A Troubleshoot Test of Student Evaluations of Teaching: Role Congruity, Gendered Language, and Educational (In)Equalities

Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) play a central role in hiring, promotion, and retention decisions in higher education; however, research indicates that they may be influenced by perceptions about instructor identity rather than teaching effectiveness. Guided by role congruity theory, which suggests that gendered expectations influence judgments when individuals occupy roles historically associated with another sex or gender, this study examines how students’ written comments reflect stereotypes, notably those related to gender. Using qualitative analysis of narrative SET responses, we identify recurring linguistic patterns that reveal how gender intersects in shaping perceptions of (Black) cisgender faculty. Results from the study show that women instructors were frequently described in relational and mentorship-oriented language, whereas men instructors were framed in terms of authority, rigor, and intellectual challenge. While both groups received overall positive evaluations, these differentiated descriptors highlight subtle mechanisms through which bias can operate and reinforce normative expectations. We also consider our positionality as cisgender scholars and reflect on the broader cultural and institutional contexts that inform evaluations of teaching, underscoring the need for equitable and reflective evaluation practices to further educational equalities in higher education, including the disruption of cisnormativity.