Student evaluation of teaching (SET), one of the most widely used mechanisms for evaluating teaching worldwide, is arguably gender-biased, potentially obstructing women’s access to and advancement in academia. To date, a significant number of studies have focused on interpreting a difference in SET scores by gender as evidence of gender bias. The validity of inferences from many of these studies is in jeopardy if they lack a strong research design that effectively isolates various potential confounding factors. We conducted a systematic literature review of experimental and quasi-experimental studies testing the claim that SET scores are biased against women. Our search identified 21 relevant studies published between 2000 and 2021. We qualitatively analyzed the supporting theories that predict gender-biased SET scores, the study design features used to estimate the instructor’s gender effect, and the findings across studies. The two most dominant explanations across studies are gender stereotypes and expectancy violations theory. We found ingenious methods for simulating a lecture and manipulating the instructor’s gender. SET scales across studies feature up to five types of distinctive questions about teaching performance. Findings across studies suggest that women are more likely to receive lower SET scores than men. However, this review reveals that examining gender bias is far more complex than individual studies portray. We note that the lack of strong supporting theory and tensions in research designs affect the construct and external validity of findings across studies. We discuss implications for fair evaluation of teaching that protect the development of women in academia.
AbelM. H.MeltzerA. L. (2007). Student ratings of a male and female professors’ lecture on sex discrimination in the workforce. Sex Roles, 57(3–4), 173–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9245-x
3.
AlexanderP. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/1.3102/0034654319854352
4.
AlhijaF. (2017). Guest editor introduction to the special issue “Contemporary evaluation of teaching: Challenges and promises.”Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54(Supplement C), 1–3. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.stueduc.2017.02.002
5.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (with Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.)). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
AndersenK.MillerE. D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching. PS: Political Science and Politics, 30(2), 216. https://doi.org/1.2307/420499
8.
AndersonK. J. (2010). Students’ stereotypes of professors: An exploration of the double violations of ethnicity and gender. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 13(4), 459–472. https://doi.org/1.1007/s11218-010-9121-3
9.
AndersonK. J.SmithG. (2005). Students’ preconceptions of professors: Benefits and barriers according to ethnicity and gender. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27(2), 184–201. https://doi.org/1.1177/0739986304273707
10.
ArbuckleJ.WilliamsB. D. (2003). Students’ perceptions of expressiveness: Age and gender effects on teacher evaluations. Sex Roles, 49(9), 507–516. https://doi.org/1.1023/A:1025832707002
11.
Barnet-VerzatC.WolffF. (2008). Gender wage gap and the glass ceiling effect: A firm-level investigation. International Journal of Manpower, 29(6), 486–502. https://doi.org/1.1108/01437720810904185
12.
BasowS. A.MartinJ. L. (2012). Bias in student evaluations. In Mary E. Kite (Ed.), Effective evaluation of teaching: A guide for faculty and administrators (pp. 40–49). Society for the Teaching of Psychology.
13.
BertrandM. (2017). The glass ceiling. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/1.2139/ssrn.3191467
14.
BohlscheidJ. C.DavisJ. C. (2012). Higher education science student perspectives on classroom instructional methods: A pilot study. Journal of Food Science Education, 11(4), 57–61.
15.
BoringA. (2017). Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Public Economics, 145, 27–41. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.11.006
CabreraN. L.KaramanA. K.TurnerT. A.OregonY. G.GonellE. A.LopezJ. D.Deil-AmenR. (2022). Race Without Gender? Trends and Limitations in the Higher Education Scholarship Regarding Men of Color. Review of Educational Research, 92(3), 331–369. https://doi.org/1.3102/00346543211054577
18.
CamilliG. (2006). Test fairness. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 221–256). Praeger Publishers.
19.
CentraJ. A. (2003). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work?Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 495–518. https://doi.org/1.1023/A:1025492407752
20.
ChávezK.MitchellK. M. W. (2020). Exploring bias in student evaluations: Gender, race, and ethnicity. PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(2), 270–274. https://doi.org/1.1017/S1049096519001744
21.
ChisadzaC.NichollsN.YitbarekE. (2019). Race and gender biases in student evaluations of teachers. Economics Letters, 179, 66–71.
22.
