1. 1
Students’ Perception of Bias with Undergraduate College Students
by
Courtney M. Carey
Senior Thesis
Saint Joseph’s College of Maine
Department of Psychology
April 28th 2015
Approved by:
____________ ______________________________
Date Thesis Advisor’s Signature

2. 2
Table of Contents
Abstract 3
Review of the Literature 4
Classroom Behaviors 4
Favoritism in a Classroom 5
Expectations in a Classroom 7
Research Questions 9
Methodology 10
Participants 10
Instrumentation 10
Analysis of Data 10
Discussion and Conclusion 13
Recommendations for Future Research 16
References 17
Informed Consent Form 19
Appendix A 20
Appendix B 21
Appendix C 22
Appendix D 23

3. 3
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate students’ perception of bias with 78
undergraduate college students. Four instruments that were author created were administrated to
the students to measure bias in the classroom. Undergraduate college students completed the
author create surveys determining their perception of bias in the classroom. The results indicated
that almost half of the students indicate there was bias in their classroom, as well as, more than
half of males than females reported a bias in the classroom. Males seem to be favorited over
females in different classroom situations. Furthermore, these results indicate that preparation of
professors should include increased awareness of bias in the classroom.

4. 4
Review of the Literature
Classroom Behaviors
Numerous research studies have investigated the impact of classroom behavior on
academic performance. Dicke, Parker, Marsh, Kunter, Schmeck, and Leutner (2014) conducted a
study that examined the strength of a teacher’s self-efficacy in classroom moderates emotional
exhaustion via classroom disturbances. Participants were 1,227 teacher candidates who were
working in German schools (29.7% male, 70.3% female teacher candidates). The mean age of
candidates were 29.55 (SD=4.47). Participants were administrated the Maslach Burnout
Inventory (MBI; Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter (1996), Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES,
Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001). The results indicated that only when a teacher’s
self-efficacy in classroom management is low is when results in emotional exhaustion via
classroom disturbances come to surface. Self-efficacy in classroom management seems to play a
more complex role in the stress process than has been assumed. Self-efficacy is a predictor of
strain via stress, as a moderator of stress and strain relationship.
Briesch and Chafouleas (2009) reviewed and analyzed literature on self-management to
promote appropriate classroom behavior to better define the characteristics of this class of
interventions. They examined the use of self-management as a behavioral intervention strategy
and targeting academic variables as well. Participants of this study were school-age children of
normal intelligence in regular or special educations were included. One hundred and six students
participated and 84% (n=84) were boys and 16% (n=17) were girls. The mean ages of the
students across all studies were 11 years, 7 months. All students that met the criteria for inclusion
in the study were rated with the Self-Management Intervention Checklist (SMIC-2; Fantuzzo and
Polite, 1990). The results reinforce previous findings that self-management is an effective

5. 5
intervention strategy with utility acknowledged across setting and population. Common
foundation was that a target behavior was identified and defined by and adult and that this
behavior was observed and documented by the student. The results indicated self-management
interventions appear to have undergone a small shift toward increased reliance on internal
(student managed) contingencies; adults continue to play a large role in the implementation.
Patrick, Kaplan, and Ryan (2011) in a series of 4 studies they investigated the
relationship of mastery goal structure and 4 dimensions of the classroom social climate (teacher
academic support, teacher emotional support, classroom mutual respect, and task-related
interaction). Participants were 537 fifth-grade students (51%male) from 31 classes in six
elementary school for study 1. Study 2 used 537 seventh graders from three school districts and
were the same students that participated in study 1 two years prior. Study 3 had 736 sixth graders
(52% female) participants from 39 classrooms within 16 elementary schools in two districts.
Participants were measured using Adaptive Learning Survey, PALS (Midgley et al., 1996),
Classroom Life Instrument, CLI (Johnson & Johnson, 1983), and nonmetric multidimensional
scaling, MDS. “The results suggest that the mastery goal structure construct could provide a
good, parsimonious, and efficient alternative to administering numerous measures of classroom
social climate in order to assess the multidimensional nature of the classroom. Mastery goal
structure may be conceptualized as an overarching structure composed of different but related
dimensions rather than as a single construct” (p. 15).
Favoritism in a Classroom
Tal & Babad (1990) conducted a study on the teacher’s pet phenomenon and its rate of
occurrence, correlates, and psychological costs. Participants studied were an entire fifth-grade
population of four towns and one rural region in the southern part of Israel, 80 classrooms and

