INTRODUCTION
Students in university settings have many varied expectations of
professors. At the very least, they expect for them to be competent in
an area of expertise and that the will provide engaging and helpful
experience that assists students in achieving their goals.
Trends in the workforce are often reflected in academic trends.
More women attend college now then in past years, and more women are
part of the workforce. In academics, however, male professors greatly
outnumber female professors. "The number of professors per 10,000
adults in the United States--what we might call the academic
intellectual ratio--has increased dramatically in this century... By and
large this dramatic growth in the number and proportion of academic
intellectuals has been a male phenomenon. Male professors have
outnumbered female professors by about three to one since the turn of
the century" (Anderson, p.35).
Gender affects the ways in which students learn as well as their
needs in the classroom environment (James, In press). In general females
tend to be more verbal, while males respond more to visual stimulation.
Females seem to have a keener sense of reading body language, while
males have more of a need for activity (James, In press). Females have
traditionally been expected to speak in ways different than males, more
"lady-like" (Lakoff, 1975). As such, a female instructor may
have preconceived notions of how she should sound and act; this could be
affected by her age, as societal expectations have changed. Her students
may have expectations as well. A male instructor may not feel these same
constraints. These factors could contribute to how an instructor
presents information, and ultimately, how it is received.
Further, gender differences could affect how students potentially
learn and thrive in a classroom environment, and even what could
potentially cause the reverse. Future success is often related to
satisfaction with a classroom experience. Therefore, it is conceivable
that a classroom environment could be effects by differences gender.
What helps one gender may not help the other, and vice versa.
This study seeks to determine how gender differences can affect
classroom experiences. In particular, it examines the relationship
between student gender and subsequent satisfaction with the instructor,
by accounting for the professor's gender. It is possible that
students will be more satisfied with instructors of their gender.
Additional attention is given to with regard to respect issues, or the
degree to which professors are respected by students. It is suggested
that students will favor male instructors. Age will also be considered
as a control variable.
Based on past literature, the following issues are addressed:
1. Do males experience courses differently than females?
2. When taking into account control issues, such as instructor age,
if the student wants to be attending college, and the students'
major, is student satisfaction affected?
3. Does gender identification (students and instructors having the
same gender) affect student satisfaction--are students more satisfied by
instructors of their gender?
4. Do classroom respect issues, such as knowing a professor's
tile and following classroom policies, and the manner in which a course
is presented by the instructor, affect student satisfaction?
The above issues are important because student satisfaction with
instruction can impact their learning. Improved student involvement and
satisfaction can lead to improved learning. Ultimately, gender
identification issues could also carry over into the workforce, and be
especially germane to new employee and manager training. "Sixty-one
million women directly influence the American workforce today; gay and
lesbian rights fill legislative proposals; and social conditions
constantly shift expectations and circumstances between the sexes"
(Florence and Fortson, p. 5).
This paper begins with a literature review regarding teaching
performance, satisfaction with teaching and the effects of gender on
perceptions of those variables. Basic hypotheses are offered. Next, the
design of this study will be described. The findings are then analyzed
and preliminary conclusions are drawn.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Evaluating teaching performance is difficult and subjective. More
often than not, students are responsible for the evaluation process,
which leaves much potential for debate regarding validity and
reliability. While many in academe have differing opinions about the
process and use of evaluations, most would not argue that it should be
abandoned. Even though reasons for evaluations include to improve
performance and evaluation for personnel decisions, the ultimate goal is
to guide students (Seldin, p.4-6). Perhaps it is the affect that
instructors have students that make the evaluations so important yet
controversial. Performance evaluations are necessary in all
organizations, not just academic, but it is in academic institutions
that the impact of the performance being evaluated can sometimes have
greater exponential effects.
