Voice in Digital Education: The Impact of Instructor's Perceived Age and Gender on Student Learning and Evaluation.
age bias
e-learning
educational resource design
gender bias
graduate education digital education
gross anatomy education
learning outcome
student evaluation
undergraduate education
Journal
Anatomical sciences education
ISSN: 1935-9780
Titre abrégé: Anat Sci Educ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101392205
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
16
03
2018
revised:
18
01
2019
accepted:
22
01
2019
pubmed:
30
1
2019
medline:
18
11
2020
entrez:
30
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Instructor evaluations are influenced by implicit age and gender bias, with lower ratings and negative feedback given to instructors believed to stray from stereotypical age and gender norms. Female instructors exhibiting typically male-associated qualities such as leadership and authority, are often negatively impacted. Implicit bias also influences evaluation of digital resources and instructors, regardless of students' positive learning outcomes. As digital learning resources become the norm in education, it is crucial to explore the impact of implicit bias at various educational levels. In this study, undergraduate and graduate students were randomly exposed to one of five digital tutorials; four experimental tutorials presenting identical anatomy content with narrators of different gender and age, and a control tutorial featuring origami (paper folding) instructions without audio. Learning outcomes were measured by pre-quiz vs. post-quiz comparisons using repeated measures MANOVA. Implicit bias was analyzed by evaluation response comparisons using repeated measures MANOVA and three-way MANOVA. Post-quiz scores increased significantly in the four experimental groups (P < 0.05) but not in the control (P = 0.99). The increased performance was not statistically different across the four experimental groups (P > 0.26), suggesting that learning occurred irrespective of the instructor gender and age. Students' evaluations were consistently higher for the experimental resources than the control. There was no significant difference in evaluations across the four experimental groups but compared to the control, younger male and younger female narrators received significantly higher ratings for approachability, acceptance, inclusivity, and care for student learning. The study highlights important considerations for digital resources development and interpretation of student evaluations.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
59-70Informations de copyright
© 2019 American Association of Anatomists.
Références
Al-Issa A, Sulieman H. 2007. Student evaluations of teaching: Perceptions and biasing factors. Qual Assur Educ 15:302-317.
Anderson DM, Haddad CJ. 2005. Gender, voice, and learning in online course environments. J Async Learn Network 9:3-14.
Arbuckle J, Williams BD. 2003. Students' perceptions of expressiveness: Age and gender effects on teacher evaluations. Sex Roles 49:507-516.
Ashburn-Nardo L, Voils CI, Monteith MJ. 2001. Implicit associations as the seeds of intergroup bias: How easily do they take root? J Pers Soc Psychol 81:789-799.
Azer SA. 2005. The qualities of a good teacher: How can they be acquired and sustained? J R Soc Med 98:67-69.
Bains M, Reynolds PA, McDonald F, Sherriff M. 2011. Effectiveness and acceptability of face-to-face, blended and e-learning: A randomised trial of orthodontic undergraduates. Eur J Dent Educ 15:110-117.
Basow SA. 1995. Student evaluations of college professors: When gender matters. J Educ Psychol 87:656-665.
Bennett SK. 1982. Student perceptions of and expectations for male and female instructors: Evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluation. J Educ Psychol 74:170-179.
Berman AC. 2015. Good teaching is good teaching: A narrative review for effective medical educators. Anat Sci Educ 8:386-394.
Boring A, Ottoboni K, Stark PB. 2016. Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. ScienceOpen Research. https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AETBZC.v1.
Burk DT, Lee LM, Lambert HW. 2013. Embryology and histology education in North American dental schools: The basic science survey series. J Dent Educ 77:744-756.
Centra JA, Gaubatz NB. 2007. Is there gender bias in student evaluations of teaching? J High Educ 71:17-33.
Chickering AW, Gamson ZF. 1989. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Biochem Educ 17:140-141.
Clark RC, Mayer RE. 2016. E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. 4th Ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. 528 p.
Clump MA, Bauer H, Whiteleather A. 2003. To attend or not to attend: Is that a good question? J Instr Psychol 30:220-224.
Davis MJ, Wythe J, Rozunq JS, Gore RW. 1997. Use of World-Wide Web server and browser software to support a first-year medical physiology course. Adv Physiol Educ 272:S1-S14.
Doubleday AF, Lee LM. 2016. Dissecting the voice: Health professions students' perceptions of instructor age and gender in an online environment and the impact on evaluations for faculty. Anat Sci Educ 9:537-544.
Drake RL, Lowrie DJ Jr, Prewitt CM. 2002. Survey of gross anatomy, microscopic anatomy, neuroscience, and embryology courses in medical school curricula in the United States. Anat Rec 269:118-122.
Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. 2009. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: The winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ 2:253-259.
Drake RL, McBride JM, Pawlina W. 2014. An update on the status of anatomical sciences education in United States medical schools. Anat Sci Educ 7:321-325.
Fischer-Baum R. 2017. What ‘tech world' did you grow up in? The Washington Post, 26 November 2017. Nash Holdings LLC, Washington, DC. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/entertainment/tech-generations/?utm_term=.0297dbca0a00 (accessed 4 April 2018).
Frederickson N, Reed P, Clifford V. 2005. Evaluating Web-supported learning versus lecture-based teaching: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. High Educ 50:645-664.
Gavali MY, Khismatrao DS, Gavali YV, Patil KB. 2017. Smartphone, the new learning aid amongst medical students. J Clin Diagn Res 11:JC05-JC08.