6. 6
their teachers in 39 schools. All of 80 teachers were women at an average age of 33, with an
average teacher experience of 11 years. There were a total of 2,079 students, which included
49% girls and 51% boys. Participants were administered a Sociometric questionnaire (examples
incude: most popular student, best liked student, and leader), emotional climate and morale
questionnaire, and ratings of teachers’ interactions with three types of students (pets, leaders, and
academically best students). The results indicated that there were no overall favoritism found,
but a trace of favoritism by more authoritarian teachers was discovered. Teacher pets were
identified through students’ sociometric nominations in 80% of the classrooms: exclusive pets in
26% and unexclusive pets in 54% of the classrooms. Teachers’ pets tend to be girls over boys,
and who were very good (not the best) in academics, perceived as charming, socially skilled, and
compliant. Teachers who had classroom pets were found to have more authoritarian attitudes.
Sassenberg, Brazy, Jonas, and Shah (2013) conducted three experiments to determine the
impact of regulatory fit on the gender-based in-group favoritism, when gender fits self-regulatory
preferences. Participants of study 1 were 37 female and 24 male undergraduate students from the
University of Wisconsin-Madison (mean age =19, range of 18-24). Participants of study 2 were
23 female and 12 male undergraduate students of the University of Jena with a mean age of 21
and range of 19-28 years old. Study 3 participants were 31 female and 31 male undergraduate
students of the University of Jena, with a mean age of 25 and range of 18-45 years old. Study 1
participants were administered a modified version of the Selves Questionnaire (Higgins, 1989),
Study 2 participants were manipulated via Framing (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Shah, Higgins, &
Friedman, 1998), and Study 3 had their participants engage in both instruments above. The
results indicated that females showed higher in-group favoritism with decreasing promotion

7. 7
dominance whereas males the effect pointed in the opposite direction and in a prevention focus
females expressed more bias than males.
Galinsky and Moskowitz (2000) conducted three experiments to explore the role of
perspective-taking in de-biasing social thought. Specifically, perspective-taking decreasing
stereotypic biases on both a conscious and non-conscious task, perspective-taking leading to both
decreasing stereotype and increasing overlap between representations of the self and
representation of the elderly, and perspective-taking reducing evidence of in-group bias in the
minimal group paradigm by increasing evaluations of the out-group. Participants for this study
were 37 undergraduates in experiment 1, while there were 82 undergraduates in experiment 2,
and 40 undergraduates in experiment 3. The results of experiment 1 suggest that “stereotype
suppression can reduce the expression of stereotypical content, but does not translate into the
expression of more positive content.” (p. 5) Perspective-taking “reduced the expression of
stereotypical content and increased the expression of positive content relative to the control
condition.” (p. 5) Experiment 2 results “replicate the pattern found in experiment 1 in which
perspective-takers and suppressors both restricted the expression of stereotypic content, but only
perspective-takers expressed more positive evaluations of the target” (p. 8). Experiment 3
concludes that the perspective-taking reduced bias by increasing evaluations of the out-group.
Expectations in a Classroom
Mason (1973) conducted a study of teachers’ observations and expectations of boys and
girls influenced by biased psychological reports and knowledge of the effects of bias.
Participants were 34 males and 45 female teachers and teachers in training enrolled in
introductory courses in educational psychology in the Department of Educational Psychology at
the Temple University during the summer of 1971. Participants were split into two groups and

8. 8
asked to watch a video of a kindergarten student (one of each gender) that was being
administered the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts (BTBC), Format A, Booklet 2 (Boehm, 1969)
with one video providing one group with knowledge of bias effects conditions. Participants were
asked to record when they thought the child answered incorrectly during the video and what
marks they expected the child to receive at the end of first grade. The results indicated that the
observations variable has no significant differences because of main effects (psychological
report, lecture, or sex), however, a 3-way interaction was found to be significant (p<.01).
Participants who were informed of the effects of biases and read the neutral report attributed the
most errors to the child, while participants who were not informed of the effects of biases
attributed the most errors when they had read the unfavorable report. Participants who had been
given knowledge of the bias effects lecture tended to rate the boy’s performance more favorably
than the girl’s, while no knowledge of the bias effects led to higher ratings of the girl’s
performance.
Bennett (1982) conducted a study that examined student perceptions of and expectations
for male and female instructors, relating the evidence to the question of gender bias in teaching
evaluation. Participants were 253 students enrolled in nonscience introductory courses at a
liberal arts college. The students represented eleven female instructed courses and twenty-eight
male instructed courses. Participants were administered Quasiprojective protocols, hypothetical
descriptions, and self-returned questionnaire. Participants were to measure and report the
perceptual orientation scale and student-instructor contact indicators; formal evaluative ratings of
teaching performance. The results indicated no evidence of direct bias in formal student
evaluation of instructors at this certain institution studied. Students (participants) relate to male
and female instructors within a common cognitive frame of reference. Although, this study did

