The Effect of a Lenient Teaching Style on Student Evaluations of Professors

1

LENIENT TEACHING STYLE

The Effect of a Lenient Teaching Style on Student Evaluations of Professors

Terri Fick-Paper

GuilfordCollege

Abstract

This study examined the effects of teaching style on the warmth ratings of professors teaching an Economics course. It was predicted that professors with a lenient teaching style would be perceived as more warm and available compared to professors with a strict teaching style. A total of 297 (140 male, 155 female, 2 did not respond to gender) participants in the Southeast who were at least 18 years of age and completed at least one semester at college were asked to read a syllabus and complete a corresponding questionnaire regarding the course and professor. As hypothesized, results indicated that professors who adopted a lenient teaching style were rated significantly higher on warmth items compared to professors with a strict teaching style.

Keywords: leniency, student evaluations, teaching style

Factors Which Impact Student Evaluations:

The Effect of Teaching Style on Warmth Ratings of Professors

Student ratings of professors serve as an essential element of many faculty evaluation systems, and institutions place a great deal of emphasis on student rating data in making important decisions concerning faculty benefits and career progress (such as tenure), which may have a direct impact on professional growth. Because of this, it is imperative that student rating evaluations are designed in a way which provides both reliable and valid information. However, as numerous studies have discovered, there are multiple variables which serve as a potential source of bias in student evaluations that are unrelated to teacher effectiveness which may influence their perceptions of a professor and their course.

Research conducted by Addison, Best, and Warrington (2006) found a significant relationship between students’ perceptions of course difficulty and their ratings of the professor. This study suggested that students entering a particular course will have expectations about how “easy” or “hard” a course might be, which in turn produces a “perceived leniency” (conversely, a “perceived difficulty”) that may influence the evaluations of the instructor. Findings were consistent with the “leniency hypothesis”, by the way in which results showed that students tended to reciprocate the level of leniency their teachers showed them. In other words, when low grades were earned in a class that was perceived as easy, teacherswere evaluated less favorably; whereas when high grades were earned in a class that was perceived as difficult, teachers were perceived more favorably (Addison et al., 2006). This may lead some teachers to believe that assigning high grades is the best route to take if positive evaluations are desired; however, similar studies show that this might not be the case.

One limitation to the study conducted by Addison et al. (2006) is that student effort in the course was not directly measured. Contrary to the grading leniency hypothesis, cognitive dissonance theory suggests a positive relationship between student effort and course evaluations: as effort expended increases, enjoyment and gratification of the task increases. A study conducted by Heckert, Latier, Ringwald-Burton, and Drazen (2006) suggests that the belief that professors can “buy” higher course evaluations by adopting a lenient teaching style and requiring less work may not be true. Their research showed that student effort in the class was positively correlated with all dimensions on the course evaluation and these relationships could not be explained by expected grades, meaning that the more demanding the teacher was, the higher they scored on the evaluation (Heckert et al., 2006).

Numerous studies have been conducted which examine the relationship between the character qualities of a professor and how these traits subsequently influence student evaluations. One study which examined the relationship between the perceived warmth of a professor and evaluation scores found that student ratings on affective items (openness to viewpoints, shares personal experiences and opinions, classroom climate conductive to learning, etc.) were more favorable in classes where the professor displayedwarmth inducing behaviors (Best & Addison, 2000). Similarly, in a study conducted by Widmeyer and Loy (1988), results found that when subjects were led to believe a professor was “warm”, the teacher was perceived as more intelligent, more interesting, more considerate of the class, and more knowledgeable of the material compared to an instructor who was labeled as “cold”. These two studies illustrate the strong influence warm characteristics in a professor have on students’ overall impressions of his or her personality and teaching ability.

The relationship between the teaching style of a professor (strict/lenient) and the perceived warmth of a professoris exemplified in Smith and Anderson’s (2005) study. This experiment examined the effects of gender, ethnicity, and teaching style on students’ perceptions of professors teaching a social science course. Participants read a course syllabus and rated the professor and the course on a variety of dimensions such as political bias, capability, and warmth. Findings indicated that professors who adopted a strict teaching style were perceived as significantly less warm and available by students compared to teachers with a more lenient teaching style.

