Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Female Faculty Role Models and Student Outcomes: A Caveat about Aggregation

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The idea that female faculty might serve as role models for female students has led to studies of the effect of female faculty on female student performance. Due to varying levels of aggregation of the measure of student exposure to female faculty—percentage of female faculty at an institution or department, percentage of classes taught by females, or the effect of female instructors on female students in a class—existing research provides mixed and incompatible results. By applying both non-aggregated and aggregated measures of exposure to female role models to the same data, this analysis demonstrates how aggregation affects the association between exposure to female role models and student achievement. This study shows that female instructors have a significant positive effect on female student grade performance and do not have a statistically significant effect on male student performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aitkin, M., & Longford, N. (1986). Statistical modelling issues in school effectiveness studies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General), 149(1), 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1995). Self-Efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2005). Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students. Understanding Teacher Quality, 95(2), 152–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationships of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, Anthony. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, Anthony. (1973b). Relationship between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchmann, C., & DiPrete, T. A. (2006). The growing female advantage in college completion: The role of family background and academic achievement. American Sociological Review, 71, 515–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrelli, J. (2008). Thirty-Three Years of Women in S&E Faculty Positions. (NSF 08-308). National Science Foundation. Retrieved on November 6, 2013 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08308/nsf08308.pdf .

  • Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of gender development and function. The psychology of gender (pp. 92–119). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canes, B., & Rosen, H. S. (1995). Following in her footsteps? Women’s choices of college majors and faculty gender compositions. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(3), 486–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrell, S. E., Page, M. E., & West, J. E. (2010). Sex and science: How professor gender perpetuates the gender gap. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3), 1101–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, D. W., & Pascarella, E. T. (1983). Predictors of academic and social integration of college students. Research in Higher Education, 19(3), 295–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, S. (1987). The self-efficacy expectations and occupational preferences of females and males. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 257–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conger, D., & Long, M.C. (2009). Why are men falling behind? Gender gaps in college performance and persistence. Retrieved on November 14, 2013 from http://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/ANNALS_Conger,Long_Manuscript%20%28Feb%2009%29.pdf .

  • Crubb, F. (2006). Does going Greek impair undergraduate academic performance? American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 65(5), 1086–1110.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBard, R., Lake, T., & Binder, R. S. (2006). Greeks and grades: The first-year experience. NASPA Journal, 43(1), 56–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, V. A. (1984). An economic model of faculty grading practices. Journal of Economic Education, 15(3), 197–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. G. (1995). Role models in education. Symposium introduction. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(3), 482–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, A., & Goldstein, H. (2006). Cross-classified and Multiple Membership Structures in Multilevel Models. An Introduction and Review. University of Birmingham: Department of Education and Skills. Retrieved on April 5, 2013 at http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6469/1/RR791.pdf .

  • Fox, G. L. (1974). Some observations and data on the availability of same-sex role models as a factor in undergraduate career choice. Sociological Focus, 7, 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisbee, W. R. (1984). Course grades and academic performance by university students: A two-stage least squares analysis. Research in Higher Education, 20(3), 345–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginther, D. K., & Khan, S. (2004). Women in economics: Moving up or falling off the academic career ladder? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(3), 193–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, C., Katz, L.F., & Kuziemko, I. (2006). The homecoming of american college women: The reversal of the college gender Gap. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 12139. Retrieved on April 3, 2013 from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12139.

  • Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedorn, L. S., Siadat, M. V., Nora, A., & Pascarella, E. T. (1997). Factors leading to gains in mathematics during the first year in college: An analysis by gender and ethnicity. The Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 3(3), 185–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, F., & Oreopoulos, P. (2009). A professor like me. The influence of instructor gender on college achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 44(2), 479–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, S. (2005). Beyond Grade Inflation: Grading Problems in Higher Education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 30(6). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Hu, F. B., Goldberg, J., Hedeker, D., Flay, B. R., & Pentz, M. A. (1998). Comparison of population-averaged and subject-specific approaches to analyzing repeated binary outcomes. American Journal of Epidemiology, 147(7), 694–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, S. P., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educational purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewell, T. R., & McPherson, M. A. (2012). Instructor-specific grade inflation: Incentives, gender and ethnicity. Social Science Quarterly, 93(1), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, I. (2010). Class size and student performance at a public research university: A cross-classified model. Research in Higher Education, 51(8), 701–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, I. (2011). Contingent Instructors and student outcomes: An artifact or a fact? Research in Higher Education, 52(8), 761–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinfeld, J. (2009). The state of American boyhood. Gender Issues, 26, 113–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, L.G., Kelly-Reid, J.E., & Ginder, S.A. (2011). Employees in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2010, and Salaries of Full-Time Instructional Staff, 2010–11 (NCES 2012-276). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved on November 6, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012276.pdf .

  • Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (1999). Unraveling the complexity of the increase in college grades from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 297–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowack, K. W., & Hanson, A. L. (1985). Academic achievement of freshmen as a function of residence hall housing. NASPA Journal, 22(3), 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouazad, A., & Page, L. (2012). Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Biases: Experimental Economics in Schools. London: Centre for the Economics of Education. Retrieved on April 5, 2013 from http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps/ceedp133.pdf.

  • Pascarella, E. T., Bohr, L., Nora, A., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Is differential exposure to college linked to the development of critical thinking? Research in Higher Education, 37, 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rau, W., & Durand, A. (2000). The academic ethic and college grades: Does hard work help students to ‘make the grade’? Sociology of Education, 73(1), 19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robst, J., Keil, J., & Russo, D. (1998). The effect of gender composition of faculty on retention. Economics of Education Review, 17(4), 429–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. A., Scott, G., & Bruce, C. D. (2012). The gender confidence gap in fractions knowledge: Gender differences in student belief-achievement relationships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(5), 278–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, D. S. (1995). Do female faculty influence female students’ educational and labor market attainments? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(3), 515–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H. (2001). Students’ effort and reward in college settings. Sociology of Education, 74, 73–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 13, 238–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solnick, S. J. (1995). Changes in women’s majors from entrance to graduation at women’s and coeducational colleges. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(3), 505–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stratton, L. S., O’Toole, D. M., & Wetzel, J. M. (2007). Are the factors affecting dropout behavior related to initial enrollment intensity for college undergraduates? Research in Higher Education, 48(4), 453–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turley, R. N., & Wodtke, G. (2010). College residence and academic performance: Who benefits from living on campus? Urban Education, 45(4), 506–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P.D., Kinzie, J.L., Thomas, A.D., Palmer, M.M., & Kuh, G.D. (2003, November). Women Students at Coeducational and Women’s Colleges: How Do Their Experiences Compare? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Portland, Oregon.

  • Van Houtte, M. (2004). Why boys achieve less at school than girls: The difference between boys’ and girls’ academic culture. Educational Studies, 30(2), 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. (2003, October 10). Duke and Princeton will spend more to make female professors happy. Chronicle of Higher Education, The Faculty Volume, 52(42), A12.

  • Wilson, R. (2006, June 23). Harvard to encourage female professors. Chronicle of Higher Education, The Faculty Volume, 50(7), A12.

  • Wolfe, J. S. (1993). Institutional integration, academic success, and persistence of first-year commuter and resident students. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 321–326.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, Auburn University, 203 Samford Hall, Auburn, AL, 36849-5111, USA

    Iryna Y. Johnson

Authors
  1. Iryna Y. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iryna Y. Johnson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, I.Y. Female Faculty Role Models and Student Outcomes: A Caveat about Aggregation. Res High Educ 55, 686–709 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-014-9331-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-014-9331-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation