instructor reputation

from http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/case_studies/instructor_reputation/
1 (good), 2 (bad) = two descriptions of lecturer before seeing her
rating = student's evaluation of her (identical) lecture based on three 1-10 scale questions.

see http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/case_studies/instructor_reputation/

Do
  (1) graphical display
  (2) t-test
  (3) ANOVA variance comparison

Condition Rating
2 2.6667
1 1.6667
2 2.0000
1 3.0000
1 1.6667
1 2.3333
2 2.0000
2 1.3333
2 1.6667
1 4.0000
2 2.3333
1 2.3333
2 2.6667
2 2.0000
2 1.6667
1 2.0000
1 2.6667
1 2.6667
1 2.3333
2 1.3333
1 3.3333
2 2.3333
2 2.0000
1 2.3333
2 2.3333
1 2.3333
2 2.3333
2 2.3333
1 2.6667
1 3.0000
1 2.6667
1 3.0000
2 2.3333
1 2.0000
2 1.6667
1 2.3333
2 3.6667
1 2.6667
2 2.3333
1 3.0000
2 2.6667
1 3.3333
1 3.0000
1 2.6667
2 2.0000
2 2.3333
2 2.3333
2 3.3333
1 2.3333



Experimental Design

Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Before viewing the lecture, students were give a summary of the instructors prior teaching evaluations. There were two conditions: Charismatic instructor and Punitive instructor.

Summary given in the "Charismatic instructor" condition:
Frequently at or near the top of the academic department in all teaching categories. Professor S was always lively and stimulating in class, and commanded respect from everyone. In class, she always encouraged students to express their ideas and opinions, however foolish or half-baked. Professor S was always innovative. She used differing teaching methods and frequently allowed students to experiment and be creative. Outside the classroom, Professor S was always approachable and treated students as individuals.

Summary given in the "Punitive instructor" condition:
Frequently near the bottom of the academic department in all important teaching categories. Professor S did not show an interest in students' progress or make any attempt to sustain student interest in the subject. When students asked questions in class, they were frequently told to find the answers for themselves. When students felt they had produced a good piece of work, very rarely were they given positive feedback. In fact, Professor S consistently seemed to grade students harder than other lecturers in the department.

Then all subjects watched the same twenty-minute lecture given by the exact same lecturer. Following the lecture, subjects rated the lecturer. Subjects answered three questions about the leadership qualities of the lecturer. A summary rating score was computed and used as the variable "rating" here.