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

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Sep 1;24(3):ar35.
doi: 10.1187/cbe.24-07-0193.

Replication of an Intervention to Mitigate Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching Yields Variable Results Across a Biology Department

Lisa D Mitchem  1 , Rachel L Rupnow  2 , Collin P Jaeger  3 , Marissa N Pezdek  1 , Brenda K Anak Ganeng  4 , Karen E Samonds  1 , Heather E Bergan-Roller  1
Affiliations

Replication of an Intervention to Mitigate Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching Yields Variable Results Across a Biology Department

Lisa D Mitchem et al. CBE Life Sci Educ. .

Abstract

Student evaluations of teaching (SET) have repeatedly been shown to be biased against women instructors. Although few have been able to mitigate these biases, one team reported success in two courses by adding a short AntiBias statement to the beginning of SETs. We conducted a conceptual replication of that study to investigate the effectiveness of the AntiBias statement across a Department of Biological Sciences over three semesters. The AntiBias treatment inconsistently affected the SETs, sometimes improving women's scores but often not having any effect. Qualitative analysis showed that the types of comments students gave were mostly not affected by the conditions of treatment or instructor gender and were most frequently framed in positive connotation, implicitly about the instructor, and about course characteristics such as the logistics of the course. Our findings do not support the consistent replicability of the original work scaled to the department level yet shine an important light on SETs in the biology context. Moreover, this work suggests that a simple intervention to mitigate gender bias in teaching evaluations is not sufficient to remedy the multitude of issues with SETs. We discuss differences among studies and suggestions from the literature on ways to improve the evaluation of teaching.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no financial conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
Overall averages of SETs separated by treatment, instructor gender, and semester. For each condition, plots show the mean ± one SE (black) with individual data points in faded yellow (Original statement) and green (AntiBias statement). Letters denote statistically significant differences among conditions.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.
Average student responses to questions explicitly about their instructor separated by treatment, instructor gender, and semester. For each condition, plots show the mean ± one SE (black) with individual data points in faded yellow (Original statement) and green (AntiBias statement). Letters denote statistically significant differences among conditions.
FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 3.
Student responses to “My overall rating of the instructor is…” separated by treatment (Original statement in yellow, AntiBias statement in green), instructor gender, and semester. Letters denote statistically significant differences between instructor gender.
FIGURE 4.
FIGURE 4.
Student responses to “My overall rating of the course is…” separated by treatment (Original statement in yellow, AntiBias statement in green), instructor gender, and semester. Letters denote statistically significant differences between instructor gender.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Adams, S., Bekker, S., Fan, Y., Gordon, T., Shepherd, L. J., Slavich, E., & Waters, D. (2022). Gender bias in student evaluations of teaching: Punish[ing] Those who fail to do their gender right. Higher Education, 83(4), 787–807. 10.1007/S10734-021-00704-9/METRICS - DOI
    1. Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. 10.3102/0013189X031007028 - DOI
    1. Aragón, O. R., Pietri, E. S., & Powell, B. A. (2023). Gender bias in teaching evaluations: The causal role of department gender composition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120(4), e2118466120. 10.1073/PNAS.2118466120/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.2118466120.SAPP.PDF - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arbuckle, J., & Williams, B. D. (2003). Students’ perceptions of expressiveness: Age and gender effects on teacher evaluations. Sex Roles, 49(9–10), 507–516. 10.1023/A:1025832707002/METRICS - DOI
    1. Artze-Vega, I., Darby, F., Dewsbury, B., & Imad, M. (2023). The norton guide to equity-minded teaching. W.W. Norton. Retrieved from https://seagull.wwnorton.com/equityguide

LinkOut - more resources