The purpose of this study is to gather further evidence to support Smith and Anderson’s (2005) results which indicated a significant relationship between the teaching style of a professor and subsequent warmth ratings. In accordance to the limitations listed in Smith and Anderson’s (2005) report, this study will differ by the way in which the type of course identified on the syllabus is a stereotypically male-dominated field (Economics), as opposed to a stereotypically female-dominated field (Sociology). Additionally, the only variables being examined in this study are teaching style and warmth ratings, therefore, gender and ethnicity will not be analyzed. It is hypothesized that professors who display a lenient teaching style on their syllabus will receive higher ratings in warmth, whereas professors who display a strict teaching style will receive lower ratings in warmth.

Method

Participants

A total of 297 (140 male, 155 female, 2 did not respond to gender) participants in the Southeast who are at least 18 years of age and have completed at least one semester at college were asked to read a syllabus and complete a corresponding questionnaire regarding college courses and professors. The mean age of participants was 26.72 (SD=11.17), and 71.4% reported that they were currently undergraduate students (27.3% not undergraduate students). Of these current undergraduate students, 10.1% reported that they were freshmen, 28.6% sophomores, 16.2% juniors, and 14.5% seniors or above. For those who were not currently undergraduate students, the mean number of years the participant was last in college was 12.30 (SD= 11.37). When asked if they had ever been enrolled at GuilfordCollege, which is where this study took place, 65.3% reported “yes” and 33.3% reported “no”; and of those enrolled 59.6% were Traditional students, whereas 7.7% were Continuing Education Students. In regards to ethnicity, 71.7% of participants reported being Caucasian or White, 13.1% African American or Black, 3% Hispanic or Latino, 1% Asian, 3.4% Biracial or multiracial, and 1.7% other.

Procedures

Participants were found through convenience sampling and were first asked to sign a consent form prior to their participation in the study. The form stated that the participant must be at least 18 years of age, and have completed at least one semester at college. Participants were informed that they would be asked to evaluate a course and a professor based off a syllabus, and that their opinions would be kept confidential and anonymous. After agreeing and signing to the terms on the form, participants were given a two-sided sheet which contained a syllabus for a 300 level Economics course on the front side, and a rating form on the other. Participants were instructed to read the syllabus and provide answers to the questionnaire regarding the class and the professor.

Eight versions of the class syllabus were createdwhich were similar in format and content to the syllabi used in Smith and Anderson’s (2005) study, the main difference being the course title. The syllabi varied according to the three independent variables: gender, ethnicity, and teaching style. Gender and ethnicity were implied by the professor’s name: Antonia Ruiz, Antonio Ruiz, Michelle Saunders, and Michael Saunders (Smith & Anderson, 2005). In addition, gender pronouns were used throughout the syllabus and questionnaire in order to increase the saliency of the professor’s gender. The third independent variable, teaching style, was implied by the language each professor used on the syllabus. Although the course requirements and schedule were the same for all eight versions, the syllabi varied by the way in which they expressed the level of leniency. Four syllabi were coded as lenient,which was implied when the teaching style was portrayed as highly interpersonal, but low in authority and task orientation; and four syllabi were coded as strict when the teaching style was portrayed as less interpersonal, and high in task orientation. Smith and Anderson (2005)cite Eagly, Makhijani, and Klonsky (1992), whose coding scheme were used in order to model these styles.

Participants were asked to rate their agreement to various statements regarding professor preparedness and course goals, professor warmth, professor capability, course requirements, and political bias, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). It should be noted that this study is solely focusing on one independent variable (teaching style) and one dependent variable (professor warmth). Demographic information was collected at the end of the evaluation, as well as two questions which asked participants to indicate the gender (male or female) and ethnicity (Latino/a or Caucasian) of the professor.

Dependent Measures

The dependent variable studied in this experiment is the rating of professor warmth. The warmth of the professor was judged by questions rating how available s/he appeared to students, the desirability of taking a class with that professor, the level of approachability and warmth of the professor, and whether or not s/he appeared interested in the students taking the class, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). According to Smith and Anderson (2005), reliability tests for the above measure indicate an alpha of .86 for professor warmth.

Results

The total score a professor could attain on the warmth measurement had a possible range of 4 to 20. Results indicated that participants in our sample assigned a mean warmth score of 13.29 (SD = 3.29) to professors.