9. 9
indicate that women tend to be rated higher on formal evaluation items that describe
interpersonal aspects of instruction and women are greater perceived with warmth and personal
charisma.
De Boer, Bosker, Van der Werf (2010) addressed the relationship between teacher
expectation bias and student characteristics of a long-term student performance and the
development of the effect over time. Subjects were 11,040 students at 112 schools whom were
monitored for five consecutive years after entry into secondary education. Subjects were twelve
years of age when data collection began. Teacher expectation, prior achievement, IQ, and
achievement motivations were used to calculate teacher expectation bias. Student characteristic
(socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, parents’ aspirations, and grade repetition in primary
schools) variables were used for the prediction of teacher expectation bias and for the analyses of
possible mediating and moderating effects of teacher expectation bias on student performance.
The results revealed relationships between teacher expectation bias and student characteristics as
well as an effect of expectation bias on long-term student performance. Mediation and
moderation effects were the strongest for parents’ aspirations. The effects of teacher expectation
bias scattered partly during the first two years, but remained stable over time afterwards.
ResearchQuestions
Based on the review of the literature the following research questions were investigated.
1. What percent of students feel that there is a bias in the classroom?
2. What percent of students agree that they feel comfortable participating in class?
3. Do students feel a gender bias in their classrooms?
4. What are the top three characteristics for male and female professors?

10. 10
Methodology
Participants surveyed were 78 undergraduate students at a college in the northeast. There
were 34 males 43.6% and 44 females 56.4%. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 23 (mean
age=19.96, SD=1.16). The mean GPS of the males was 3.13 (SD=.39) and for females was 3.19
(SD=.52). There were 14 freshmen 17.9%, 33 sophomores 42.3%, 13 juniors 16.7%, and 18
senior 23.1%.71 (91%) indicated they lived on campus and 7 (9%) indicated they lived off
campus.
Instrumentation
Four instruments were administered to the participants in this study. The first instrument
asked participants to supple demographic information like age, gender, GPA, and class standing.
The second instrument consisted of three sections that measured student participation in a class
(9 items), effort expanded in school work (5 items), and characteristics of themselves and their
professors (13 items). The third instrument measured favoritism in the classroom and consisted
of 8 items that were completed with a Yes, Sometimes, or No. Examples include, “Have you
ever noticed any of your professors favorite a certain student?” and “Do you feel favorite by a
professor in any class?” The fourth instrument measured professor expectations in a classroom
and consisted of 13 items that were complete on a 5 point scale (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly
disagree) (Ouimet & Smallwood 2005).
Analysis of Data
Data was collected in spring 2015 and analyzed using SPSS version 22.
Research Question 1: In order to analyze this research question, frequencies were conducted.
The results determined that 42 (53.8%) indicated that there was a bias within the classroom, 20

11. 11
(25.6%) indicated a bias sometimes within the classroom, and 16 (20.5%) indicated that there
was no bias within the classroom. When examining gender difference in bias within the
classroom, more males (n=36), (46.2%) indicated there was a bias in the classroom than females
(n=18), (23.1%).
Research Question 2: The second research question examined the frequency of the students’
participation in their classroom with perspective of their comfort within their college classroom
and with their professors. The results are presented in Table 1. The results indicate that no
student feels completely uncomfortable participating in class and most students (71.7%),
strongly indicate that they can participate while feeling comfortable in their classroom.
Table 1
Frequencies of Participation of Students and Comfort Professors give Students in the classroom
Research Question 3: In order to answer this question, frequencies were conducted. The results
determined that gender bias in a classroom goes noticed by undergraduate college students.
Seventy-eight undergraduate students were asked a series of situations such as “males papers are
graded more favorably” or “females papers are graded more favorably.” Participants were asked
to indicate if they experienced a bias in the classroom. Significant differences emerged between
males and females. The results are presented in Table 2.