CotterD. A.HermsenJ. M.OvadiaS.VannemanR. (2001). The glass ceiling effect*. Social Forces, 80(2), 655–681. https://doi.org/1.1353/sof.2001.0091
23.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 701–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00381.x
24.
DavisonE.PriceJ. (2009). How do we rate? An evaluation of online student evaluations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801895695
25.
DoubledayA. F.LeeL. M. J. (2016). Dissecting the voice: Health professions students’ perceptions of instructor age and gender in an online environment and the impact on evaluations for faculty. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9(6), 537–544.
FeldmanK. A. (1993). College students’ views of male and female college teachers: Part II—Evidence from students’ evaluations of their classroom teachers. Research in Higher Education, 34(2), 151–211. https://doi.org/1.1007/BF00992161
28.
Gómez CamaM.LarránM. J.Andrades PeñaF. J. (2016). Gender differences between faculty members in higher education: A literature review of selected higher education journals. Educational Research Review, 18, 58–69. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.edurev.2016.03.001
29.
GotliebJ.MillimanR. (2005). Do student grades affect student numeric ratings of marketing professors? Applying attribution theory to help answer this question. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 7, 11–26.
HaladynaT.HessR. K. (1994). The detection and correction of bias in student ratings of instruction. Research in Higher Education, 35(6), 669–687. https://doi.org/1.1007/BF02497081
32.
HoorensV.DekkersG.DeschrijverE. (2021). Gender bias in student evaluations of teaching: Students’ self-affirmation reduces the bias by lowering evaluations of male professors. Sex Roles, 84(1/2), 34–48.
33.
JacksonJ. F. L.O’CallaghanE. M. (2009). What do we know about glass ceiling effects? A taxonomy and critical review to inform higher education research. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 460–482. https://doi.org/1.1007/s11162-009-9128-9
34.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (with Gullickson, A. R., & Howard, B.). (2009). The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluating educators (2nd ed). Corwin Press.
35.
JonsonJ. L.GeisingerK. F. (Eds.). (2022). Fairness in educational and psychological testing: Examining theoretical, research, practice, and policy implications of the 2014 standards. American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/1.2307/j.ctv2kzv0fw
36.
JoyeS. W.WilsonJ. H. (2015). Professor age and gender affect student perceptions and grades. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(4), 126–138.
37.
KreitzerR. J.Sweet-CushmanJ. (2022). Evaluating student evaluations of teaching: A review of measurement and equity bias in SETs and recommendations for ethical reform. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20, 73–84. https://doi.org/1.1007/s10805-021-09400-w
38.
LadhaM.BharwaniA.McLaughlinK.StelfoxH. T.BassA. (2017). The effect of white coats and gender on medical students perceptions of physicians. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 93. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0932-1
39.
LammersW. J.ByrdA. A. (2019). Student gender and instructor gender as predictors of student-instructor rapport. Teaching of Psychology, 46(2), 127–134.
40.
LaubeH.MassoniK.SpragueJ.FerberA. L. (2007). The impact of gender on the evaluation of teaching: What we know and what we can do. NWSA Journal, 19(3), 87–104.
41.
MacnellL.DriscollA.HuntA. N. (2015). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 291–303. Education Database. https://doi.org/1.1007/s10755-014-9313-4
42.
MarshH. W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of University teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 253–388. https://doi.org/1.1016/0883-0355(87)90001-2
43.
MarshH. W. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In PerryR. P.SmartJ. C. (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 319–383). Springer Netherlands. http://link.springer.com/1.1007/1-4020-5742-3_9
44.
MarshH. W.BornmannL.MutzR.DanielH.-D.O’MaraA. (2009). Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1290–1326. https://doi.org/1.3102/0034654309334143
45.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
46.
MendezJ. M.MendezJ. P. (2018). The gender effect in student selection of professors for classes. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 11(1), 74–88.
47.
MitchellK. M. W.MartinJ. (2018). Gender bias in student evaluations. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 648–652. https://doi.org/1.1017/S104909651800001X
48.
NesdolyN.TulkC.MantlerJ. (2020). The effects of perceived professor competence, warmth and gender on students’ likelihood to register for a course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(5), 666–679.
49.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.DanielL. G.CollinsK. M. T. (2009). A meta-validation model for assessing the score-validity of student teaching evaluations. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9112-4
50.