Students in university settings have numerous and varied
expectations of professors. Although the traditional triad of
professorial duties includes teaching, research, and service, students
are often aware of only the teaching element. That is the part of a
professor's day which students see and constitutes the part that
most directly affects them. Today's economic climate has resulted
in financial difficulties for many, including those whose goal is to
achieve a college degree. Tuition costs are continuing to arise, and (by
and large) students' ability to pay those costs is being challenged
as never before. And with those rising costs of attending college come
rising expectations from the consumers of the service (i.e., students).
Students expect professors to have teaching expertise. They expect
teachers to possess superior communication skills and the ability to
artfully engage students in the learning process. Many today's
students have spent untold hours in front of computer screens,
television sets, and in movie theaters. Those situations are environment
in which participants take a primarily passive role, waiting for the
medium in which they are participating to engage them and draw them in
to the experience. To a great extent student expectations are similar
with regard to the education experience and its providers--teachers.
Student satisfaction with a class, and ultimately a university, is
impacted not only by success in the class, but also by relationships
with instructors.
At the same time, although effective teaching is acknowledged as
important, it is not an easy concept to measure--in fact, individuals
often differ as to whether or not they regard a particular teacher to be
a "good" educator. One may be reminded of the words of Supreme
Court Justice Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 US 184 (1964).
When discussing the difficulty of defining obscenity, he wrote that,
although he could "never succeed in intelligibly" defining it,
nevertheless concluded "But I know it when I see it." No
objective method for measuring teaching performance exists (Berk, p. 4).
Given this difficulty in measuring teaching, it is no surprise that few
issues in higher education spark as much heat as the evaluation of
faculty performance. Everyone in academe seems to have an opinion--often
biased by personal experiences--but few claim the necessary detachment
for an in-depth understanding of the subject (Seldin, p. vi).
Even in situations where consensus that a particular professor is
perceived to be a "good teacher," little agreement about why
that is the case may be discovered. Some have suggested that the grade
which students expect to receive in the class plays into student
evaluations of instructors (Marsh, p 30). Another possibility is that
student gender differences affect how they react to the classroom
environment, and therefore evaluations of professors (James, in press).
Student perceptions that a class is or is not difficult can also affect
perceptions of the teacher's effectiveness (Marsh, p. 27). A
student's interest, or lack thereof, in the course's subject
matter can also influence evaluations of the instructor. Course
satisfaction is a critical component in improving learning achievement
in the traditional classroom and the distance education environment
(Chang and Smith, p. 412).
As noted above, students' expectations, with regard to both
the grade expected and also course satisfaction, are important. The
maxim that posits "expecting success leads to success" may be
at least partially true.
In a recent study, the researchers discovered that if women were
not confounded by gender roles, their own expectations for success
changed. In the study, women formed study groups and felt more confident
about their place in mathematics courses. Overall, when this comfortable
environment was created, "Women could be themselves and not feel
oppressed by gender roles and expectations" (Steele, Levin,
Blecksmith, Shahverdian, p.31).
Even though women viewed themselves differently and more
confidently, preconceived notions of their families and friends were
more difficult to change. "The findings relating to friends and
families did have sobering implications. Families in particular saw
their successful daughters as either 'geniuses' or
aberrations. The underlying preconception that women are uncommon in
higher level mathematics remained undisturbed. They continually needed
to explain themselves to female and male peers, the major difference
being that with their explanations they grew in self-confidence. If
those who recognized the young women's abilities expressed their
pride by calling them 'geniuses,' those who did not understand
their work also alluded to their mental capacities, considering them
'crazy' or 'weird.' Such comments underscore the way
in which the public remains incapable of considering women's
success in mathematics as ordinary or normal" (Steele, et. al,
p.31).
Many studies have been undertaken to identify the effectiveness of
on-line learning. In that environment, the student becomes more
dependent on the instructor, as they do not have classmates and the
social environment of a classroom. Moore (2002) stated that social
interactions prompted by the instructor and prompt instructor feedback
were both linked to student satisfaction with the course. The most
significant contributor to perceived learning in these online courses
was the interaction between the instructor and the students. Students
reported that the higher level of interaction with the instructor or
classmates led to higher levels of learning in the course" (Chang
and Smith, p.409).
