Differences of students' satisfaction with college professors: the impact of student gender on satisfaction.

Differences of students' satisfaction with college professors: the impact of student gender on satisfaction. INTRODUCTION Students in university settings have many varied expectations ofprofessors. At the very least, they expect for them to be competent inan area of expertise and that the will provide engaging and helpfulexperience 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 arepart of the workforce. In academics, however, male professors greatlyoutnumber female professors. "The number of professors per 10,000adults in the United States--what we might call the academicintellectual ratio--has increased dramatically in this century... By andlarge this dramatic growth in the number and proportion of academicintellectuals has been a male phenomenon. Male professors haveoutnumbered female professors by about three to one since the turn ofthe century" (Anderson, p.35). Gender affects the ways in which students learn as well as theirneeds in the classroom environment (James, In press). In general femalestend to be more verbal, while males respond more to visual stimulation.Females seem to have a keener sense of reading body language, whilemales have more of a need for activity (James, In press). Females havetraditionally been expected to speak in ways different than males, more"lady-like" (Lakoff, 1975). As such, a female instructor mayhave preconceived notions of how she should sound and act; this could beaffected by her age, as societal expectations have changed. Her studentsmay have expectations as well. A male instructor may not feel these sameconstraints. These factors could contribute to how an instructorpresents information, and ultimately, how it is received. Further, gender differences could affect how students potentiallylearn and thrive in a classroom environment, and even what couldpotentially cause the reverse. Future success is often related tosatisfaction with a classroom experience. Therefore, it is conceivablethat 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 affectclassroom experiences. In particular, it examines the relationshipbetween student gender and subsequent satisfaction with the instructor,by accounting for the professor's gender. It is possible thatstudents will be more satisfied with instructors of their gender.Additional attention is given to with regard to respect issues, or thedegree to which professors are respected by students. It is suggestedthat students will favor male instructors. Age will also be consideredas 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 thesame gender) affect student satisfaction--are students more satisfied byinstructors of their gender? 4. Do classroom respect issues, such as knowing a professor'stile and following classroom policies, and the manner in which a courseis presented by the instructor, affect student satisfaction? The above issues are important because student satisfaction withinstruction can impact their learning. Improved student involvement andsatisfaction can lead to improved learning. Ultimately, genderidentification issues could also carry over into the workforce, and beespecially germane to new employee and manager training. "Sixty-onemillion women directly influence the American workforce today; gay andlesbian rights fill legislative proposals; and social conditionsconstantly shift expectations and circumstances between the sexes"(Florence and Fortson, p. 5). This paper begins with a literature review regarding teachingperformance, satisfaction with teaching and the effects of gender onperceptions of those variables. Basic hypotheses are offered. Next, thedesign of this study will be described. The findings are then analyzedand preliminary conclusions are drawn. LITERATURE REVIEW Evaluating teaching performance is difficult and subjective. Moreoften than not, students are responsible for the evaluation process,which leaves much potential for debate regarding validity andreliability. While many in academe have differing opinions about theprocess and use of evaluations, most would not argue that it should beabandoned. Even though reasons for evaluations include to improveperformance and evaluation for personnel decisions, the ultimate goal isto guide students (Seldin, p.4-6). Perhaps it is the affect thatinstructors have students that make the evaluations so important yetcontroversial. Performance evaluations are necessary in allorganizations, not just academic, but it is in academic institutionsthat the impact of the performance being evaluated can sometimes havegreater exponential effects. Students in university settings have numerous and variedexpectations of professors. Although the traditional triad ofprofessorial duties includes teaching, research, and service, studentsare often aware of only the teaching element. That is the part of aprofessor's day which students see and constitutes the part thatmost directly affects them. Today's economic climate has resultedin financial difficulties for many, including those whose goal is toachieve a college degree. Tuition costs are continuing to arise, and (byand large) students' ability to pay those costs is being challengedas never before. And with those rising costs of attending college comerising expectations from the consumers of the service (i.e., students). Students expect professors to have teaching expertise. They expectteachers to possess superior