Gender and Ethnic Perceptions in
Instructor Applications
Introduction
● Gender fluid is a term commonly defined as nonconformity to genders within
the binary (Richards et al., 2016; Davidson, 2016).
● Cisgender is described as a person who identifies with the gender that matches
the biological sex they were born with (McIntyre, 2018).
● Ethnicity is commonly known as the cultural identity of a group of people
within a nation, while race is defined as people who share common physical
features such as skin tone, facial features, etc (Grosfoguel, 2004).
● Implicit biases are the biases people hold unconsciously due to their own
internalized views but are oftentimes unaware of this, so in turn, they behave
discriminatorily without realizing (Pritlove et al., 2019).
● Gendered discrimination is any type of situation where a person is denied
opportunities and is treated unequally for the sole reason of their gender
(Salvini, 2014). Racial discrimination refers to the unjust treatment of a group
of people because of their race or ethnicity (Pager & Shepherd, 2008).
● The model minority myth promotes the idea that Asian Americans are high
academic achievers who do not suffer from poverty, mental health struggles,
low academic achievement, and are immune to racism aimed at them (Lee,
1996; Rosenbloom & Way, 2004; Takaki, 1998).
● When it comes to teaching, gender and race play an important part of how
students perceive their instructor and the quality of education they will receive,
because of things like gender discrimination and implicit bias, female teachers
often ranked lower than males on their evaluation scores done by students
(Ancell & Wu 2017).
● Male professors were more likely to have better ratings when it came to
competence, effectiveness, and performance. Female teachers or teachers of an
ethnic background frequently felt their experience was underestimated and
devalued (Anderson & Miller, 1997; Pittman, 2010).
● The previous literature investigated students’ perceptions of instructors in
relation to instructor gender among male and female professors specifically.
The current study sought to expand the literature by studying perceptions of
professors as cisgender and gender fluid. A 2 x 2 factorial analysis was used to
analyze the relationship between instructors’ ethnicity and gender and the
degree of instructor favorability among students.
Tuyet Escalera, Arianne Ramirez, Pauline Leano, Alondra Munoz, Hannah Saavedra, Courtney Nuestro
Mount San Jacinto College
HYPOTHESIS
Results Strengths, Limitations,
● Independent Variable One Hypothesis: We hypothesize that a Cisgender
professor would be more favorable compared to the other gender level 3 hypotheses were tested to determine if differences exist between and Future Research
(Gender Fluid).
our four groups and the following results were found: ● Strength: Random Assignment: we utilized namepicker.net to assign
● Independent Variable Two Hypothesis: We hypothesize that a professor who
● IV 1: Future candidates who were cisgender (M = 58.89) did not have a difference to be favored
students to the different experimental groups.
is Asian would be more favorable compared to a professor who is White.
compared to future candidates who were genderfluid (M = 57.51).
● IV1 x IV2 Interaction Hypothesis Three: We hypothesize that a Cisgender ● Strength: Confidentiality and Honesty: Researchers emphasized
● IV 2: Future candidates who were white (M = 34.4) were no more likely to be favored than Asian
Asian professor would be more favorable compared to a professor who is future candidates (M = 32.5).
confidentiality and honesty in the directions provided to the participants in
White and Gender Fluid, White and Cisgender, or Asian and Gender ● IV1 x IV2 Interaction 3: future candidates who were cisgender and Asian (M = 61.1, SD = 9.95)
order to prevent socially desirable responses.
were significantly more likely to be hired compared to future candidates who were genderfluid and
Fluid.
Asian (M = 56.4, SD = 10.5, p = .064), future candidates who were cisgender and white (M = 56.2, ● Weakness: Demand Characteristics: there were certain items in the
Methods SD = 11.2), and future candidates who were genderfluid and white (M = 58.5, SD = 10.1, p = .376).
Table 1
applications used that implied they were fake. More specifically, each paper
was dated at April 1st, which is commonly known as April Fool’s Day. As a
Ethnicity Gender
Cisgender Gender Fluid
Methodological Design result, the date hinted these applications were custom-made rather than
Caucasian M = 56.21, SD = 11.25 M = 58.54, SD = 10.17
● The current study employed a 2 x 2 double blind between groups factorial from real people. Moreover, if one were to look up the candidate's images,
Asian M = 61.15, SD = 9.953 M = 56.38, SD = 10.56
experiment.
then they would find the same ones as generated stock images.
