Grading the professor

Many college courses conclude by giving students the opportunity to evaluate the course and the instructor anonymously. However, the use of these student evaluations as an indicator of course quality and teaching effectiveness is often criticized because these measures may reflect the influence of non-teaching related characteristics, such as the physical appearance of the instructor. The article titled, “Beauty in the classroom: instructors’ pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity” (Hamermesh and Parker, 2005) found that instructors who are viewed to be better looking receive higher instructional ratings. (Daniel S. Hamermesh, Amy Parker, Beauty in the classroom: instructors pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity, Economics of Education Review, Volume 24, Issue 4, August 2005, Pages 369-376, ISSN 0272-7757, 10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.07.013. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775704001165.)

In this lab we will analyze the data from this study in order to learn what goes into a positive professor evaluation.

The data

The data were gathered from end of semester student evaluations for a large sample of professors from the University of Texas at Austin. In addition, six students rated the professors’ physical appearance. (This is aslightly modified version of the original data set that was released as part of the replication data for Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Gelman and Hill, 2007).) The result is a data frame where each row contains a different course and columns represent variables about the courses and professors.

load("more/evals.RData")
variable description
score average professor evaluation score: (1) very unsatisfactory - (5) excellent.
rank rank of professor: teaching, tenure track, tenured.
ethnicity ethnicity of professor: not minority, minority.
gender gender of professor: female, male.
language language of school where professor received education: english or non-english.
age age of professor.
cls_perc_eval percent of students in class who completed evaluation.
cls_did_eval number of students in class who completed evaluation.
cls_students total number of students in class.
cls_level class level: lower, upper.
cls_profs number of professors teaching sections in course in sample: single, multiple.
cls_credits number of credits of class: one credit (lab, PE, etc.), multi credit.
bty_f1lower beauty rating of professor from lower level female: (1) lowest - (10) highest.
bty_f1upper beauty rating of professor from upper level female: (1) lowest - (10) highest.
bty_f2upper beauty rating of professor from second upper level female: (1) lowest - (10) highest.
bty_m1lower beauty rating of professor from lower level male: (1) lowest - (10) highest.
bty_m1upper beauty rating of professor from upper level male: (1) lowest - (10) highest.
bty_m2upper beauty rating of professor from second upper level male: (1) lowest - (10) highest.
bty_avg average beauty rating of professor.
pic_outfit outfit of professor in picture: not formal, formal.
pic_color color of professor’s picture: color, black & white.

Exploring the data

  1. Is this an observational study or an experiment? The original research question posed in the paper is whether beauty leads directly to the differences in course evaluations. Given the study design, is it possible to answer this question as it is phrased? If not, rephrase the question.

This is an observational study. We cannot easily answer the question as phrased … to isolate and test whether beauty (farily subjective) causes changes in course evalutaion would require randomized trials. In this case, we can more appropriately ask and answer is there a correlation between beauty and evaluations and/o how much of the variablility in course evaluations might be explained by beauty.

  1. Describe the distribution of score. Is the distribution skewed? What does that tell you about how students rate courses? Is this what you expected to see? Why, or why not?
hist(evals$score)

Scores are left skewed where the most scores are between 4.0 and 5.0 and a long tail going down to 2.0. In general students give courses above average scores >= 3.5. An ideal scoring prototcal would have resulted in a more normalized curve with the bulk in the middle and symmetic tails in both directions. This is not surprising … I would have expected more courses to receive good score than bad score - if a cource or professor scored poorly in previous semesters, the would have likely been changes to improve scores. So socre don’t really represent a random sample … we would expect over time to weed out pooring performing classes/materials and/or professors.

  1. Excluding score, select two other variables and describe their relationship using an appropriate visualization (scatterplot, side-by-side boxplots, or mosaic plot).
plot(evals$rank, evals$age)

Looking at rank vs age, we would expect tenure track faculty to be younger than tenured faculty and expect tenured.

Simple linear regression

The fundamental phenomenon suggested by the study is that better looking teachers are evaluated more favorably. Let’s create a scatterplot to see if this appears to be the case:

plot(evals$score ~ evals$bty_avg)

Before we draw conclusions about the trend, compare the number of observations in the data frame with the approximate number of points on the scatterplot. Is anything awry?

nrow(evals)
## [1] 463

There are 463 rows in the data set, but far fewer points.