communication skills and the ability toartfully engage students in the learning process. Many today'sstudents have spent untold hours in front of computer screens,television sets, and in movie theaters. Those situations are environmentin which participants take a primarily passive role, waiting for themedium in which they are participating to engage them and draw them into the experience. To a great extent student expectations are similarwith regard to the education experience and its providers--teachers.Student satisfaction with a class, and ultimately a university, isimpacted not only by success in the class, but also by relationshipswith instructors. At the same time, although effective teaching is acknowledged asimportant, it is not an easy concept to measure--in fact, individualsoften differ as to whether or not they regard a particular teacher to bea "good" educator. One may be reminded of the words of SupremeCourt 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." Noobjective method for measuring teaching performance exists (Berk, p. 4).Given this difficulty in measuring teaching, it is no surprise that fewissues in higher education spark as much heat as the evaluation offaculty performance. Everyone in academe seems to have an opinion--oftenbiased by personal experiences--but few claim the necessary detachmentfor an in-depth understanding of the subject (Seldin, p. vi). Even in situations where consensus that a particular professor isperceived to be a "good teacher," little agreement about whythat is the case may be discovered. Some have suggested that the gradewhich students expect to receive in the class plays into studentevaluations of instructors (Marsh, p 30). Another possibility is thatstudent gender differences affect how they react to the classroomenvironment, and therefore evaluations of professors (James, in press).Student perceptions that a class is or is not difficult can also affectperceptions of the teacher's effectiveness (Marsh, p. 27). Astudent's interest, or lack thereof, in the course's subjectmatter can also influence evaluations of the instructor. Coursesatisfaction is a critical component in improving learning achievementin the traditional classroom and the distance education environment(Chang and Smith, p. 412). As noted above, students' expectations, with regard to boththe grade expected and also course satisfaction, are important. Themaxim that posits "expecting success leads to success" may beat least partially true. In a recent study, the researchers discovered that if women werenot confounded by gender roles, their own expectations for successchanged. In the study, women formed study groups and felt more confidentabout their place in mathematics courses. Overall, when this comfortableenvironment was created, "Women could be themselves and not feeloppressed by gender roles and expectations" (Steele, Levin,Blecksmith, Shahverdian, p.31). Even though women viewed themselves differently and moreconfidently, preconceived notions of their families and friends weremore difficult to change. "The findings relating to friends andfamilies did have sobering implications. Families in particular sawtheir successful daughters as either 'geniuses' oraberrations. The underlying preconception that women are uncommon inhigher level mathematics remained undisturbed. They continually neededto explain themselves to female and male peers, the major differencebeing that with their explanations they grew in self-confidence. Ifthose who recognized the young women's abilities expressed theirpride by calling them 'geniuses,' those who did not understandtheir work also alluded to their mental capacities, considering them'crazy' or 'weird.' Such comments underscore the wayin which the public remains incapable of considering women'ssuccess in mathematics as ordinary or normal" (Steele, et. al,p.31). Many studies have been undertaken to identify the effectiveness ofon-line learning. In that environment, the student becomes moredependent on the instructor, as they do not have classmates and thesocial environment of a classroom. Moore (2002) stated that socialinteractions prompted by the instructor and prompt instructor feedbackwere both linked to student satisfaction with the course. The mostsignificant contributor to perceived learning in these online courseswas the interaction between the instructor and the students. Studentsreported that the higher level of interaction with the instructor orclassmates led to higher levels of learning in the course" (Changand Smith, p.409). "Course satisfaction is a critical component in improvinglearning achievement in the traditional classroom and the distanceeducation environment" (Chang and Smith, p.412). Gender differences are apparent in the types and frequency ofon-line interactions in computer-mediated discussions. As these types ofdiscussion have become an integral part of teaching in colleges anduniversities, as an opportunity emerges to promote a somewhat anonymousform of discussion--without regard to gender, race, class, and othersocially constructed categories. Many educators believe this form ofcommunication might become an equalizer to those who feel as though theyhave been "marginalized" by normal classroom settings (Fauskeand Wade, 2003-2004). Theoretically, all students can be heard or holdthe floor as long as they wish. Recent research indicates significantdifferences among discussions of men and women. "... men'spostings tended to be lengthy and