"Course satisfaction is a critical component in improving
learning achievement in the traditional classroom and the distance
education environment" (Chang and Smith, p.412).
Gender differences are apparent in the types and frequency of
on-line interactions in computer-mediated discussions. As these types of
discussion have become an integral part of teaching in colleges and
universities, as an opportunity emerges to promote a somewhat anonymous
form of discussion--without regard to gender, race, class, and other
socially constructed categories. Many educators believe this form of
communication might become an equalizer to those who feel as though they
have been "marginalized" by normal classroom settings (Fauske
and Wade, 2003-2004). Theoretically, all students can be heard or hold
the floor as long as they wish. Recent research indicates significant
differences among discussions of men and women. "... men's
postings tended to be lengthy and frequent, characterized by strong
assertions, authoritativeness, distancing, self-promotion, and in some
instances flaming--that is criticism, ridicule, and put-downs"
(Fauseke and Wade, p.138).
Gender cannot be changed; however, classroom environments can. As
such, it is conceivable, that with proper feedback, professors can
improve performance and ultimately improve the learning environment for
the students. "It is held that the feedback from a range of
evaluations can produce in a teacher the kind of dissonance or
dissatisfaction that sets the psychological stage for change"
(Seldin, p.4).
Based on this review of the literature, the following hypotheses
are offered:
Hypothesis 1: There are differences between student genders as to
how satisfied they will be with an instructor.
Hypothesis 2: Student and instructor gender as well as classroom
respect issues can impact student satisfaction levels with instructors.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The sample included 328 students from a mid-western university with
an annual enrollment of approximately 7,900. Surveys were administered
in the college of business, with 190 students (58.1%) reporting
themselves as business majors and 137 (41.9%) reporting themselves as
non-business majors. Ninety-two percent of the students reported that
they were of junior or senior status. The sample included 194 males
(59.1%) and 134 (40.9%) females.
The study sought to determine whether student or instructor gender
and classroom respect issues affected student satisfaction with
instructors. Two male and two female instructors gathered data. One male
and one female were approximately the same age, and the other male and
female instructors were approximately the same age. Approximately 10
years separated the ages of the sets of instructors. The younger
professors were both Assistant Professors, while the older professors
had attained the rank of University Professor. The older female
professor has won numerous "Teacher of the Year Awards". As
such, it was noted that her student evaluations could possibly skew the
results.
Variables for the study included student gender, instructor gender,
instructor age, whether or not the student was attending college because
they wanted to, student major, gender match of student and instructor,
the student's satisfaction with course presentation, whether the
student followed classroom policies regarding cell phone use, and
whether the student knew the instructor's title.
A reliability of scale analysis was run to determine if the survey
variables regarding satisfaction with the instructor--instructor
demeanor, instructor knowledge, instructor's control of the
classroom, and the instructor's encouragement of class
participation--could be combined. The Cronbach's Alpha coefficient
was .918. The Cronbach's Alpha coefficient's if items were
deleted were .879 for instructor demeanor, .881 for instructor
knowledge, .881 for instructor control of classroom, and .908 for
instructor's encouragement of participation. Since all were lower
than the combined, all remained in the study.
An independent sample t-test was initially run to determine if
there were significant changes of instructor satisfaction based on
student gender. Correlations were run to identify significant variables.
Then, the data file was split by student gender and correlations for the
data were obtained.
Hierarchical linear modeling was then used to determine the
combined variable effects on student satisfaction. Student satisfaction
was the dependent variable. Independent variables were presented in
three steps. The first step included the control variables of instructor
age, if the student was attending college because he or she wanted to,
and major (business or non-business). Step two introduced gender match
of instructor and student. Step three added the variables course
presentation, whether the student follows classroom policies regarding
cell phone use, and whether the student knows the professor's
professional title.
