Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Public Library of Science full text link Public Library of Science Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

.2019 Feb 13;14(2):e0209749.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209749. eCollection 2019.

Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters

Affiliations

Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters

Y Fan et al. PLoS One..

Abstract

Gendered and racial inequalities persist in even the most progressive of workplaces. There is increasing evidence to suggest that all aspects of employment, from hiring to performance evaluation to promotion, are affected by gender and cultural background. In higher education, bias in performance evaluation has been posited as one of the reasons why few women make it to the upper echelons of the academic hierarchy. With unprecedented access to institution-wide student survey data from a large public university in Australia, we investigated the role of conscious or unconscious bias in terms of gender and cultural background. We found potential bias against women and teachers with non-English speaking backgrounds. Our findings suggest that bias may decrease with better representation of minority groups in the university workforce. Our findings have implications for society beyond the academy, as over 40% of the Australian population now go to university, and graduates may carry these biases with them into the workforce.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Effect of gender from teaching evaluations.
Points below the line at one indicate bias against groups (English (E) and non-English (NE) speaking females, and non-English (NE) speaking males) across male and female local and international students. Where solid lines (female students), and dotted lines (male students) indicate 95% confidence interval. If vertical lines do not intersect the line at 1, this indicates differences are statistically significant.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Estimated average probability of scoringj = 1, …, 6,P(Y =j).
The scores are plotted on the axis and the correspondingP(Y =j) on axis. Different line types correspond to different gender and culture groups.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Gender effect from course evaluations.
Points below the line at one indicate bias against groups (English (E) and non-English (NE) speaking females, and non-English (NE) speaking males) across male and female local and international students. Where solid lines (female students), and dotted lines (male students) indicate 95% confidence interval. If vertical lines do not intersect the line at 1, this indicates differences are statistically significant.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Plot of relative odds (y-axis) against the proportion of representation in the groups (female (E), female (NE), male (NE).
Based on local student evaluations (left) and international student evaluations (right). Circles are from female students, triangles are from female students.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Gender effect from teaching evaluations.
Points below the line at one indicate bias against groups (aggregated females, and non-English, teaching experience of all teachers and male and females of non-English speaking background) across male and female local and international students. Where solid lines do not intersect the line at 1, this indicates differences are statistically significant.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Agresti A. (2001). Analysis of ordinal categorical data. N. J: Wiley.
    1. Anderson K. and Miller E. D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching. Political Science and Politics 30(2), 216–219. 10.1017/S1049096500043407 - DOI
    1. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001). Australian standard classification of education (ASCED)http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/detailspage/1272.02001?opendocument.
    1. Basow S. A. (1995). Student evaluation of college professors: when gender matters. Journal of Educational Psychology 87(4), 656–665. 10.1037/0022-0663.87.4.656 - DOI
    1. Benton S. and Cashin W. E. (2011). IDEA PAPER No 50 student ratings of teaching: A summary of research and literature. IDEA Center, Kansas State University.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Public Library of Science full text link Public Library of Science Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp