Whats in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching

This article discusses a study conducted to test whether gender bias was present in
student evaluations of teachers. The study utilized three online teachers, one of which was the
course professor and the other two were assistant instructors, one female and one male. Each
instructor was given two groups to teach. With one group, the instructor would use their real
identity, and with the other group the instructor would use the identity of his or her opposite
gender counterpart. This provided a controlled experiment, and since the courses were taught
online, the students had no way of knowing whether or not their instructor was either male or
female. This study was conducted in an online anthropology/sociology course at a large four year
public university in North Carolina. The findings of this study proved that gender bias does exist
in teacher ratings as the ratings of the male instructors, whether they were actually male or just
posing as male, were significantly higher that the female ratings. Instructor ratings by students
are vital as they can determine a students reception towards an instructor as well as teacher
award winners. The article discusses gendered behavior which is the idea that certain genders
should express certain behaviors. While this idea is noted, it is also noted that gendered behavior
is not the cause of the differing scores found in the study, but the scores are caused by actual
student bias towards professors. The findings showcase the weaknesses of student ratings and
that their continued use will only disadvantage women in academia.
This article works to provide credible research on students biases in their ratings of
teachers. By conducting a study through an online classroom, there is no room of error based on
a students view of their professor, as all the student knows is a name. This article provides a
number of sources as well as data that elevates the studys credibility, thus allowing the audience
to do additional research on the topic. The addition of the data tables and graphs allows the
audience to view a visual representation of the information they are being given, thus making the
information more clear. The purpose of the article is to inform officials in academia of the issue
that lies in student ratings of teaching. It exposes the bias that lies within the student population
that cannot be immediately repaired. This raises the question on whether or not student ratings of
teachers should be used as a reliable source. These ratings are often used for students to decide
on the professor they want teaching their course as well as for education officials to decide which
teachers receive awards and merits based upon their teaching quality. If females are receiving
lower ratings solely on the fact that they are female, and not based upon their teaching quality,
then this place a major disadvantage upon females in academia. The article notes that the
research conducted leaves room for much more research to be conducted on the issue of gender
bias. It also states that the online environment for conducting studies is a unique way to
experiment with gender identity. This leaves the audience on a final note that they can research
more studies similar to the one presented.
MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., & Hunt, A. (2015). What's in a name: Exposing gender bias in student
ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 291-303. doi:10.1007/s10755-
014-9313-4
This article discusses a study conducted to determine whether student ratings of teaching are
biased by creating a situation in which some students believed they had a teacher of one gender,
but that teacher was really of the opposite gender. This study revealed that students rated the
instructor they believed to be male significantly higher than the one they believed to be female.
Gender bias by students in teacher ratings is thus proven, and exhibits an issue as teacher
credibility as well as merits can be based upon these reviews. Female teachers are placed at a
disadvantage in the realm of academia.