12. 12
Table 2
Frequencies of Student’s opinion of Genders Bias Acts in the Classroom done by Professors
Research Question 4:
To analyze this question, undergraduate students were asked to indicate characteristics they feel
their male or female professors possess. The results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Frequencies of Top Three and Bottom Three Professor Characteristics Perceived by Students

13. 13
The top 3 characteristics did not differ between male and female professors. Although, students
felt that female professors also have a strong personality 34 (50.7%) than male professors.
Interestingly, the 3 bottom characteristics seen in professors were similar between males and
females, but students reported that only male professors do not acquire a soft characteristic 6
(31.6%).
Discussion and Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate student perceptions of bias with
undergraduate college students. Two main finding emerged from this study. First, males are
called on and favored more than females in a classroom. Second, both top male and female
professor’s characteristics include acts as a leader. The main bottom characteristics of male and
female professors include not being lazy. While professors are not aware, they appear to be
playing favorites in the classroom by calling on more males, praising male answers, and in
general favoring males more than females. Based on the results, professors should be sensitive to
the dynamics in a classroom and to work with both males/females equally.
Additional findings from the study are:
 Bias was perceived by undergraduate college students in their classrooms
 Among 78 undergraduate college students 0(0.0%) “Strongly Disagreed” on questions 1,
2, and 3 of appendix B. Indicating that no student feels completely uncomfortable with
participating in their classrooms.
 Overall, results show that males are favored in the classroom over females during various
scenarios. Such as, grading papers, being called on, and looked at as a leader.

14. 14
 Students perceived top 3 characteristics of male professors as a leader, sympathetic,
analytical/reliable. Students perceived top 3 characteristics of female professors as a
leader, strong personality/analytical/reliable, and sympathetic.
Perceiving bias in a college classroom is common among professors and students.
Incidents of bias incorporate situations such as prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping. Most
colleges have little to no idea of the effectiveness of classroom bias towards students’ class
participation and academic success. Considering this, the classroom participation and classroom
bias does not correlate. The results of the current study indicated 0 (0%) of students felt
uncomfortable speaking in class, asking questions in class, and participating in class. Therefore,
participation and classroom comfort is not influence classroom bias.
Tal & Babad (1990) conducted a study about the teacher’s pet phenomenon, how often it
happens, and psychological influences. Teacher’s pet phenomenon can also be acknowledged as
teacher’s favorites. The current study results showed 42 (53.8%) students indicated that there
was a bias within the classroom, 20 (25.6%) indicated a bias sometimes within the classroom,
and 16 (20.5%) indicated that there was no bias within the classroom. When examining gender
difference in bias within the classroom, more males (n=36), (46.2%) indicated there was a bias in
the classroom than females (n=18), (23.1%). Then, when reviewing what gender was favored in
the classroom during classroom participation, males were favored more than females. Tal &
Babad (1990) results indicated that there was a trace of favoritism by teachers with more
authoritarian attitudes, 80% of the classrooms had exclusive pets and 26% unexclusive pets in
54% of classrooms. When integrating their results with the results of this research, imply that
professors could possess authoritarian attitudes influencing gender bias (gender favoritism) into

15. 15
their classrooms. Tal & Babad (1990) concluded that teacher’s pets tend to be girls over boys.
Within this current study, results indicated males are favored over females, but participants of the
study conducted by Tal & Babad (1990) were and entire fifth-grade population of four towns in
southern Israel. This could determine the difference of our results because as students of fifth-
grade develop and become adults, boys can become mature within a classroom and influence a
teacher’s perception differently in an undergraduate college. Three studies were reviewed prior
to this research concerning classroom behaviors. No participants indicated they felt strongly
uncomfortable in their classrooms, indicating they have higher chances of participating, asking
questions, and answering questions. Academic performance of a student is reflected by the
teacher’s self-efficacy. Dicke et al. (2014) conducted a study that examined a teacher’s self-
efficacy. The study’s results indicated that only when a teacher’s self-efficacy in a classroom
management is low when results in emotional exhaustion via classroom disturbances come to
surface. This infers that participants of this research do not perceive any low classroom
management, therefore will participate. Briesch and Chafouleas (2009) also related professors
(adults) as ones to play a large role in the implementation of students’ appropriate classroom
behaviors. These studies two studies also imply why the top characteristics perceived by students
of male and female professors are being a leader, sympathetic, reliable, and strong personality.
These top characteristics indicate that the professors of the undergraduate college provide non-
stressful classroom environment and their students’ experience is positive. Therefore, professors’
strong characteristics are shown. In conclusion, many findings surfaced from this study and
undergraduate college students perceive gender bias in their classrooms.