Figure 1
● Participants ( n = 132) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions using the
● Weakness: Reactivity: In correlation with the first weakness, the fact that
free online resource, Random Name Picker
these applications were so blatantly fake meant that participants’ actions
● Participants Demographics included: Age, Ethnicity, Gender and Sexuality
would be altered. If the applications were more realistic, they might have
● From the assigned condition, participants were asked to evaluate the candidate
based on the resume. produced honest participant responses.
● The conditions were divided as followed: ● Future Research: Moving forward with this study we believe that the
Factor A - Candidate Gender (Cisgender vs. Gender Fluid)
Factor B - Candidate Race (Asian vs. Caucasian) survey should be created honestly and to proof read the survey to ensure
Discussion accurate responses. Additionally, in order for both of these weaknesses to
be covered, future research would need to be more realistic by using a cover
As the results reported, the hypotheses we made as a group are non-significant. In
story or utilizing a single-blind study model.
the first hypothesis, a nonsignificant main effect was found in professor gender,
which means that future candidates who were cisgender did not have a difference
compared to those who were genderfluid. In the second hypothesis, there was no References
Materials
difference in favorability found between candidates who were white and Asian. The ● Marcham, C. L., Ade, A. M., Clark, P., & Marion, J. (2020). Bias and Trends in Student Evaluations in Online Higher Education Settings. Collegiate Aviation Review, 38(2), 34–50.
https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.20.100213
● Cover Letter, Resume, Teaching Philosophy, and Sample Assignment ●
Lukela, J. R., Ramakrishnan, A., Hadeed, N., & Del Valle, J. (2019). When perception is reality: Resident perception of faculty gender parity in a university-based internal medicine
third hypothesis was supported since instructors who were Cisgender and Asian were residency program. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(6), 346–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00532-9
● Manipulation of gender and race ● Fan, Y., Shepherd, L. J., Slavich, E., Waters, D., Stone, M., Abel, R., & Johnston, E. L. (2019). Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters. PLoS
ONE, 14(2), 1–16.
significantly more favored to be hired compared to future candidates who were ● https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209749
● Candidate review survey was assigned and collected for data ● Gong, J., Lu, Y., & Song, H. (2018). The Effect of Teacher Gender on Students’ Academic and Noncognitive Outcomes. Journal of Labor Economics, 36(3), 743–778.
Genderfluid and Asian, future candidates who were Cisgender and White, and future ●
https://proxylib.msjc.edu:2098/10.1086/696203
Millie D. Black (2021) Exploring relationships between a teacher’s race-ethnicity and gender and student teaching expectations, Education Inquiry, 12:2, 202-216, DOI:
10.1080/20004508.2020.1824343
canidates were Genderfluid and White. There is a nonsignificant interaction effect
● Kohatsu, Eric L., et al. "Analyzing anti-Asian prejudice from a racial identity and color-blind perspective." Journal of Counseling and Development, vol. 89, no. 1, 2011, p. 63+. Gale
Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A248092371/AONE?u=msjacintocc&sid=AONE&xid=5c6b9885. Accessed 22 Apr. 2021.
● Note: Read the Asian American Attitudes section https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/21565503.2020.1769693?scroll=top&needAccess=true
between instructor favorability depending on their gender and race. It should be
● Graham Butt, Lin MacKenzie & Russell Manning (2012) The career development of recently qualified British South Asian women teachers: “Everybody’s the same. I don’t feel my
ethnicity is an issue at all.”, Educational Review, 64:2, 181-194, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2011.598915
● Ehrenberg, R. G., Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1995). Do Teachers’ Race, Gender, and Ethnicity Matter? Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988.
noted that out of the three hypotheses, the significance value for the third was much
ILR Review, 48(3), 547–561. https://proxylib.msjc.edu:2098/10.1177/001979399504800312
● Fandt, P. M., & Lewis, P. S. (1990). Students’ gender bias: Effects of previous experience with female professors. Journal of Education for Business, 66(2), 101.
https://proxylib.msjc.edu:2098/10.1080/08832323.1990.10535617Analyze how student demographics
closer to the minimum value even though it went over by a small amount.
Gratitude/Acknowledgement