An independent-samples t test was used to compare the mean warmth scores of lenient professors and strict professors. Results indicated that professors with a lenient teaching style received a significantly higher warmth rating (M =14.99, SD = 2.46), compared to professors who adopted a strict teaching style (M = 11.60, SD = 3.15), t (275.72) = 10.27, p < .001. Twenty-eight percent of the variance in warmth ratings was accounted for by professor leniency. It should be noted that Levene’s test revealed that the variance between the groups were unequal, therefore, a more stringent test was used.

A manipulation check was used in order to determine whether or not the participant correctly identified the teaching style of the professor in the syllabus they were given. Slightly over eighty-six percent of participants passed the manipulation check, whereas 13.5% of participants failed. An additional independent-samples t-test was conducted in order to verify if there was a difference in scores when those who failed the check were omitted; however, results were similar. Again, results indicated that there was a significant difference for the mean warmth ratings of lenient professors (M = 15.27, SD = 2.22), and strict professors (M = 11.29, SD = 2.86), t (242.44) = 12.46, p < .001. The proportion of variance in warmth ratings which was accounted for by professor leniency increased to 39% when those who failed the manipulation check were omitted. Once again, theLevene’s test revealed that the variance between the groups were unequal, therefore, a more stringent test was used.

Discussion

Findings supported the hypothesis that professors who displayed a lenient teaching style would be perceived as more warm and available compared to professors who adopted a strict teaching style. These results are congruent with Smith and Anderson’s (2005) results, as well as studies which examined similar variables (Best & Addison, 2000; Widmeyer & Loy, 1988). These findings suggest that being perceived as lenient had a considerable effect onopinions of a professor’s warmth, availability, interest in students, and whether or not the class is desirable for participants in this sample. Widmeyer and Loy’s (1988) results also suggested that being perceived as a warm individual has the power to not only influence students’ ratings of the professor’s personality, but also his or her teaching abilities. The significance of these implications is considerable for the reason that student ratings on evaluations play a major role in the professional advancement of professors. Therefore, these findings suggest that if a professor wants to “get ahead”, they should present themselves as “warm” by adopting a lenient teaching style. However, this statement conflicts with the findings of Heckert et al. (2006) which found evidence to contradict the belief that professors can “buy” higher course evaluations by adopting a lenient teaching style. It is important to note that the major difference between these two studies is that student effort was measured directly in the study conducted by Heckert et al. (2006), whereas students only responded to a class syllabus in the current study, therefore, the difficulty and effort expended in the class was perceived, not real.

One limitation to this study is that participants were found through convenience sampling and a majority of them attended GuilfordCollege, which is a small, liberal arts school; therefore, the participants in this study represented a very small proportion of the population. Given the unrepresentative sample, results can only be used to describe the sample instead of being inferred to the population, therefore, future research should examine similar variables in more controlled conditions which apply to the broader population in order to further examine the relationships found in this study. Additional limitations include the fact that only two variables were studied: teaching style and warmth ratings. Therefore, other variables such as how challenging the course appeared to participants, and whether or not the professor seemed capable and/or experienced were not examined which may have raised insight to differences concerning the perceived character traits of lenient and strict teachers. Therefore, future studies should examine the effects of teaching style on a multitude of other variables. Additionally, gender could be used as an additional independent variable along with teaching style in order to examine whether or not males and females are perceived differently when they adopt either a strict (stereotypically masculine) or lenient (stereotypically feminine) teaching style. Smith and Anderson (2005) did not report any significant gender results in their study; however, varying sample sizes and demographics may result in differing findings.

References

Addison, W. E., Best, J., & Warrington, J. D. (2006). Students’ perceptions of course difficulty and their ratings of the instructor. College Student Journal, 40, 409-416.

Best, J. B., & Addison, W. E. (2000). A preliminary study of perceived warmth of professors and student evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 60-62.

Heckert, T. M., Latier, A., Ringwald-Burton, A., & Drazan, C. (2006). Relations among student effort, perceived class difficulty appropriateness, and student evaluations of teaching: Is it possible to ‘buy’ better evaluations through lenient grading? College Student Journal, 40, 588-596.

Smith, G., & Anderson, K. J. (2005). Students’ ratings of professors: The teaching style contingency for latino/a professors. Journal of Latinos and Education, 4, 115-136.
doi:10.1207/s1532771xjle0402_4

Widmeyer, W., & Loy, J. W. (1988). When you’re hot, you’re hot! Warm-cold effects in first impressions of persons and teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 118-121.doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.118