Goodwin LD, Stevens EA. 1993. The influence of gender on university faculty members' perceptions of “good” teaching. J High Educ 64:166-185.
Helle L, Säljö R. 2012. Collaborating with digital tools and peers in medical education: Cases and simulations as interventions in learning. Instr Sci 40:737-744.
Herman T, Banister S. 2007. Face-to-face versus online coursework: A comparison of learning outcomes and costs. Contemp Issues Tech Teach Educ 7:318-326.
Jahangiri L, Mucciolo TW. 2008. Characteristics of effective classroom teachers as identified by students and professionals: A qualitative study. J Dent Educ 72:484-493.
Johnson SD, Aragon SR, Shaik N, Palma-Rivas N. 2000. Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. J Interact Learn Res 11:29-49.
Kanthan R, Senger JL. 2011. The impact of specially designed digital games-based learning in undergraduate pathology and medical education. Arch Pathol Lab Med 135:135-142.
Kivunja C. 2014. Theoretical perspectives of how digital natives learn. Int J High Educ 3:94-109.
Korte L, Lavin A, Davies T. 2013. Does gender impact business students' perceptions of teaching effectiveness? J Coll Teach Learn 10:167-178.
Lavin A, Korte L, Davies T. 2012. Student gender and perceptions of teaching effectiveness. Res High Educ J 18:1-16.
Lee BC, Yoon JO, Lee I. 2009. Learners' acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and results. Comput Educ 53:1320-1329.
Macke AS, Richardson LW, Cook J. 1980. Sex-Typed Teaching Styles of University Professors and Student Reactions: Final Report. 1st Ed. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. 208 p. URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED197685.pdf (accessed 27 December 2018).
MacNell L, Driscoll A, Hunt AN. 2015. What's in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innovat High Educ 40:291-303.
Macrae CN, Bodenhausen GV. 2000. Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Ann Rev Psychol 51:93-120.
Manakil J, George R. 2017. Mobile learning practices and preferences a way forward in enhancing dental education learning experience. Eur J Gen Dent 6:22-28.
Markham PL. 1998. Gender and the perceived expertness of the speaker as factors in ESL listening recall. Tesol Quart 22:397-405.
Mathiowetz V, Yu CH, Quake-Rapp C. 2016. Comparison of a gross anatomy laboratory to online anatomy software for teaching anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 9:52-59.
McBride JM, Drake RL. 2018. National survey on anatomical sciences in medical education. Anat Sci Educ 11:7-14.
Millis RM, Dyson S, Cannon D. 2009. Association of classroom participation and examination performance in a first-year medical school course. Adv Physiol Educ 33:139-143.
Moreno KN, Person NK, Adcock AB, Van Eck RN, Jackson GT, Marineau JC. 2002. Etiquette and efficacy in animated pedagogical agents: The role of stereotypes. In: Proceedings of the 2002 American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Fall Symposium on Etiquette for Human-Computer Work. Technical Report FS-02-02; North Falmouth, MA, 2002 November 15-17. The American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park, CA.
Neuhauser C. 2002. Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. Am J Dist Educ 16:99-113.
Ozer MA, Govsa F, Bati AH. 2017. Web-based teaching video packages on anatomical education. Surg Radiol Anat 39:1253-1261.
Paechter M, Maier B. 2010. Online or face-to-face? Students' experiences and preferences in e-learning. Internet High Educ 13:292-297.
Paechter M, Maier B, Macher D. 2010. Students' expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Comput Educ 54:222-229.
Price L. 2006. Gender differences and similarities in online courses: Challenging stereotypical views of women. J Comput Assist Learn 22:349-359.
Reeves B, Nass C. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. 1st Ed. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications. 305 p.
Richardson JT. 2011. Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educ Res Rev 6:135-147.
Schiekirka S, Raupach T. 2015. A systematic review of factors influencing student ratings in undergraduate medical education course evaluations. BMC Med Educ 15:30.
Sprague J, Massoni K. 2005. Student evaluations and gendered expectations: What we can't count can hurt us. Sex Roles 53:779-793.
Taylor SJ, Bogdan R. 1984. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: The Search for Meanings. 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience Publishers. 302 p.
Taylor HA, Tenbrink T. 2013. The spatial thinking of origami: Evidence from think-aloud protocols. Cognit Process 14:189-191.
Tenbrink T, Taylor HA. 2015. Conceptual transformation and cognitive processes in origami paper folding. J Problem Solving 8:1.
Thornton B, Adams M, Sepehri M. 2011. The impact of students expectations of grades and perceptions of course difficulty, workload, and pace on faculty evaluations. Contemp Issues Educ Res 3:1-6.
Trujillo Maza EM, Gómez Lozano MT, Cardozo Alarcón AC, Moreno Zuluaga L, Gamba FM. 2016. Blended learning supported by digital technology and competency-based medical education: A case study of the social medicine course at the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. Int J Educ Tech High Educ 13:27.
Wachtel HK. 1998. Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assess Eval High Educ 23:191-212.
Wieling MB, Hofman WH. 2010. The impact of online video lecture recordings and automated feedback on student performance. Comput Educ 54:992-998.
Woolf BP. 2009. Building Intelligent Interactive Tutors: Student-Centered Strategies for Revolutionizing E-learning. 1st Ed. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers. 480 p.
Young S. 2006. Student views of effective online teaching in higher education. Am J Dist Educ 20:65-77.