  1. Replot the scatterplot, but this time use the function jitter() on the \(y\)- or the \(x\)-coordinate. (Use ?jitter to learn more.) What was misleading about the initial scatterplot?
plot(jitter(evals$score) ~ evals$bty_avg)

The initial scatter plot had overlapping points. With jitter we can more clearly see where the bulk of points are landing.

  1. Let’s see if the apparent trend in the plot is something more than natural variation. Fit a linear model called m_bty to predict average professor score by average beauty rating and add the line to your plot using abline(m_bty). Write out the equation for the linear model and interpret the slope. Is average beauty score a statistically significant predictor? Does it appear to be a practically significant predictor?
m_bty <- lm(evals$score ~ evals$bty_avg)
summary(m_bty)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = evals$score ~ evals$bty_avg)
## 
## Residuals:
##     Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
## -1.9246 -0.3690  0.1420  0.3977  0.9309 
## 
## Coefficients:
##               Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)    3.88034    0.07614   50.96  < 2e-16 ***
## evals$bty_avg  0.06664    0.01629    4.09 5.08e-05 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.5348 on 461 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.03502,    Adjusted R-squared:  0.03293 
## F-statistic: 16.73 on 1 and 461 DF,  p-value: 5.083e-05
plot(jitter(evals$score) ~ evals$bty_avg)
abline(m_bty)

\(score = 3.88034 + 0.06664 * bty_avg\)

As avg_bty increases, the scores also increaeses; while the slope and intercept are “significant” (ie there is a positive correlation), the R\(^2\) is ~0.033 meaning only about 3.5% of the variation in score can be explained by beauty. ~96.7% of the variation is due to other factors and/or randomness.

  1. Use residual plots to evaluate whether the conditions of least squares regression are reasonable. Provide plots and comments for each one (see the Simple Regression Lab for a reminder of how to make these).
plot(m_bty$residuals ~ evals$bty_avg, 
     xlab = "Beauty", ylab = "Residuals", 
     pch = 19, 
     axes = FALSE)
axis(1, at = seq(-1, 2, 1))
axis(2, at = seq(-1, 1, 1))
box()
abline(h = 0, lty = 3)

hist(m_bty$residuals, 
     xlab = "Residuals", ylab = "", main = "",
     xlim = c(-2,2))

qqnorm(m_bty$residuals, 
       pch = 19, 
       main = "", las = 0)
qqline(m_bty$residuals)

plot(m_bty$residuals, 
     xlab = "Order of data collection", ylab = "Residuals", main = "",
     pch = 19, 
     ylim = c(-1.82, 1.82), axes = FALSE)
axis(1)
axis(2, at = seq(-1, 1, 1))
box()
abline(h = 0, lty = 3)

Residuals while not perfectly normally distributed (left skewed a little), do appear to be overall mostly normal. There so not appear to be any trends. The assumptions are broadly met.

Multiple linear regression

The data set contains several variables on the beauty score of the professor: individual ratings from each of the six students who were asked to score the physical appearance of the professors and the average of these six scores. Let’s take a look at the relationship between one of these scores and the average beauty score.

plot(evals$bty_avg ~ evals$bty_f1lower)

cor(evals$bty_avg, evals$bty_f1lower)
## [1] 0.8439112

As expected the relationship is quite strong - after all, the average score is calculated using the individual scores. We can actually take a look at the relationships between all beauty variables (columns 13 through 19) using the following command:

plot(evals[,13:19])

These variables are collinear (correlated), and adding more than one of these variables to the model would not add much value to the model. In this application and with these highly-correlated predictors, it is reasonable to use the average beauty score as the single representative of these variables.

In order to see if beauty is still a significant predictor of professor score after we’ve accounted for the gender of the professor, we can add the gender term into the model.

m_bty_gen <- lm(score ~ bty_avg + gender, data = evals)
summary(m_bty_gen)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = score ~ bty_avg + gender, data = evals)
## 
## Residuals:
##     Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
## -1.8305 -0.3625  0.1055  0.4213  0.9314 
## 
## Coefficients:
##             Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)  3.74734    0.08466  44.266  < 2e-16 ***
## bty_avg      0.07416    0.01625   4.563 6.48e-06 ***
## gendermale   0.17239    0.05022   3.433 0.000652 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.5287 on 460 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.05912,    Adjusted R-squared:  0.05503 
## F-statistic: 14.45 on 2 and 460 DF,  p-value: 8.177e-07
  1. P-values and parameter estimates should only be trusted if the conditions for the regression are reasonable. Verify that the conditions for this model are reasonable using diagnostic plots.
plot(m_bty_gen)

