计算机教学评价的性别差异分析

IF 2 Q3 MANAGEMENT Equality Diversity and Inclusion Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI:10.1145/3524501.3527604
Priscila Santiesteban, Madeline Endres, Westley Weimer
{"title":"计算机教学评价的性别差异分析","authors":"Priscila Santiesteban, Madeline Endres, Westley Weimer","doi":"10.1145/3524501.3527604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Anonymous student teacher evaluations are commonly used to evaluate the quality of computing instructors at the university level. However, such teaching evaluations are subject to gender and sex-based biases, calling into question their utility and scope. In this paper, we first use data from a large public American university to replicate previous findings showing that significant sex-related differences persist in computing teaching evaluations. Intriguingly, we find that the sex-differences in computing teaching evaluations are primarily driven by bias involving professors, while significant sex-based differences for student-instructors are not observed. Finally, we place the magnitude of the sex-based differences we observe into a broader engineering context. CCS CONCEPTS • Social and professional topics → Gender; Computing education. ACM Reference Format: Priscila Santiesteban, Madeline Endres, and Westley Weimer. 2022. An Analysis of Sex Differences in Computing Teaching Evaluations. In Third Workshop on Gender Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering (GE@ICSE’22), May 20, 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524501.3527604","PeriodicalId":46962,"journal":{"name":"Equality Diversity and Inclusion","volume":"25 1","pages":"84-87"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Analysis of Sex Differences in Computing Teaching Evaluations\",\"authors\":\"Priscila Santiesteban, Madeline Endres, Westley Weimer\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3524501.3527604\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Anonymous student teacher evaluations are commonly used to evaluate the quality of computing instructors at the university level. However, such teaching evaluations are subject to gender and sex-based biases, calling into question their utility and scope. In this paper, we first use data from a large public American university to replicate previous findings showing that significant sex-related differences persist in computing teaching evaluations. Intriguingly, we find that the sex-differences in computing teaching evaluations are primarily driven by bias involving professors, while significant sex-based differences for student-instructors are not observed. Finally, we place the magnitude of the sex-based differences we observe into a broader engineering context. CCS CONCEPTS • Social and professional topics → Gender; Computing education. ACM Reference Format: Priscila Santiesteban, Madeline Endres, and Westley Weimer. 2022. An Analysis of Sex Differences in Computing Teaching Evaluations. In Third Workshop on Gender Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering (GE@ICSE’22), May 20, 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524501.3527604\",\"PeriodicalId\":46962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Equality Diversity and Inclusion\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"84-87\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Equality Diversity and Inclusion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3524501.3527604\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Equality Diversity and Inclusion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3524501.3527604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

匿名学生教师评估通常用于评估大学计算机教师的质量。然而,这种教学评估受到性别和基于性别的偏见的影响,使其效用和范围受到质疑。在本文中,我们首先使用来自美国一所大型公立大学的数据来重复先前的研究结果,表明在计算教学评估中存在显著的性别相关差异。有趣的是,我们发现计算机教学评估中的性别差异主要是由涉及教授的偏见驱动的,而学生教师的显著性别差异并没有被观察到。最后,我们将我们观察到的基于性别的差异的大小置于更广泛的工程背景中。•社会和专业主题→性别;计算机教育。ACM参考格式:Priscila Santiesteban, Madeline Endres, and Westley Weimer. 2022。计算机教学评价的性别差异分析在性别平等,多样性和包容性软件工程(GE@ICSE ' 22)的第三次研讨会,2022年5月20日,匹兹堡,宾夕法尼亚州,美国。ACM,纽约,美国,4页。https://doi.org/10.1145/3524501.3527604
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An Analysis of Sex Differences in Computing Teaching Evaluations
Anonymous student teacher evaluations are commonly used to evaluate the quality of computing instructors at the university level. However, such teaching evaluations are subject to gender and sex-based biases, calling into question their utility and scope. In this paper, we first use data from a large public American university to replicate previous findings showing that significant sex-related differences persist in computing teaching evaluations. Intriguingly, we find that the sex-differences in computing teaching evaluations are primarily driven by bias involving professors, while significant sex-based differences for student-instructors are not observed. Finally, we place the magnitude of the sex-based differences we observe into a broader engineering context. CCS CONCEPTS • Social and professional topics → Gender; Computing education. ACM Reference Format: Priscila Santiesteban, Madeline Endres, and Westley Weimer. 2022. An Analysis of Sex Differences in Computing Teaching Evaluations. In Third Workshop on Gender Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering (GE@ICSE’22), May 20, 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524501.3527604
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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
50
期刊最新文献
The Social Drivers of Inclusive Workplaces scale: a preliminary validation of the questionnaire Hope theory as resistance: narratives of South Asian scholars in Australian academia Coping techniques and strategies for pursuing anti-racism within academe: a collective autoethnographic account from minoritised academics in the UK Covering Número 85: a content analysis and critical race theory perspective Addressing the challenge of engaging in paid work while undertaking unpaid caring: insights for improving employment inclusion of young carers
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1