chilli pepper). Any data set that is able to incorporate a wider variety of variables, and test them in interaction with gender, will make an important contribution to our understanding of this topic.</p> <p>It is also likely that gendered constructions are especially evident in the qualitative comments left by students at RateMyProfessors.com. While it is difficult to link students' qualitative comments to their quantitative ratings – especially to determine if they have an effect on ratings of overall quality – it appears that gender does shape the kinds of comments that students make. Although we are in the beginning stages of a comprehensive qualitative analysis, our preliminary conclusion is that the things that contribute to positive (or negative) ratings for men may be different than those that contribute to positive (or negative) ratings for women. Consistent with Sprague and Massoni (2005), our findings suggest that while students expect both male and female instructors to be 'caring' and 'intelligent', the content of these traits differs for men and women. For example, students seem to associate intelligence among men with a sense of wit, sharpness, and breadth of knowledge, while they associate intelligence among women with confidence, hard work, and clear organization. Similarly, although students negatively evaluate their instructors when they fail to present material in an engaging way, it appears that students interpret this behavior as a lack of effort among their male professors (i.e. if they put some time into it, they <emph>could</emph> be good teachers), but as a lack of ability among female instructors (i.e. they are so inept they could not be good teachers, no matter how hard they try). These preliminary analyses indicate, then, that gender still may matter in the on-line world of RateMyProfessors.com, but that it may not have a clear relationship to quantitative evaluations of overall quality.</p> <p>There are, of course, limitations associated with our data source. First and foremost, the website provides a limited number of variables for statistical analyses. Existing research suggests that a rater's interest in a particular course (e.g. whether they are taking it for their major or as a general education requirement) and the course level (upper division, lower division, etc.) impact how they evaluate their instructors (Dixon and McCabe [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref42">11</reflink>]). While it is possible to derive data for these measures from the website, doing so is both cumbersome and potentially unreliable. For example, using our knowledge of specific instructors and courses at our home university, we believe that students do not always attach the correct course level/course number to their entries, making it difficult to construct this variable accurately.</p> <p>Previous research has also shown that a student's own gender impacts how he or she evaluates male and female instructors, with each gender evaluating his or her own gender more positively than the other (Sandler, Silverberg, and Hall [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]). Due to the anonymity of the ratings at RateMyProfessors.com, these analyses cannot illuminate the effect of rater gender on evaluations of overall instructor quality. Using this same data source, future researchers should investigate the role of the rater's gender by comparing the evaluations of male and female teaching from students at women's colleges, men's colleges, and co-educational institutions. In addition, our sampling strategy does not include instructors in some traditionally female disciplines, such as social work and nursing. This omission reflects the fact that not every university in our sample offers programs in these areas. Our analyses, then, are limited in that they under represent the ratings of instructors who tend to be female, by students who tend to be female. Future research should attempt to fill this gap.</p> <p>Finally, although Coladarci and Kornfield ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref44">10</reflink>]) found that the ratings from RateMyProfessors.com closely approximate those obtained through official, compulsory teaching evaluations at the University of Maine, because the ratings left by students are optional, it is unknown how closely these on-line ratings reflect the sentiments of a wider sample of students enrolled in a particular instructor's classes. If there are systematic biases in who uses the website, these public ratings may not correspond closely to those gathered from the class as a whole.</p> <p>Despite these limitations, we believe that RateMyProfessors.com provides a valuable opportunity to conduct analyses of how students evaluate college teaching. Our analyses, in particular, make a contribution in that they contain data of professors at multiple universities, teaching courses at different levels within different d isciplines. Our analyses also use a set of interaction terms in our regression models, which constitute a methodological improvement over much of the existing research.</p> <p>The emergence of sites like RateMyProfessors.com raises new questions about the use of new technologies in evaluations of teaching. As universities replace their paper evaluation formats with on-line versions, researchers question how this change may impact response rates (Dommeyer, Baum, and Hanna [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref45">12</reflink>]; Hmielski [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref46">19</reflink>]) as how the results may compare to those generated using paper formats (Hardy [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref47">18</reflink>]; Johnson [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref48">23</reflink>]). Reflecting on the culture surrounding on-line modes of communication more generally, one may also question whether these technologies will 'democratize' the evaluation process in ways that break down traditional barriers of respect and civility and challenge the traditional hierarchy of teacher and student. With respect to hiring and promotion decisions, human resource officers at the authors' home institution have heard accounts of hiring committees using on-line ratings of job candidates as a screening device, in conjunction with the material voluntarily submitted by candidates in their teaching dossier. And when they go up for tenure or promotion, faculty members may elect to include such evaluations and commentaries in their dossier. Thus, to the extent that female instructors are evaluated using a uniquely gendered yardstick – which these analyses do not confirm – or a uniquely gendered language in students' open-ended qualitative comments, they may face additional hurdles in hiring and promotion. These questions, then, are not merely academic; they have a tangible impact on the position of men and women in academia.</p> <ref id="AN0043099320-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref25" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aleamoni, L.1987. Student ratings myths versus research facts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1: 111–9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref13" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Andersen, K. and Miller, E.D.1997. Gender and student evaluations of teaching. PS: Political Science and Politics, 30: 216–9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref6" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Arbuckle, J. and Williams, B.D.2003. Students' perceptions of expressiveness: Age and gender effects on teaching evaluations. Sex Roles, 49: 507–16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref12" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, P. and Copp, M.1997. Gender performance matters most: The interaction of gendered expectations, feminist course content and pregnancy in students' course evaluations. Teaching Sociology, 25: 29–43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Basow, S.1995. Student evaluations of college professors: When gender matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87: 656–65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Basow, S.2000. Best and worst professors: Gender patterns in students' choices. Sex Roles, 43: 407–17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref27" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Carmer, S.G. and Swanson, M.R.1973. An evaluation of ten pairwise multiple comparison procedures by Monte Carlo methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68: 66–74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref26" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J.1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref21" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. and Aiken, L.2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd ed, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coladarci, T., I.Kornfield. 2007. RateMyProfessors.com versus formal in-class student evaluations of teaching. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation12, no. 6: 1–15. <ulink href="http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=6(accessed">http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=6(accessed</ulink> March 26, 2008).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixon, J. and McCabe, J.2006. Competing perspectives in the classroom: The effect of sociology students' perceptions of 'balance' on evaluations. Teaching Sociology, 34: 111–25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dommeyer, C.J., Baum, P. and Hanna, R.W.2002. College students' attitudes towards methods of collecting teaching evaluations: In-class versus on-line. Journal of Education for Business, 78: 11–5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldman, K.A.1993. College students' views of male and female college teachers, part I: Evidence from students' evaluations of their classroom teachers. Research in Higher Education, 34: 151–211.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldman, K.A.1997. "Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings". In Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice, Edited by: Perry, R. and Smart, J.368–95. New York: Agathon Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Felton, J., Koper, P.T., Mitchell, J. and Stinson, M.2008. Attractiveness, easiness, and other issues: Student evaluations of professors on RateMyProfessors.com. Evaluation in Higher Education, 33: 45–61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillmore, G., A.Greenwald. 1994. The effects of course demands and grading leniency on student ratings of instruction. Report 94–4. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Office of Educational Assessment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gurung, R.A.R. and Vespia, K.M.2007. Looking good, teaching well? Linking liking, looks, and learning. Teaching of Psychology, 35: 5–10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hardy, N.2003. Online ratings: Fact and Fiction. InOnline student ratings of instruction, new directions for teaching and learningD.L.Sorenson and T.D.Johnson, No. 96, Winter 2003, 31–38. San Francisco: Jossey.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hmielski, K.2000. Barriers to on-line evaluations: Surveying the nation's top 200 most wired campuses, Troy, NY: Interactive and Distance Education Assessment (IDEA) Laboratory, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs, J.1995. Gender and academic specialties: Trends among recipients of college degrees in the 1980s. Sociology of Education, 68: 81–98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs, J.1996. Gender inequality and higher education. Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 153–85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs, J.2003. Detours on the road to equality: Women, work and higher education. Contexts, 2: 32–41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, T.D.2003. Online student ratings: Will students respond?InOnline student ratings of instruction, new directions for teaching and learningD.L.Sorenson and T.D.Johnson, No. 96, Winter 2003, 49. San francisco: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joy, S.2006. What should I be doing, and where are they doing it? Scholarly productivity of academic psychologists. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 1: 346–64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, H.W. and Roche, L.A.2000. Effects of grading leniency and low workload on students' evaluations of teaching: Popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92: 202–28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, J. and Chamberlin, M.2000. Women are teachers, men are professors: A study of student perceptions. Teaching Sociology, 28: 283–98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandler, B.R., Silverberg, L.A. and Hall, R.M.1996. The chilly classroom climate: A guide to improve the education of women, Washington, DC: National Association for Women in Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinclair, L. and Kunda, Z.2000. Motivated stereotyping of women: She's fine if she praised me, but incompetent if she criticized me. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26: 1329–42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sprague, J. and Massoni, K.2005. Student evaluations and gendered expectations: What we can't count can hurt us. Sex Roles, 53: 779–93.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By JennyM. Stuber; Amanda Watson; Adam Carle and Kristin Staggs</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib496" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib494" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib492" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib491" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref48"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ858151
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Gender Expectations and On-Line Evaluations of Teaching: Evidence from RateMyProfessors.com
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stuber%2C+Jenny+M%2E%22">Stuber, Jenny M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Watson%2C+Amanda%22">Watson, Amanda</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Carle%2C+Adam%22">Carle, Adam</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Staggs%2C+Kristin%22">Staggs, Kristin</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Teaching+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Teaching in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. Aug 2009 14(4):387-399.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2009
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Evaluation%22">Teacher Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22">Teacher Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Criteria%22">Evaluation Criteria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Data+Collection%22">Data Collection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Web+Sites%22">Web Sites</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Context+Effect%22">Context Effect</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multiple+Regression+Analysis%22">Multiple Regression Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Influences%22">Social Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mass+Media+Effects%22">Mass Media Effects</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Florida%22">Florida</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13562510903050137
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1356-2517
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Using publicly available data from RateMyProfessors.com, we explore whether an instructor's gender influences how students rate that instructor. Although RateMyProfessors.com may not accurately reflect quality teaching, it provides a unique window into how students construct their classroom experiences. Multiple regression analyses of 500 professors from five public universities in the state of Florida fail to reveal significant gender differences in ratings of "overall quality". Using more complex models, we test the hypothesis that female instructors are rated more positively when they display traditionally female traits, namely teaching in a traditionally female field and offering courses that are perceived as easier. Contrary to our expectations, our analyses fail to reveal the use of a gendered yardstick in quantitative evaluations of college instructors. Instead, perceptions of ease appear to be the great equalizer within this on-line context. (Contains 4 tables.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 29
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2009
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ858151
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ858151
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13562510903050137
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 387
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Criteria
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Data Collection
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Web Sites
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Context Effect
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multiple Regression Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mass Media Effects
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Florida
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Gender Expectations and On-Line Evaluations of Teaching: Evidence from RateMyProfessors.com
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stuber, Jenny M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Watson, Amanda
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Carle, Adam
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Staggs, Kristin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2009
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1356-2517
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 14
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Teaching in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1