par(mfrow = c(2, 2))

plot(m_bty_gen$residuals ~ evals$bty_avg, 
     xlab = "Beauty", ylab = "Residuals", 
     pch = 19,  
     axes = FALSE)
axis(1, at = seq(-1, 2, 1))
axis(2, at = seq(-1, 1, 1))
box()
abline(h = 0, lty = 3)

hist(m_bty_gen$residuals, 
     xlab = "Residuals", ylab = "", main = "",
     xlim = c(-2,2))

qqnorm(m_bty_gen$residuals, 
       pch = 19,
       main = "", las = 0)
qqline(m_bty_gen$residuals)

plot(m_bty_gen$residuals, 
     xlab = "Order of data collection", ylab = "Residuals", main = "",
     pch = 19, 
     ylim = c(-1.82, 1.82), axes = FALSE)
axis(1)
axis(2, at = seq(-1, 1, 1))
box()
abline(h = 0, lty = 3)

Assumptions seem reasonable: linearity of data, residuals are normal, no patterns in residuls, no strong leverage points.

  1. Is bty_avg still a significant predictor of score? Has the addition of gender to the model changed the parameter estimate for bty_avg?

Bty_avg is still significant and together with gender we now explain 5.5% of the variation in scores. The presence of gender has improved our model slightly, but while these are significant features, they offer low explanatory value.

Note that the estimate for gender is now called gendermale. You’ll see this name change whenever you introduce a categorical variable. The reason is that R recodes gender from having the values of female and male to being an indicator variable called gendermale that takes a value of \(0\) for females and a value of \(1\) for males. (Such variables are often referred to as “dummy” variables.)

As a result, for females, the parameter estimate is multiplied by zero, leaving the intercept and slope form familiar from simple regression.

\[ \begin{aligned} \widehat{score} &= \hat{\beta}_0 + \hat{\beta}_1 \times bty\_avg + \hat{\beta}_2 \times (0) \\ &= \hat{\beta}_0 + \hat{\beta}_1 \times bty\_avg\end{aligned} \]

We can plot this line and the line corresponding to males with the following custom function.

multiLines(m_bty_gen)

  1. What is the equation of the line corresponding to males? (Hint: For males, the parameter estimate is multiplied by 1.) For two professors who received the same beauty rating, which gender tends to have the higher course evaluation score?

\(score = (3.74734 + 0.17239) + 0.07416 * bty_avg\)

The decision to call the indicator variable gendermale instead ofgenderfemale has no deeper meaning. R simply codes the category that comes first alphabetically as a \(0\). (You can change the reference level of a categorical variable, which is the level that is coded as a 0, using therelevel function. Use ?relevel to learn more.)

  1. Create a new model called m_bty_rank with gender removed and rank added in. How does R appear to handle categorical variables that have more than two levels? Note that the rank variable has three levels: teaching, tenure track, tenured.
m_bty_rank <- lm(score ~ bty_avg + rank, data = evals)
summary(m_bty_rank)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = score ~ bty_avg + rank, data = evals)
## 
## Residuals:
##     Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
## -1.8713 -0.3642  0.1489  0.4103  0.9525 
## 
## Coefficients:
##                  Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)       3.98155    0.09078  43.860  < 2e-16 ***
## bty_avg           0.06783    0.01655   4.098 4.92e-05 ***
## ranktenure track -0.16070    0.07395  -2.173   0.0303 *  
## ranktenured      -0.12623    0.06266  -2.014   0.0445 *  
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.5328 on 459 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.04652,    Adjusted R-squared:  0.04029 
## F-statistic: 7.465 on 3 and 459 DF,  p-value: 6.88e-05

R creates a separate value for each rank, again leaving off the first alphabetic category which is treated as 0. Depending on which rank we are interested in, we use that value and the other is multiplied by zero so it drops out.

The interpretation of the coefficients in multiple regression is slightly different from that of simple regression. The estimate for bty_avg reflects how much higher a group of professors is expected to score if they have a beauty rating that is one point higher while holding all other variables constant. In this case, that translates into considering only professors of the same rank with bty_avg scores that are one point apart.

The search for the best model

We will start with a full model that predicts professor score based on rank, ethnicity, gender, language of the university where they got their degree, age, proportion of students that filled out evaluations, class size, course level, number of professors, number of credits, average beauty rating, outfit, and picture color.