frequent, characterized by strongassertions, authoritativeness, distancing, self-promotion, and in someinstances flaming--that is criticism, ridicule, and put-downs"(Fauseke and Wade, p.138). Gender cannot be changed; however, classroom environments can. Assuch, it is conceivable, that with proper feedback, professors canimprove performance and ultimately improve the learning environment forthe students. "It is held that the feedback from a range ofevaluations can produce in a teacher the kind of dissonance ordissatisfaction that sets the psychological stage for change"(Seldin, p.4). Based on this review of the literature, the following hypothesesare offered: Hypothesis 1: There are differences between student genders as tohow satisfied they will be with an instructor. Hypothesis 2: Student and instructor gender as well as classroomrespect issues can impact student satisfaction levels with instructors. RESEARCH DESIGN The sample included 328 students from a mid-western university withan annual enrollment of approximately 7,900. Surveys were administeredin the college of business, with 190 students (58.1%) reportingthemselves as business majors and 137 (41.9%) reporting themselves asnon-business majors. Ninety-two percent of the students reported thatthey 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 genderand classroom respect issues affected student satisfaction withinstructors. Two male and two female instructors gathered data. One maleand one female were approximately the same age, and the other male andfemale instructors were approximately the same age. Approximately 10years separated the ages of the sets of instructors. The youngerprofessors were both Assistant Professors, while the older professorshad attained the rank of University Professor. The older femaleprofessor has won numerous "Teacher of the Year Awards". Assuch, it was noted that her student evaluations could possibly skew theresults. Variables for the study included student gender, instructor gender,instructor age, whether or not the student was attending college becausethey wanted to, student major, gender match of student and instructor,the student's satisfaction with course presentation, whether thestudent followed classroom policies regarding cell phone use, andwhether the student knew the instructor's title. A reliability of scale analysis was run to determine if the surveyvariables regarding satisfaction with the instructor--instructordemeanor, instructor knowledge, instructor's control of theclassroom, and the instructor's encouragement of classparticipation--could be combined. The Cronbach's Alpha coefficientwas .918. The Cronbach's Alpha coefficient's if items weredeleted were .879 for instructor demeanor, .881 for instructorknowledge, .881 for instructor control of classroom, and .908 forinstructor's encouragement of participation. Since all were lowerthan the combined, all remained in the study. An independent sample t-test was initially run to determine ifthere were significant changes of instructor satisfaction based onstudent gender. Correlations were run to identify significant variables.Then, the data file was split by student gender and correlations for thedata were obtained. Hierarchical linear modeling was then used to determine thecombined variable effects on student satisfaction. Student satisfactionwas the dependent variable. Independent variables were presented inthree steps. The first step included the control variables of instructorage, if the student was attending college because he or she wanted to,and major (business or non-business). Step two introduced gender matchof instructor and student. Step three added the variables coursepresentation, whether the student follows classroom policies regardingcell phone use, and whether the student knows the professor'sprofessional title. FINDINGS Hypothesis 1: There are differences between student genders as tohow satisfied they are with an instructor. An initial t-test was run to determine if gender had anysignificance to student ratings of satisfaction with their instructors.Both genders were on the high end of satisfaction scale. Standarddeviation for the males was .518, while standard deviation for thefemales 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, withone being the highest rating for satisfaction. Male student satisfactionhad a mean of 1.33, while females had a mean of 1.55. Although a largedifference among means was not present the analysis indicated that thedifference was significant. Thus the first hypothesis was thus confirmedwith mild support. CORRELATIONS The combined gender data set produced the following correlationmatrix:Pearson Satisfac Student Instructorcorrelation, with Gender ageSig. * p <.05 instructorSatisfaction 1 .161 .274with .003 * .000 *instructorStudent .161 1 .114gender .003 * .040 *Instructor .274 .114 1age .000 * .040 * 1Want to be -.009 -.138 -.019at college .870 .013 * .735Major .116 -0.128 0.121 .036 * .021 * .029 *Gender .028 -0.324 0.055match to .617 .000 * 0.323instructorCourse .735 .064 .325presentation .000 * .249 .000 *Follow cell .050 -0.046 0.065phone .367 0.407 0.24policiesKnow .149 0.053 0.295instructor .007 * 0.335 .000 *titlePearson Want Major Gendercorrelation, to be at match toSig. * p <.05 college instructorSatisfaction -.009 .116 .028with .870 .036 * .617instructorStudent -.138 -.128 -.324gender .013 * .021 * .000 *Instructor -.019 .121 .055age .735 .029 .323Want to be 1 -.127 -.047at college .021 * .399Major -.127 1 .107 .021 * .053Gender -.047 .107 1match to .399 .053instructorCourse .056 .147 .016presentation .316 .008 * .779Follow cell -.004 .169 .041phone .937 .002 * .455policiesKnow -.072 .211 .045instructor .192 .000 * .418titlePearson Course Follow Knowcorrelation, presenta- cell instructorSig. * p <.05 tion phone title policiesSatisfaction .735 .050 .149with .000 * .367 .007 *instructorStudent .064 -.046 .053gender .249 .407 .335Instructor .325 .065 .295age .000 * .240 .000 *Want to be .056 -.004 -.072at college .316 .937 .192Major .147 .169 .211 .008 * .002 * .000 *Gender .016 .041 .045match to .779 .455 .418instructorCourse 1 .029 .144presentation .602 .009 *Follow cell .029 1 .112phone .602 .042 *policiesKnow .144 .112 1instructor .009 * .042 *title Significant variables to satisfaction with instructor were:Table 1. Significant variables to student satisfaction with instructorSatisfaction with instructor Pearson coefficient p value (p < .05)correlated to:Student gender .161 .003Instructor gender .274 .000Major .116 .036Course presentation .735 .000Know instructor's title .149 .007 Of note, course presentation had the strongest relationship tostudent 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 correlationsobtained to identify any differences among gender when correlated tosatisfaction with instructor. The correlation results include onlystudent satisfaction with instructor compared to the independentvariables. Results of the male student correlations are as follows:Table 2. Male student significant correlationsSatisfaction with instructor Pearson coefficient p value (p < .05)correlated to:Course presentation .647 .000Instructor gender -.458 .000Gender match with instructor -.458 .000 Correlations for female students indicated the followingsignificant variables correlated to satisfaction with instructor:Table 3. Female student significant correlationsSatisfaction with instructor Pearson coefficient p value p < .05correlated to:Course presentation .817 .000Know instructor's title .318 .000Major (Business/non-business .246 .004 major)Instructor gender -.554 .000Gender match with instructor -.554 .000Instructor age .467 .000 These correlations indicate that course presentation and instructorgender were significant variables for both genders. Course presentationhad the strongest relationship to satisfaction with instructor. Bothgenders reported higher satisfaction levels with female instructors;however, female non-business majors were more satisfied than businessmajors. This could be due to the fact that many non-business majors musttake business courses as curriculum requirements. The classes may haveexceeded their expectations. Other significant variables for femalesincluded knowing the instructor's title and major. Females tendednot to know the instructor's title, though the correlation wassignificant. Again, these findings indicate differences in the reactionsof male and female students to professors, as hypothesized. Hypothesis 2: Student and instructor gender as well as classroomrespect issues can impact student satisfaction levels with instructors. A regression model was built using satisfaction with the instructoras the dependent variable and the independent variables of instructorage, students desire to attend college, major, gender match ofinstructor and student, course presentation, if the student follows cellphone policies, and if the student knows the title proper professionaltitle of the instructor. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to determine the combinedvariable effects on student satisfaction. Independent variables werepresented in three steps. The first step included the control variablesof instructor age, if the student was attending college because he orshe wanted to, and major (business or non-business). Step two introducedgender identification (if student and instructor genders were the same).Then, step three added variables course presentation, whether thestudent follows classroom policies regarding cell phone use, and whetherthe student knows the professor's professional title. Control Variables Male satisfaction levels with their instructors were not impactedby the control variables of major, instructor age, and if they wanted tobe in college or not. For females, these same variables were significantand explained 23% of the variance is satisfaction with the course. Thissuggests support for the first hypothesis, that males and femalesexperience the classroom in different ways. Gender Match As shown, it was not a match of gender that predicted satisfactionwith the course. Males tended to be more satisfied with femaleinstructors. Females also preferred female professors. The popularity ofthe one female professor in part explains this finding. Classroom Respect Issues For both genders, classroom respect issues had a major impact onthe amount of explained variance in satisfaction with the course andprofessor. Classroom respect issues had the largest impact on explainedvariance for both males and females. CONCLUSIONS The overriding conclusion of this study is that while gender doesaffect the classroom experience, instructors and the environment theycreate ultimately impact learning the most. Course presentation issomething instructor's can control--gender is not. Gender matchingis more relevant to females than males, but both male and femalestudents are more influenced by classroom environment and respectissues. Instructor age was also more important to females, with