学生评教中的性别偏见还是海市蜃楼?

B. Uttl, V. Violo
{"title":"学生评教中的性别偏见还是海市蜃楼?","authors":"B. Uttl, V. Violo","doi":"10.14293/s2199-1006.1.sor-.ppfxxc8.v1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a recent small sample study, Khazan et al. (2020) examined SET ratings received by one female teaching (TA) assistant who assisted with teaching two sections of the same online course, one section under her true gender and one section under false/opposite gender. Khazan et al. concluded that their study demonstrated gender bias against female TA even though they found no statistical difference in SET ratings between male vs. female TA (\n p = .73). To claim gender bias, Khazan et al. ignored their overall findings and focused on distribution of six negative SET ratings and claimed, without reporting any statistical test results, that (a) female students gave more positive ratings to male TA than female TA, (b) female TA received five times as many negative ratings than the male TA, and (c) female students gave most low scores to female TA. We conducted the missing statistical tests and found no evidence supporting Khazan et al.s claims. We also requested Khazan et al.s data to formally examine them for outliers and to re-analyze the data with and without the outliers. Khazan et al. refused. We read off the data from their Figure 1 and filled in several values using the brute force, exhaustive search constrained by the summary statistics reported by Khazan et al.. Our re-analysis revealed six outliers and no evidence of gender bias. In fact, when the six outliers were removed, the female TA was rated higher than male TA but non-significantly so.","PeriodicalId":91169,"journal":{"name":"ScienceOpen research","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender bias in student evaluation of teaching or a mirage?\",\"authors\":\"B. Uttl, V. Violo\",\"doi\":\"10.14293/s2199-1006.1.sor-.ppfxxc8.v1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a recent small sample study, Khazan et al. (2020) examined SET ratings received by one female teaching (TA) assistant who assisted with teaching two sections of the same online course, one section under her true gender and one section under false/opposite gender. Khazan et al. concluded that their study demonstrated gender bias against female TA even though they found no statistical difference in SET ratings between male vs. female TA (\\n p = .73). To claim gender bias, Khazan et al. ignored their overall findings and focused on distribution of six negative SET ratings and claimed, without reporting any statistical test results, that (a) female students gave more positive ratings to male TA than female TA, (b) female TA received five times as many negative ratings than the male TA, and (c) female students gave most low scores to female TA. We conducted the missing statistical tests and found no evidence supporting Khazan et al.s claims. We also requested Khazan et al.s data to formally examine them for outliers and to re-analyze the data with and without the outliers. Khazan et al. refused. We read off the data from their Figure 1 and filled in several values using the brute force, exhaustive search constrained by the summary statistics reported by Khazan et al.. Our re-analysis revealed six outliers and no evidence of gender bias. In fact, when the six outliers were removed, the female TA was rated higher than male TA but non-significantly so.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91169,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ScienceOpen research\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ScienceOpen research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14293/s2199-1006.1.sor-.ppfxxc8.v1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ScienceOpen research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14293/s2199-1006.1.sor-.ppfxxc8.v1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在最近的一项小样本研究中,Khazan等人(2020)检查了一名女性教学(TA)助理收到的SET评分,她协助教授同一在线课程的两个部分,一个部分是她的真实性别,另一个部分是假/异性。Khazan等人得出结论,他们的研究显示了对女性助教的性别偏见,尽管他们发现男性和女性助教在SET评分上没有统计学差异(p = .73)。为了声称存在性别偏见,Khazan等人忽略了他们的总体发现,只关注六种负面SET评分的分布,并在没有报告任何统计测试结果的情况下声称(a)女学生给男助教的正面评分多于女助教,(b)女助教得到的负面评分是男助教的五倍,(c)女学生给女助教的分数最低。我们进行了缺失的统计测试,发现没有证据支持Khazan等人的说法。我们还要求Khazan等人的数据正式检查异常值,并重新分析有和没有异常值的数据。Khazan等人拒绝了。我们从他们的图1中读取数据,并使用蛮力填充几个值,这是由Khazan等人报告的汇总统计数据约束的详尽搜索。我们的重新分析发现了6个异常值,没有性别偏见的证据。事实上,当6个异常值被移除时,女性TA的评分高于男性TA,但不显著。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gender bias in student evaluation of teaching or a mirage?
In a recent small sample study, Khazan et al. (2020) examined SET ratings received by one female teaching (TA) assistant who assisted with teaching two sections of the same online course, one section under her true gender and one section under false/opposite gender. Khazan et al. concluded that their study demonstrated gender bias against female TA even though they found no statistical difference in SET ratings between male vs. female TA ( p = .73). To claim gender bias, Khazan et al. ignored their overall findings and focused on distribution of six negative SET ratings and claimed, without reporting any statistical test results, that (a) female students gave more positive ratings to male TA than female TA, (b) female TA received five times as many negative ratings than the male TA, and (c) female students gave most low scores to female TA. We conducted the missing statistical tests and found no evidence supporting Khazan et al.s claims. We also requested Khazan et al.s data to formally examine them for outliers and to re-analyze the data with and without the outliers. Khazan et al. refused. We read off the data from their Figure 1 and filled in several values using the brute force, exhaustive search constrained by the summary statistics reported by Khazan et al.. Our re-analysis revealed six outliers and no evidence of gender bias. In fact, when the six outliers were removed, the female TA was rated higher than male TA but non-significantly so.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
1 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信