of course NOT
Work/get to know somebody long enough and whatever first impression you had will adapt to this long-view character. This question/statement implicates that one can measure a (first) impression two times, one would call an oxymoron. If you make the questioning utterly superficial and short you will earn these self-fulfilling prophecies result. One can ask
- How can I improve first impression on something
- How to change first impression on something
But if impression changes itself, it is not a scientific objective measurable question, as it is a singular event per se. Its like asking people to describe thier impression on a bomb explosion and they only tell you the color keeps the same between 2 time points. Or watching the explosion one time with your eye and second time with an ultra slow mow camera showing you much more details. U cannot variate just any desired parameter, so you can conclude anything from it according how you set up the measurement. Especially if the impression also depens on the state of the measurement apparatus (here the human - prejudice, selective view,... )
If someone makes statements on such multi-factor phenomenon and there isn't at all a differentiation into factors necessary/sufficient but implicating mono-causality first question has to be does the question vive out measurable observables, how was it measured, how has it to be measured.
Anyone posting here a study "verificating" this question should accurately look at these points, I doubt serious psychological scientist to even consider such questions...
edited more detailed answer
Be cautios on general mono-causal statements, especially in psychology and social sciences. Ask yourself, would such a study question really make sense and can it prove a mono-causal connection? "American scientist found out... ", I had to think on this statement.
Here the question itself is quite superficial, what is impression, how deep does it go in a passive teaching course, how deep in a vis a vis discussion, in a dialog, how interactive is the teaching, how active are the pupils. How you define these parameters will change the whole result. Are self-fulfilling prophecies excluded? You know when you watch a movie, you often pretty immediately know by only watching the actors who is the bad, who the good guy. So your impression is based on prejudice.
We did a lot of prof teaching rating at university with lot of questions and non superficial properties like competence, pronounciation, etc... If a psychological test is made by letting describe someone something vocally, it cannot be very methodical & scientific. There are clear criteria how such a test has to be structured, how many questions (also doubled) have to be asked at least to get a statistical significant result. Maybe you generalized the statement of your teacher as your question here too drastically.