youngerprofessors tending to be given rated with higher satisfaction levels. As a result, the findings suggest that professors are advised toset clear expectations in the classroom with regard to both coursecontent and courtesy issues such as insisting students refrain fromusing a cell phone or texting during class time. Any penalties forviolation of these policies should be routinely enforced. The raw data for this research indicated that students were farmore likely to know the title of a male professor. In simple terms,students knew that both the older and younger male professors werePh.D.s and were to be addressed as "Doctor." Both the olderand younger female professors did not enjoy the same level of respect.Students were inclined to refer to one as "Mrs." and the otherby a nickname, even though both held the title of Doctor (one was aPh.D. the other a JDD). This implies that previous stereotypes and assumptions associatedwith gender may continue to exist. Consequently, it might be in theinterests of a female professor to regularly point out her title,especially early in the semester. Conveying the sense of authorityimplied by a title such as Doctor encourages respect and may result inimproved student decorum in the classroom and subsequent satisfactionwith the course. The limitations of this study include the small number ofprofessors, even as the number of students in the sample was fairlylarge. The individual personalities and reputations of the variousfaculty members may have had some impact on the results. For the future, additional efforts can be made to study how genderaffects the classroom experience. In schools of business, such as theone in which this study was conducted, the ultimate goal goes beyondtransmitting information to students. Expectations and re-socializationto effective work with either a male or female supervisor may beimpacted by the classroom experience. As the culture moves to a moreegalitarian structure, the hope would be that the effects of gender andgender 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 CollegeTeaching: a Consumer's Guide to Rating Scale Construction,Assessment, and Decision Making for Faculty, Administrators, andClinicians, First Edition, Stylus Publishing, Richmond Virginia. Caston, Janis J. "The Learning Experience: Impact on Measuresof Institutional Effectiveness," paper presented to"Leadership 2000," The Annual International conference of theLeague of Innovation in the Community College and the Community CollegeLeadership Program, July 17, 1994. Chang, Shu-Hui Hsieh and Smith, Roger A., "Effectiveness ofPersonal Interaction in a Learner -Centered Paradigm Distance EducationClass Based on Student Satisfaction," Journal of Research onTechnology in Education, 40(4), 407-426. Farley, Jennie (1982). Academic Women and EmploymentDiscrimination: A Critical Annotated Bibliography, Cornell University,New York. Fauske, Janice, and Wade, Suzanne E. "Research to PracticeOnline: Conditions that Foster Democracy, Community, and CriticalThinking in Computer-Mediated Discussions," Journal of Research onTechnology in Education, Winter 2003-2004, Volume 36, Number 2. Florence, Mari, and Fortson, Ed (2001). Sex at Work, Silver LakePublishing, Los Angeles, California. Friedman, Lawrence M. (1999). The Horizontal Society, YaleUniversity, 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 InstructorEvaluations: A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School in PartialFulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science,Pittsburg State University, Pittsburg, Kansas. Norfleet James, Abigail. "Gender Differences and the Teachingof Mathematics," Inquiry, Volume 12, Number 1 Spring 2007, 14-25. Peter, Katharin, Horn, Laura, and Carroll, C. Dennis. "GenderDifferences in Participation and Completion of Undergraduate Educationand How They Have Changed Over Time," Postsecondary EducationDescriptive Analysis Reports, National Center for Education Statistics,February 2005. Seldin, Peter (1980). Successful Faculty Evaluation Programs: APractical Guide to Improve Faculty Performance and Promotion/TenureDecisions, Coventry Press, Crugers, New York. Steele, Diana F., Levin, Amy K., Blecksmith, Richard, Shahversdian,Jill, "Women in calculus: The effects of a supportivesetting," Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(1), Fall2008. Kristen M. Maceli, Pittsburg State University Christine E. Fogliasso, Pittsburg State University Donald Baack, Pittsburg State UniversityTable 4.Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables PredictingStudent Satisfaction with Instructors Variables Sig. F Change R SquareMALES -MajorStep 1 -Instructor age .272 1.313 .020 -Wanted to be in collegeStep 2 Gender match .000 * 14.295 .233Step 3 -Follow cell phone policies -Know instructor title .000 * 26.478 .500 -Course presentationFEMALES -MajorStep 1 -Instructor age .000 * 13.389 .236 -Wanted to be in collegeStep 2 Gender match .000 * 32.011 .498Step 3 -Follow cell phone policies -Know instructor title .000 * 55.734 .756 -Course presentation Variables R Square Significant change F ChangeMALES -MajorStep 1 -Instructor age .020 .272 -Wanted to be in collegeStep 2 Gender match .213 .000 *Step 3 -Follow cell phone policies -Know instructor title .267 .000 * -Course presentationFEMALES -MajorStep 1 -Instructor age .236 .000 * -Wanted to be in collegeStep 2 Gender match .262 .000 *Step 3 -Follow cell phone policies -Know instructor title .258 .000 * -Course presentation