  1. Which variable would you expect to have the highest p-value in this model? Why? Hint: Think about which variable would you expect to not have any association with the professor score.

I might expect the following to be significant * language (communication ability) * age (experience level) * cls_credits (time spent in class with professor)

Let’s run the model…

m_full <- lm(score ~ rank + ethnicity + gender + language + age + cls_perc_eval 
             + cls_students + cls_level + cls_profs + cls_credits + bty_avg 
             + pic_outfit + pic_color, data = evals)
summary(m_full)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = score ~ rank + ethnicity + gender + language + age + 
##     cls_perc_eval + cls_students + cls_level + cls_profs + cls_credits + 
##     bty_avg + pic_outfit + pic_color, data = evals)
## 
## Residuals:
##      Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max 
## -1.77397 -0.32432  0.09067  0.35183  0.95036 
## 
## Coefficients:
##                         Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)            4.0952141  0.2905277  14.096  < 2e-16 ***
## ranktenure track      -0.1475932  0.0820671  -1.798  0.07278 .  
## ranktenured           -0.0973378  0.0663296  -1.467  0.14295    
## ethnicitynot minority  0.1234929  0.0786273   1.571  0.11698    
## gendermale             0.2109481  0.0518230   4.071 5.54e-05 ***
## languagenon-english   -0.2298112  0.1113754  -2.063  0.03965 *  
## age                   -0.0090072  0.0031359  -2.872  0.00427 ** 
## cls_perc_eval          0.0053272  0.0015393   3.461  0.00059 ***
## cls_students           0.0004546  0.0003774   1.205  0.22896    
## cls_levelupper         0.0605140  0.0575617   1.051  0.29369    
## cls_profssingle       -0.0146619  0.0519885  -0.282  0.77806    
## cls_creditsone credit  0.5020432  0.1159388   4.330 1.84e-05 ***
## bty_avg                0.0400333  0.0175064   2.287  0.02267 *  
## pic_outfitnot formal  -0.1126817  0.0738800  -1.525  0.12792    
## pic_colorcolor        -0.2172630  0.0715021  -3.039  0.00252 ** 
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.498 on 448 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.1871, Adjusted R-squared:  0.1617 
## F-statistic: 7.366 on 14 and 448 DF,  p-value: 6.552e-14
  1. Check your suspicions from the previous exercise. Include the model output in your response.

Language and age were significant as expected. I was surprised that the percent of student completing an evaluation was significant along with whether the picture was color or black and white.

  1. Interpret the coefficient associated with the ethnicity variable.

Non-minority professors scored 0.21 higher than minority professors.

  1. Drop the variable with the highest p-value and re-fit the model. Did the coefficients and significance of the other explanatory variables change? (One of the things that makes multiple regression interesting is that coefficient estimates depend on the other variables that are included in the model.) If not, what does this say about whether or not the dropped variable was collinear with the other explanatory variables?
m_full <- lm(score ~ rank + ethnicity + gender + language + age + cls_perc_eval 
             + cls_students + cls_level + cls_credits + bty_avg 
             + pic_outfit + pic_color, data = evals)
summary(m_full)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = score ~ rank + ethnicity + gender + language + age + 
##     cls_perc_eval + cls_students + cls_level + cls_credits + 
##     bty_avg + pic_outfit + pic_color, data = evals)
## 
## Residuals:
##     Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
## -1.7836 -0.3257  0.0859  0.3513  0.9551 
## 
## Coefficients:
##                         Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)            4.0872523  0.2888562  14.150  < 2e-16 ***
## ranktenure track      -0.1476746  0.0819824  -1.801 0.072327 .  
## ranktenured           -0.0973829  0.0662614  -1.470 0.142349    
## ethnicitynot minority  0.1274458  0.0772887   1.649 0.099856 .  
## gendermale             0.2101231  0.0516873   4.065 5.66e-05 ***
## languagenon-english   -0.2282894  0.1111305  -2.054 0.040530 *  
## age                   -0.0089992  0.0031326  -2.873 0.004262 ** 
## cls_perc_eval          0.0052888  0.0015317   3.453 0.000607 ***
## cls_students           0.0004687  0.0003737   1.254 0.210384    
## cls_levelupper         0.0606374  0.0575010   1.055 0.292200    
## cls_creditsone credit  0.5061196  0.1149163   4.404 1.33e-05 ***
## bty_avg                0.0398629  0.0174780   2.281 0.023032 *  
## pic_outfitnot formal  -0.1083227  0.0721711  -1.501 0.134080    
## pic_colorcolor        -0.2190527  0.0711469  -3.079 0.002205 ** 
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.4974 on 449 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.187,  Adjusted R-squared:  0.1634 
## F-statistic: 7.943 on 13 and 449 DF,  p-value: 2.336e-14

I dropped cls_profs (0.77806). Overall, the coefficients and significance did NOT change by much. This suggests the dropped variable did not add any unqiue explanitory value that wasn’t alrady accounted for by other features.

