![sneaky ninja professor rating sneaky ninja professor rating](https://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server1700/6d68e/products/7713/images/9876/Fishermans_friend_Original_Strong_Mint_25g_bag__89632.1489368680.1280.1280.jpg)
The survey gathered demographic information, patterns and frequency of use, and information to characterise participants in terms of their learning/grade orientation. This study investigated whether general chemistry students who use RMP were different from other students, and their reasons to use and contribute to the site. (RMP) is the most popular commercial website to evaluate instructors, and houses a wealth of student-generated information in the form of ratings and reviews. The implications for instructional communication and online rating systems are addressed. Results are discussed in light of the heuristic-systematic processing model. It was further hypothesized that students who received mixed-valence information would not differ significantly in their ratings of instructors or courses when compared to the control group. Using the heuristic-systematic processing model, it was hypothesized that students who received positive valence computer-mediated WOM about an instructor would perceive the instructor as more credible and attractive and would report greater levels of affective learning and state motivation to learn than students who received negative information, mixed-valence information, or no information (control). The purpose of this experiment was to test the influence of mixed reviews appearing as computer-mediated word-of-mouth communication (WOM) on student perceptions of instructors (attractiveness and credibility) and attitudes toward learning course content (affective learning and state motivation). Caution is therefore warranted in using online ratings to select courses or make hiring and promotion decisions.
![sneaky ninja professor rating sneaky ninja professor rating](https://www.lastmovieoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/snake-eyes-e1580989767970.jpg)
Results, with previous research, suggest numerous factors, largely out of professors’ control, influencing how students interpret and create professor ratings. Current professors were rated significantly lower in dedication, enhancement, fairness, and clarity when rated at or below the median on attractiveness. They rated current professors as lowest in clarity when a man and 35 or older. Using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), students expected hot professors to be more attractive but lower in clarity. Current professors were divided based on gender (man or woman), age (under 35 or 35 and older), and attractiveness (at or below the median or above the median). Participants rated current psychology professors on the same qualities. Five professor qualities were derived using principal components analysis (PCA): dedication, attractiveness, enhancement, fairness, and clarity. Undergraduate psychology students rated expectations of a bogus professor (randomly designated a man or woman and hot versus not hot) based on an online rating and sample comments as found on (RMP).