University Blues: Role of Attachment and Distress on Students’ Evaluations of Instructors’ Teaching Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite concerns about bias, student evaluations of teaching continue to be significant to faculty career advancement in academia. In a recent study, attachment representations were shown to be associated with students’ perceptions of instructors (Henson & Scharfe, 2011); students with insecure-anxious representations were more likely to rate their professors negatively. These data, however, were cross-sectional, and the role of distress in this association was not examined. To examine the influence of anxiety and depressive symptoms on the association between attachment representations and evaluations of instructors’ teaching performance, 102 undergraduate students (91% female, 17–38 years old) completed questionnaires at two time points during the semester. Interestingly, both attachment anxiety and avoidance measured at the beginning of the semester were negatively associated with teaching evaluations at the end of the semester, and this effect was stronger for participants who reported high anxiety and depressive symptoms. The findings are consistent with previous work exploring the perception of others of depressed and non-depressed individuals, and provides some support for Bowlby's original proposals concerning the importance of distress in understanding the effects of attachment. Strategies to support students’ transition to post-secondary education and to promote positive teaching evaluations 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".