  1. Using backward-selection and p-value as the selection criterion, determine the best model. You do not need to show all steps in your answer, just the output for the final model. Also, write out the linear model for predicting score based on the final model you settle on.
m_full <- lm(score ~ ethnicity + gender + language + age + cls_perc_eval 
             + cls_credits + bty_avg 
             + pic_color, data = evals)
summary(m_full)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = score ~ ethnicity + gender + language + age + cls_perc_eval + 
##     cls_credits + bty_avg + pic_color, data = evals)
## 
## Residuals:
##      Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max 
## -1.85320 -0.32394  0.09984  0.37930  0.93610 
## 
## Coefficients:
##                        Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)            3.771922   0.232053  16.255  < 2e-16 ***
## ethnicitynot minority  0.167872   0.075275   2.230  0.02623 *  
## gendermale             0.207112   0.050135   4.131 4.30e-05 ***
## languagenon-english   -0.206178   0.103639  -1.989  0.04726 *  
## age                   -0.006046   0.002612  -2.315  0.02108 *  
## cls_perc_eval          0.004656   0.001435   3.244  0.00127 ** 
## cls_creditsone credit  0.505306   0.104119   4.853 1.67e-06 ***
## bty_avg                0.051069   0.016934   3.016  0.00271 ** 
## pic_colorcolor        -0.190579   0.067351  -2.830  0.00487 ** 
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.4992 on 454 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.1722, Adjusted R-squared:  0.1576 
## F-statistic:  11.8 on 8 and 454 DF,  p-value: 2.58e-15

$score = 3.771922 + (not_minority * 0.167872) + (male * 0.207112) - (non_english * 0.206178) - (age * 0.006046) + (cls_perc_eval * 0.004656) + (one_credit * 0.505306) + (byt_avg * 0.051069) - (color_pic * 0.190579) $

where not_minority, male, non_english, one_credit, and color_pic are boolean 0 or 1 depending on whether its that factor or not.

  1. Verify that the conditions for this model are reasonable using diagnostic plots.
par(mfrow = c(2, 2))
plot(m_full)

hist(m_full$residuals, 
     xlab = "Residuals", ylab = "", main = "",
     xlim = c(-2,2))

qqnorm(m_full$residuals, 
       pch = 19, 
       main = "", las = 0)
qqline(m_bty_gen$residuals)

plot(m_full$residuals, 
     xlab = "Order of data collection", ylab = "Residuals", main = "",
     pch = 19,
     ylim = c(-1.82, 1.82), axes = FALSE)
axis(1)
axis(2, at = seq(-1, 1, 1))
box()
abline(h = 0, lty = 3)

The conditions for this model seem reasonable: residuals look fine, a linear model fits and there are no really problematic leverage points.

  1. The original paper describes how these data were gathered by taking a sample of professors from the University of Texas at Austin and including all courses that they have taught. Considering that each row represents a course, could this new information have an impact on any of the conditions of linear regression?

We may be skewing our results if a single professor teaches many courses comapred with those that only tought one. We were assuming independence between observation, but if a single professor shows up multple times, those rows are no longer independent.

  1. Based on your final model, describe the characteristics of a professor and course at University of Texas at Austin that would be associated with a high evaluation score.

White, male, english speaking, younger, good looking, teaching a one-credit course and whose photo was in black & white.

  1. Would you be comfortable generalizing your conclusions to apply to professors generally (at any university)? Why or why not?

Nope. Students are doing the evaluations and we cannot assume students at one univeristy would evaluate professors the same as at different university. We also didn’t explore causality, merely correlations. Evaluations of professors may also be affected by what other faculty the students are exposed to, what courses students take, the types of classes, difficulty of classes, etc. As an observational study we are limited to stating very simple correlations and that they only hold for the evaluated courses & professors. In fact, at the same university, these patterns might not hold in other departments. Our best model only accounted for a very small amount of the variability, so there could be many other factors we didnt’ measure that could play more important roles.