Perez-FelknerL.ErichsenK.LiY.ChenJ.HuS.Ramirez SurmeierL.ShoreC. (2024). Computing education interventions to increase gender equity from 2000 to 2020: A systematic literature review. Review of Educational Research, 95(3), 536–580. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241241536
51.
PigottT. D.PolaninJ. R. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/1.3102/0034654319877153
52.
ReddingC. (2019). A teacher like me: A review of the effect of student–teacher racial/ethnic matching on teacher perceptions of students and student academic and behavioral outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 89(4), 499–535. https://doi.org/1.3102/0034654319853545
53.
RiveraL. A.TilcsikA. (2019). Scaling down inequality: Rating scales, gender bias, and the architecture of evaluation. American Sociological Review, 84(2), 248–274. Business Source Ultimate.
54.
Schönrock-AdemaJ.LubarskyS.ChalkC.SteinertY.Cohen-SchotanusJ. (2013). “What would my classmates say?” An international study of the prediction-based method of course evaluation. Medical Education, 47(5), 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12126
55.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
56.
ShenH. (2013). Despite improvements, female scientists continue to face discrimination, unequal pay and funding disparities. Nature, 495(3), 22–24. https://doi.org/1.1038/495022a
57.
SmithG.AndersonK. J. (2005). Students’ ratings of professors: The teaching style contingency for Latino/a professors. Journal of Latinos & Education, 4(2), 115–136. Academic Search Ultimate.
58.
SpoorJ. R.LehmillerJ. J. (2014). The impact of course title and instructor gender on student perceptions and interest in a women’s and gender studies course. PLoS One, 9(9), 1–7. Food Science Source.
59.
SpoorenP.BrockxB.MortelmansD. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching the state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598–642. https://doi.org/1.3102/0034654313496870
60.
SpoorenP.VandermoereF.VanderstraetenR.PepermansK. (2017). Exploring high impact scholarship in research on student’s evaluation of teaching (SET). Educational Research Review, 22, 129–141. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.001
61.
SpragueJ.MassoniK. (2005). Student evaluations and gendered expectations: What we can’t count can hurt us. Sex Roles, 53(11), 779–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-8292-4
StuberJ. M.WatsonA.CarleA.StaggsK. (2009). Gender expectations and on-line evaluations of teaching: Evidence from RateMyProfessors.com.Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), 387–399.
64.
TapariaM.LenkaU. (2022). An integrated conceptual framework of the glass ceiling effect. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 9(3), 372–40. https://doi.org/1.1108/JOEPP-06-2020-0098
65.
ThomasD. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/1.1177/1098214005283748
UNESCO. (2021). Women in higher education: Has the female advantage put an end to gender inequalities. UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean.
68.
ValenciaE. (2025). On the comparability of SET scores: Measurement invariance across programs, departments, and time. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2508754
69.
WachtelH. K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293980230207
70.
Waggoner DentonA.VelosoJ. (2018). Changes in syllabus tone affect warmth (but not competence) ratings of both male and female instructors. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 21(1), 173–187. Education Database; Psychology Database; Research Library. https://doi.org/1.1007/s11218-017-9409-7
71.
WallaceB. C.SmallK.BrodleyC. E.LauJ.TrikalinosT. A. (2012). Deploying an interactive machine learning system in an evidence-based practice center: Abstrackr. Proceeding of the ACM International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI), 819–824.
72.
WeinkleL. J.StratfordJ. M.LeeL. M. J. (2020). Voice in digital education: The impact of instructor’s perceived age and gender on student learning and evaluation. Anatomical Sciences Education, 13(1), 59–7.
73.
WeisshaarK. (2017). Publish and Perish? An assessment of gender gaps in promotion to tenure in academia. Social Forces, 96(2), 529–56. https://doi.org/1.1093/sf/sox052
74.
WilsonS. M.AnagnostopoulosD. (2021). Methodological guidance paper: The craft of conducting a qualitative review. Review of Educational Research, 91(5), 651–67. https://doi.org/1.3102/00346543211012755
75.
WongJ. S.BouchardJ. (2021). Are students gender-neutral in their assessment of online teaching staff?Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 719–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1805410
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
