Search

Student ratings of instruction (SRI) are commonly used to evaluate courses and teaching in higher education. Much debate about their validity in evaluating teaching exists, which is due to concerns of bias by factors unrelated to teaching quality (Spooren et al., 2013). Our objective was to identify peer-reviewed original research published in English from January 1, 2012, to March 10, 2021, on potential sources of bias in SRIs. Our systematic review of 63 articles demonstrated strong support for the continued existence of gender bias, favoring male instructors and bias against faculty with minority ethnic and cultural backgrounds. These and other biases must be considered when implementing SRIs and reviewing results. Critical practices for reducing bias when using SRIs include implementing bias awareness training and avoiding use of SRIs as a singular measure of teaching quality when making decisions for teaching development or hiring and promotion.

The sudden move from traditional face-to-face teaching and learning to unfamiliar virtual spaces during the early weeks and months of the COVID-19 pandemic demanded many members of educational communities around the world to be flexible and teach and learn outside of their comfort zones. The abruptness of this transition contributed to instructors' concerns about academic cheating as they could no longer assess learning and monitor student progress using their usual strategies and methods. Students also experienced disruptions to their usual ways of learning, which may have contributed to poor decision-making, including engagement in academic misconduct. The present study examined students' beliefs about increased engagement in academic misconduct by their peers during the rapid obligatory transition to remote instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. In January 2021, a retrospective online survey was distributed to students in undergraduate courses. We focused our analyses of the responses from students at a single university in Canada. We found that beliefs of increased cheating depended upon student gender (men vs women), status (domestic vs international), year of study (Years 1/2 vs Years 3 +), and discipline (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics vs Social Sciences and Humanities). These are important findings as they provide insight into the nature of the culture of academic integrity during a stressful and confusing period in postsecondary students' lives.

After decades of research and debates about whether perfectionism is healthy or unhealthy, the Model of Excellencism and Perfectionism (MEP) recently differentiated between people striving for high standards (excellence strivers) and those pursuing perfectionistic standards (perfection strivers). In this study, we devised and tested an interpretational framework of nine scenarios to help determine whether perfectionism is beneficial, unneeded, or harmful by comparing the outcomes of excellence and perfection strivers. In a cross-sectional study with university students (N = 271; Study 1), we found that perfection strivers savor positive school events less and have greater dropout intentions than excellence strivers. In a prospective/longitudinal design with college-aged athletes (N = 296; Study 2), perfectionism was associated with higher athletic achievement. However, perfection strivers who failed to attain their goals experienced lower savoring and enjoyment than excellence strivers. Our findings highlighted the value of our interpretational scenarios as a hub to facilitate the comparison of MEP findings, while showing how to test MEP hypotheses with five popular statistical analyses. Furthermore, the MEP Shiny App is a valuable contribution to expedite the process of comparing the outcomes of excellence and perfection strivers. Overall, this research forged a substantive-methodological pathway that strengthens and enhances the practicality of the MEP. Plain language summary: Many people aspire to achieve excellence without ever trying to attain perfection. Excellence and perfection are different endpoints that set the tone for distinct aiming, striving, phenomenological experiences, and outcomes. A recent theory introduced the concept of excellencism in order to differentiate individuals striving for high yet flexible standards (referred to as excellence strivers) from those who relentlessly and inflexibly chase perfection (known as perfection strivers). In the current research, our overarching goal was to enhance theory with a new framework that would make it easier for researchers to use the Model of Excellencism and Perfectionism (MEP). To achieve our goal, we conducted two studies with cross-sectional and longitudinal methods with university students (Study 1, N = 271) and college-aged athletes (Study 2, N = 296). We created the online MEP Shiny App (https://model-of-excellencism-and-perfectionism.shinyapps.io/Shiny%5fVersion2/) to simplify the process of testing and interpreting the differences between excellence and perfection strivers. Our findings underscored the importance of separating excellencism and perfectionism. In Study 1, perfection strivers savored positive school events less and had greater dropout intentions than excellence strivers. In Study 2, perfectionism was associated with higher goal attainment in sports. However, perfection strivers who failed to attain their goals experienced less savoring and enjoyment than excellence strivers. The positive sports experiences of perfection strivers depended on whether or not they attained their goals. Perfectionism is tricky and can be interpreted as a double-edged sword. It can be seen as beneficial, unneeded, or harmful depending on which outcomes and contexts researchers are looking at. Our findings highlighted the value of our newly proposed interpretational scenarios to make the MEP more accessible to other researchers and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What power dynamics are instantiated when a minority group member empathizes with a dominant group member during social interaction? How do these dynamics compare to those instantiated when the dominant group member instead does the empathizing? According to a general power script account, because empathy is generally directed “down” toward disadvantaged targets needing support, the empathizer should come out “on top” with respect to power-relevant outcomes no matter who it is. According to a meta-stereotype account, because adopting an empathic stance in intergroup contexts leads individuals to think about how their own group is viewed (including with respect to power-relevant characteristics), the dominant group member might come out on top no matter which person empathizes. Two studies involving face-to-face intergroup exchanges yielded results that overall were consistent with the meta-stereotype account: Regardless of who does it, empathy in intergroup contexts seems more apt to exacerbate than mitigate group-based status differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present research examined how messages advocating different intergroup ideologies affect outcomes relevant to minority group members' ability to exert power in exchanges with dominant group members. We expected that salient multiculturalism would have positive implications for minority group members' feelings of power by virtue of highlighting essential contributions they make to society, and that no such empowering effect would be evident for them in connection with alternative ideologies such as color-blindness or for dominant group members. Results across four studies involving different participant populations, operationalizations of ideology, ethnic minority groups, and experimental settings were consistent with these hypotheses and further indicated that the effects of salient multiculturalism on feelings of power had downstream implications for expectations of control in an ostensibly upcoming intergroup interaction and general goal-directed cognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This experiment examined how being the target of one of two commonly recommended strategies for improving intergroup relations—empathy or perspective-taking—affects minority group members’ sense of their group’s power and status in society. The main hypothesis was that the distinct status hierarchies implied by each of these mindsets would be communicated across face-to-face intergroup exchanges. Specifically, because empathy targets are typically in lower power positions whereas perspective-taking targets are typically in higher power positions, minority group members who were targets of a dominant group member’s empathy were expected to come away with a reduced sense of their group’s social standing relative to those who were targets of a dominant group member’s perspective-taking. Results were consistent with this prediction and further suggested that the mindset effect was partially mediated by a tendency for dominant group members’ efforts to empathize with minority targets to foster heightened imbalance in the levels of various power-relevant behaviors exhibited by each person. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although empathy is widely promoted as a beneficial practice across both intergroup and interpersonal contexts, the implications of being the target of empathy for the target's own psychological state are unclear. Three experiments examined how being the target of empathy affects goal-directed cognition outcomes related to a psychological sense of power, namely, the ability to maintain goal focus and readiness to ask for more in negotiations. We reasoned that because individuals typically empathize with others they perceive as disadvantaged and needing support, trying to empathize would raise individuals up in terms of such outcomes at the same time as it pushed the targets of their empathy down in a complementary fashion. Results were consistent with these predictions across intergroup and intragroup interaction. The findings thus suggest that individuals' efforts to empathize can undermine the targets of their empathy in a subtle manner by hindering their ability to pursue their goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]