16. 16
Recommendations for Future Research
It is recommended that future research have a larger sample of undergraduate college
students, as well as an equal distribution of males and females as well as a variety of majors. It is
even possible that this research could be done among post graduate students to compare the
difference of undergraduate and post-graduate perception of bias.

17. 17
REFERENCES
Bennett, S. (1982). Student perceptions of and expectations for male and female instructors:
Evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74, 170-179.
Boehm, A. E. (1969). Boehm Test of Basic Concepts. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Bosker, R., de Boer, H., & van der Werf, M. (2010). Sustainability of teacher expectation bias
effects on long-term student performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 168-
179.
Briesch, A., & Chafouleas, S. (2009). Review and analysis of literature on self-management
interventions to promote appropriate classroom behaviors. School Psychology Quarterly,
24(2), 106-118.
Crow, E., & Higgins, E., T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and
prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69,
117-132.
Dicke, T., Parker, P., Marsh, H., Kunter, M., & Leutner, D. (2014). Self-efficacy in classroom
management, classroom disturbances, and emotional exhaustion: A moderated mediation
analysis of teacher candidates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 569-583.
Fantuzzo, J, W,. & Polite, K. (1990). School-based, behavioral self-management: A review and
analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 5, 180-198.
Galinsky, A., & Moskowitz, G. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression,
stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social, 78(4),
708-724.
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to
suffer? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 93-
136). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1983). Social inderdependence and perceived academic and
personal support in the classroom. Journal of Social Psychology, 120, 77-82.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter. M, P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (3rd ed.).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Mason, E. (1973). Teachers’ observations and expectations of boys and girls as influences by
biased psychological reports and knowledge of the effects of bias. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 65, 238-243.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M, L., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E, M., & Kaplan, A.

18. 18
(1996). The Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Ouimet, J.A.& Smallwood, R.A. (2005). CLASSE–the class-level survey of student
engagement, Assessment Update, 17(6), 13-15.
Patrick, H., Kaplan, A., & Ryan, A. (2011). Positive classroom motivational environments:
Convergence between mastery goal structure and classroom social climate. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 103(2), 367-382.
Sassenberg, K., Brazy, P., Jonas, K., & Shah, J. (2013). When gender fits self-regulatory
preferences: The impact of regulatory fit on gender-based ingroup favoritism. Social
Psychology, 44(1), 4-15.
Shah, J. Y., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How
regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 285-293.
Tal, Z., & Babad, E. (1990). The teacher’s pet phenomenon: Rate of occurrence, correlates, and
psychological costs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 637-645.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an exclusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

19. 19
***********************************************************************
PARTICIPANT’S INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Student Perception of Bias with Undergraduate College Students
I AM BEINGASKED TO READ THE FOLLOWINGMATERIAL TO ENSURE THAT I AM
INFORMED OF THE NATURE OF THIS RESEARCH PROJECT AND OF HOW I WILL
PARTICIPATE IN IT,IF I CONSENT TO DO SO. SIGNINGTHIS FORM WILL INDICATE THAT I
HAVE BEEN SO INFORMED AND THAT I GIVE MY CONSENT.
NATURE AND PURPOSE: I am being asked to participate voluntarily in the above-titled research
project. This project is being conducted by Courtney Carey as part of the PY407 Research Methods
course taught by Dr. Nina Eduljee at Saint Joseph’s College of Maine. The purpose of the project is to
increase our understanding of student perception of bias with undergraduate college students.
SELECTION CRITERIA: I have been chosen at random to participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES: If I agree to participate, I will be asked to complete a confidential survey that includes
questions about bias within the classroom.
RISKS: The risks of my participating are minimal. The survey may contain questions of a personal
nature, but I will answer questions only if I feelcomfortable doing so. I understand that I am free to stop
participating in this research project at any time I wish.
BENEFITS: There is no direct benefit to me from my participation. However,I may contribute to a
better understanding of bias within the classroom.
CONFIDENTIALITY: To ensure confidentiality, I will not write my name on the survey. The
information I provide will be coded with an identification number and will not be connected with my
name in any way. All reports will be prepared in a way that protects the anonymity of participants.
PARTICIPANT COSTS ANDSUBJECT COMPENSATION: The only cost to me will be my time.
Completing the survey will take less than 10 minutes. I will not be compensated for my participation.
CONTACTS: I can receive additional information about this research project by contacting Courtney
Carey at email ccarey@sjcme.edu,or Dr. Nina Eduljee at telephone 207-893-7902 or email
neduljee@sjcme.edu.
AUTHORIZATION: I understand the nature, purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits of my
participation in this research project. I understand that I can stop participating at any time. A copy of this
signed consent form will be given to me.
________________________________________ ______________
Participant's Signature Date
*****************************************************************************

20. 20
Appendix A
The purpose of this survey is to gather information concerning bias within the classroom. It
should take less than 10 minutes to complete this survey. All responses will be kept confidential.
Thank you.
Directions: Please to the following by circling or filling in the blank.
1. Age: _____
2. Male _____ Female _____
3. GPA (If you do not know, please estimate): _____
4. Major: _______________________
5. Class Standing (circle): Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
6a. Do you live (circle): On Campus Off Campus
6b. If you live Off Campus, do you live (circle): At Home With Friends On Your Own
7. Do you participate in any campus activities (athletics, clubs, intramurals, etc.)?
Yes ____ No ____

21. 21
Appendix B
Rate the following on a scale ofStrongly Agree to Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
1. I feel comfortable speaking during a class
discussion.
2. I prefer to work individually.
3. I comment, ask questions,orgive answers during
class.
4. I keep my cell-phone on my deskduring class.
5. I do extra credit when given the opportunity.
6. I take class notes during a lecture.
7. I often catch myself daydreaming.
8. I complete homework assignments on time.
9. I talk during class to peers.
Rate the following by; Never, once, twice, 3-4 times, or 5+ times.
Never Once Twice 3-4 times 5+ times
10. Skip class this past semester.
11. Feel bored during class.
12. Give up when work is hard.
13. Receive help with schoolwork.
14. Text during class.
Check the gender that you think the listed characteristics Check characteristics that apply to a professor
match; (you may check both genders for one characteristic) ofyour choice.
-Is this professor male or female? ____________
Yes No
Acts as a leader
Soft spoken
Sensitive to others needs
Uses harsh language
Analytical
Aggressive
Strong personality
Gullible
Sympathetic
Lazy
Reliable
Childlike
Male Female
Acts as a leader
Soft spoken
Reliable
Aggressive
Childlike
Lazy
Ambitious
Doesn’t use harsh language
Analytical
Willing to take risks
Gullible
Sympathetic
Strong personality

22. 22
Appendix C
Circle Yes, Sometimes, or No to the following questions.
1. Have you ever noticed any of your professors favorite a certain student? YES SOMETIMES NO
-If yes: Male or Female student -Male or Female professor
2. Do you feel favorited by a professor in any class? YES SOMETIMES NO
If yes: How many classes? ___
3. Have you felt neglected from a professor because of your gender? YES SOMETIMES NO
-If yes: Male or Female professor
4. Have you noticed any students neglected by a professor in class? YES SOMETIMES NO
-If yes; Male or Female student -Male or Female professor
5. Do any of your professors rely on a certain student to answer questions? YES SOMETIMES NO
-If yes: Male or Female student -Male or Female professor
6. Do professors rely on you to answer questions during class? YES SOMETIMES NO
7. Any of your professors grade unfairly? YES SOMETIMES NO
8. Do you think there is a lack of equality in your classrooms by professors? YES SOMETIMES NO
-If yes or sometimes; What kind of issues are in play? Check all that apply.
-Professor favors males in class ____ -Professor favors females in class ____
-Professor calls on males to answer ____ -Professor looks at male students to be leaders ____
-Professor calls on females to answer ____ -Professor looks at female students to be leaders ___
-Professor grades male students’ paper -Professor praises male students’ answers ____
more favorable than female students’ papers ____
-Professor praises female students’ answers ____
-Professor grades female students’ paper
more favorable than male students’ papers ____

23. 23
Appendix D
Choose a class you’re currently enrolled in.
Answer the following questions on a scale of Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
*Is your professor of this class female or male? _____________
*Are there more male or female students in this class?
More male_____ More Female______ Equal Number_____
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
1. My professor knows who I
am (knows my name,
recognizes me)
2. I have interacted with my
professor outside of class
(e.g office hours, phone, e-
mail) in regards to this
course.
3. My professor’s grading
standard is too hard.
4. I usually am asked by my
professor to answer
questions.
5. I know the answer to
questions.
6. I enjoy this class.
7. My professor’s work load
is too much.
8. My professor becomes
annoyed with the class when
we don’t do well.
9. My expected grade will be
an accurate representation of
my effort and learning.
10. My professor’s exams are
easy.
11. I ask questions during
class.
12. My professor’s grading
standards or expectations
improved my learning.
13. My professor expects too
much of me.

24. 24