FINDINGS
Hypothesis 1: There are differences between student genders as to
how satisfied they are with an instructor.
An initial t-test was run to determine if gender had any
significance to student ratings of satisfaction with their instructors.
Both genders were on the high end of satisfaction scale. Standard
deviation for the males was .518, while standard deviation for the
females was .850.
The t-tests revealed significant differences at p<.05 level
(p=.007). Students had rated instructors on a scale of one to five, with
one being the highest rating for satisfaction. Male student satisfaction
had a mean of 1.33, while females had a mean of 1.55. Although a large
difference among means was not present the analysis indicated that the
difference was significant. Thus the first hypothesis was thus confirmed
with mild support.
CORRELATIONS
The combined gender data set produced the following correlation
matrix:
Significant variables to satisfaction with instructor were:
Of note, course presentation had the strongest relationship to
student satisfaction with instructors, with a Pearson coefficient of
.735. As noted, males constituted a larger portion of the sample
(59.1%). Consequently, the data set was then split and correlations
obtained to identify any differences among gender when correlated to
satisfaction with instructor. The correlation results include only
student satisfaction with instructor compared to the independent
variables.
Results of the male student correlations are as follows:
Correlations for female students indicated the following
significant variables correlated to satisfaction with instructor:
These correlations indicate that course presentation and instructor
gender were significant variables for both genders. Course presentation
had the strongest relationship to satisfaction with instructor. Both
genders reported higher satisfaction levels with female instructors;
however, female non-business majors were more satisfied than business
majors. This could be due to the fact that many non-business majors must
take business courses as curriculum requirements. The classes may have
exceeded their expectations. Other significant variables for females
included knowing the instructor's title and major. Females tended
not to know the instructor's title, though the correlation was
significant. Again, these findings indicate differences in the reactions
of male and female students to professors, as hypothesized.
Hypothesis 2: Student and instructor gender as well as classroom
respect issues can impact student satisfaction levels with instructors.
A regression model was built using satisfaction with the instructor
as the dependent variable and the independent variables of instructor
age, students desire to attend college, major, gender match of
instructor and student, course presentation, if the student follows cell
phone policies, and if the student knows the title proper professional
title of the instructor.
Hierarchical linear modeling was used to determine the combined
variable effects on student satisfaction. Independent variables were
presented in three steps. The first step included the control variables
of instructor age, if the student was attending college because he or
she wanted to, and major (business or non-business). Step two introduced
gender identification (if student and instructor genders were the same).
Then, step three added variables course presentation, whether the
student follows classroom policies regarding cell phone use, and whether
the student knows the professor's professional title.
Control Variables
Male satisfaction levels with their instructors were not impacted
by the control variables of major, instructor age, and if they wanted to
be in college or not. For females, these same variables were significant
and explained 23% of the variance is satisfaction with the course. This
suggests support for the first hypothesis, that males and females
experience the classroom in different ways.
Gender Match
As shown, it was not a match of gender that predicted satisfaction
with the course. Males tended to be more satisfied with female
instructors. Females also preferred female professors. The popularity of
the one female professor in part explains this finding.
Classroom Respect Issues
For both genders, classroom respect issues had a major impact on
the amount of explained variance in satisfaction with the course and
professor. Classroom respect issues had the largest impact on explained
variance for both males and females.
CONCLUSIONS
The overriding conclusion of this study is that while gender does
affect the classroom experience, instructors and the environment they
create ultimately impact learning the most. Course presentation is
something instructor's can control--gender is not. Gender matching
is more relevant to females than males, but both male and female
students are more influenced by classroom environment and respect
issues. Instructor age was also more important to females, with younger
professors tending to be given rated with higher satisfaction levels.
As a result, the findings suggest that professors are advised to
set clear expectations in the classroom with regard to both course
content and courtesy issues such as insisting students refrain from
using a cell phone or texting during class time. Any penalties for
violation of these policies should be routinely enforced.
The raw data for this research indicated that students were far
more likely to know the title of a male professor. In simple terms,
students knew that both the older and younger male professors were
Ph.D.s and were to be addressed as "Doctor." Both the older
and younger female professors did not enjoy the same level of respect.
Students were inclined to refer to one as "Mrs." and the other
by a nickname, even though both held the title of Doctor (one was a
Ph.D. the other a JDD).
This implies that previous stereotypes and assumptions associated
with gender may continue to exist. Consequently, it might be in the
interests of a female professor to regularly point out her title,
especially early in the semester. Conveying the sense of authority
implied by a title such as Doctor encourages respect and may result in
improved student decorum in the classroom and subsequent satisfaction
with the course.
The limitations of this study include the small number of
professors, even as the number of students in the sample was fairly
large. The individual personalities and reputations of the various
faculty members may have had some impact on the results.
For the future, additional efforts can be made to study how gender
affects the classroom experience. In schools of business, such as the
one in which this study was conducted, the ultimate goal goes beyond
transmitting information to students. Expectations and re-socialization
to effective work with either a male or female supervisor may be
impacted by the classroom experience. As the culture moves to a more
egalitarian structure, the hope would be that the effects of gender and
gender match would continue to diminish.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Martin (1992). Imposters in the Temple. Simon &
Schuster, New York, NY.
Berk, Ronald A. (2006). Thirteen Strategies to Measure College
Teaching: a Consumer's Guide to Rating Scale Construction,
Assessment, and Decision Making for Faculty, Administrators, and
Clinicians, First Edition, Stylus Publishing, Richmond Virginia.
Caston, Janis J. "The Learning Experience: Impact on Measures
of Institutional Effectiveness," paper presented to
"Leadership 2000," The Annual International conference of the
League of Innovation in the Community College and the Community College
Leadership Program, July 17, 1994.
Chang, Shu-Hui Hsieh and Smith, Roger A., "Effectiveness of
Personal Interaction in a Learner -Centered Paradigm Distance Education
Class Based on Student Satisfaction," Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 40(4), 407-426.
Farley, Jennie (1982). Academic Women and Employment
Discrimination: A Critical Annotated Bibliography, Cornell University,
New York.
Fauske, Janice, and Wade, Suzanne E. "Research to Practice
Online: Conditions that Foster Democracy, Community, and Critical
Thinking in Computer-Mediated Discussions," Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, Winter 2003-2004, Volume 36, Number 2.
Florence, Mari, and Fortson, Ed (2001). Sex at Work, Silver Lake
Publishing, Los Angeles, California.
Friedman, Lawrence M. (1999). The Horizontal Society, Yale
University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Lakoff, Robin. (1975). Language and Woman's Place. Harper
& Row Publishers, New York, NY.
Marsh, Shelly Jo. (2000). The Impact of Gender on Instructor
Evaluations: A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science,
Pittsburg State University, Pittsburg, Kansas.
Norfleet James, Abigail. "Gender Differences and the Teaching
of Mathematics," Inquiry, Volume 12, Number 1 Spring 2007, 14-25.
Peter, Katharin, Horn, Laura, and Carroll, C. Dennis. "Gender
Differences in Participation and Completion of Undergraduate Education
and How They Have Changed Over Time," Postsecondary Education
Descriptive Analysis Reports, National Center for Education Statistics,
February 2005.
Seldin, Peter (1980). Successful Faculty Evaluation Programs: A
Practical Guide to Improve Faculty Performance and Promotion/Tenure
Decisions, Coventry Press, Crugers, New York.
Steele, Diana F., Levin, Amy K., Blecksmith, Richard, Shahversdian,
Jill, "Women in calculus: The effects of a supportive
setting," Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(1), Fall
2008.
Kristen M. Maceli, Pittsburg State University
Christine E. Fogliasso, Pittsburg State University
Donald Baack, Pittsburg State University
Pearson Satisfac Student Instructor
correlation, with Gender age
Sig. * p <.05 instructor
Satisfaction 1 .161 .274
with .003 * .000 *
instructor
Student .161 1 .114
gender .003 * .040 *
Instructor .274 .114 1
age .000 * .040 * 1
Want to be -.009 -.138 -.019
at college .870 .013 * .735
Major .116 -0.128 0.121
.036 * .021 * .029 *
Gender .028 -0.324 0.055
match to .617 .000 * 0.323
instructor
Course .735 .064 .325
presentation .000 * .249 .000 *
Follow cell .050 -0.046 0.065
phone .367 0.407 0.24
policies
Know .149 0.053 0.295
instructor .007 * 0.335 .000 *
title
Pearson Want Major Gender
correlation, to be at match to
Sig. * p <.05 college instructor
Satisfaction -.009 .116 .028
with .870 .036 * .617
instructor
Student -.138 -.128 -.324
gender .013 * .021 * .000 *
Instructor -.019 .121 .055
age .735 .029 .323
Want to be 1 -.127 -.047
at college .021 * .399
Major -.127 1 .107
.021 * .053
Gender -.047 .107 1
match to .399 .053
instructor
Course .056 .147 .016
presentation .316 .008 * .779
Follow cell -.004 .169 .041
phone .937 .002 * .455
policies
Know -.072 .211 .045
instructor .192 .000 * .418
title
Pearson Course Follow Know
correlation, presenta- cell instructor
Sig. * p <.05 tion phone title
policies
Satisfaction .735 .050 .149
with .000 * .367 .007 *
instructor
Student .064 -.046 .053
gender .249 .407 .335
Instructor .325 .065 .295
age .000 * .240 .000 *
Want to be .056 -.004 -.072
at college .316 .937 .192
Major .147 .169 .211
.008 * .002 * .000 *
Gender .016 .041 .045
match to .779 .455 .418
instructor
Course 1 .029 .144
presentation .602 .009 *
Follow cell .029 1 .112
phone .602 .042 *
policies
Know .144 .112 1
instructor .009 * .042 *
titleTable 1. Significant variables to student satisfaction with instructor
Satisfaction with instructor Pearson coefficient p value (p < .05)
correlated to:
Student gender .161 .003
Instructor gender .274 .000
Major .116 .036
Course presentation .735 .000
Know instructor's title .149 .007
Table 2. Male student significant correlations
Satisfaction with instructor Pearson coefficient p value (p < .05)
correlated to:
Course presentation .647 .000
Instructor gender -.458 .000
Gender match with instructor -.458 .000
Table 3. Female student significant correlations
Satisfaction with instructor Pearson coefficient p value p < .05
correlated to:
Course presentation .817 .000
Know instructor's title .318 .000
Major (Business/non-business .246 .004
major)
Instructor gender -.554 .000
Gender match with instructor -.554 .000
Instructor age .467 .000
Table 4.
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Student Satisfaction with Instructors
Variables Sig. F Change R Square
MALES -Major
Step 1 -Instructor age .272 1.313 .020
-Wanted to be in college
Step 2 Gender match .000 * 14.295 .233
Step 3 -Follow cell phone policies
-Know instructor title .000 * 26.478 .500
-Course presentation
FEMALES -Major
Step 1 -Instructor age .000 * 13.389 .236
-Wanted to be in college
Step 2 Gender match .000 * 32.011 .498
Step 3 -Follow cell phone policies
-Know instructor title .000 * 55.734 .756
-Course presentation
Variables R Square Significant
change F Change
MALES -Major
Step 1 -Instructor age .020 .272
-Wanted to be in college
Step 2 Gender match .213 .000 *
Step 3 -Follow cell phone policies
-Know instructor title .267 .000 *
-Course presentation
FEMALES -Major
Step 1 -Instructor age .236 .000 *
-Wanted to be in college
Step 2 Gender match .262 .000 *
Step 3 -Follow cell phone policies
-Know instructor title .258 .000 *
-Course presentation