Student Evaluations of College Professors: Identifying Sources of Bias
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have found that students' evaluations of their professors' teaching ability may be affected by such factors as students' expectations and gender stereotypes. The present study examined how students' evaluation of faculty may be affected by student's gender, professor's gender, discipline, and a variety of demographic and social variables. Undergraduate students (N = 910) evaluated one of their professors on sensitivity to students' needs, quality of teaching, course structure, and treatment of designated group members (e.g., visible minorities). Results showed that female students rated their professor higher on sensitivity to students' needs and treatment of designated groups than male students. Science students rated their professor lower on teaching quality and treatment of designated groups than either Social Science or Fine Arts/Humanities students. In addition, students' ratings correlated with how often a professor met with students outside of class, when the class was scheduled, and class size. The implications for using student evaluations to accurately assess professors' teaching ability are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it