Research on relationship between how an instructor is addressed and students' evaluations of that instructor?
Multiple lines of relevant research suggest, as you said,


recognition of job titles specifically correlates strongly to
compliance, and
knowledge of an authority's gender significantly shapes the
likelihood of compliance in subjects relying on that authority.


The closest fit (to the inquiries you propose in your question) in a single publication was Eagly, Alice H. Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist 38.9 (1983): 971. There is too much here to cite. Alice Eagly enters into a rigorous investigation of compliance's relationship to gender in vein of Professor Stanley Milgram's exemplary methods on the psychology of obedience to authority (Milgram, Stanley. Obedience to authority 1978). The report finds (from p. 2 of PDF):


  
  Other subjects in this experiment were given information about the job
  titles as well as the gender of the communicator and recipient. Both
  high-status (e.g., bank vice-president) and low-status (e.g., bank
  teller) job titles were utilized. In these experimental conditions,
  subjects were expected to base their judgments about social influence
  on the job title information rather than gender because gender would
  not be used to infer hierarchical status in the presence of the highly
  informative job title cues. (2)  As expected (see Table 1), these
  subjects considered the communicator's recommendation more likely to
  induce compliance when the communicator had a high-status rather than
  low-status job title and when the recipient had a low-status rather
  than high-status job title. These subjects did not utilize the gender
  cues to predict compliance
  
  
  The effects of gender and status cues on perceived influence were
  expected to depend on whether the recipient's response to influence
  was public or private. Because the power of persons who have higher
  status in organizations stems primarily from their control over
  sanctions and access to resources, status differences favoring the
  communicator should increase subordinates' public compliance, and
  private, internalized opinion change should be relatively unaffected
  (Kelman, 1961). Indeed, those few effects that were obtained on
  subjects' beliefs about private opinion change were weak and
  reversed effects obtained on perceived compliance (see Eagly, A. H., &amp; 
  Wood, W. Inferred sex differences in status as a determinant of gender
  stereotypes about social influence. Journal of Personality and Social
  Psychology, 1982, 43. 915-928.).
  


Eagly, Alice H., Mona G. Makhijani, and Bruce G. Klonsky. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin 111.1 (1992): 3. finds further:


  […] on the evaluation of women and men that occupy leadership roles. While
  holding the characteristics, except for sex, constant and varying the
  sex of the leader, these experiments investigated whether people are
  biased against female leaders and managers. Although this research
  showed only a small overall tendency for Ss to evaluate female leaders
  less favorably than male ones, this tendency was more pronounced under
  certain circumstances. Specifically, women in leadership positions
  were devalued relative to their male counterparts when leadership was
  carried out in stereotypically masculine styles, especially when this
  style was autocratic or directive. Also, the devaluation of women was
  greater when leaders occupied male-dominated roles and when the
  evaluators were men. Findings are interpreted from a perspective that
  emphasizes the influence of gender roles within organizational
  settings.


Eagly, Alice H., and Wendy Wood. Inferred sex differences in status as a determinant of gender stereotypes about social influence. Journal of personality and social psychology 43.5 (1982): 915. is also highly relevant, but it is subsumed in the primary study cited.

Student-disciplinary investigation also corroborates this gendered relationship in students' regard for teachers. Mabeba, M. Z., and E. Prinsloo. Perceptions of discipline and ensuing discipline problems in secondary education. South African Journal of Education 20.1 (2000): 34-41. reports:


  The lack of discipline in secondary schools throughout the country has
  long been a matter of great concern for educators in South Africa.
  Numerous attempts have been made to solve the problem and to
  re-establish a culture of effective learning and teaching in the
  schools. Discipline in education, however, is a complex phenomenon
  that may evade the accuracy of one single definition. Discipline in a
  positive sense refers to learning, regulated scholarship, guidance and
  orderliness. Discipline problems, refers to disruptive behaviour that
  affects the fundamental rights to feel safe, to be treated with
  respect and to learn. Rejection of reasoning, noise, physical
  violence, threat, theft, graffiti and vandalism, verbal abuse, lack of
  consideration, boisterousness, and disrespect for authority are some
  of the manifestations of disruptive behaviour that teachers and
  parents have to deal with presently. Reasons for this negative
  attitude lie inter alia in pupils feelings of anger, frustration and
  worthlessness because educators seemingly neglect their interests and
  level of development and often base disciplinary policies on
  autocratic principles and self-interest. The purpose of this
  investigation was to determine the perceptions held of discipline by
  all the stakeholders in the education process and to verify the
  reasons for the defiance of discipline by pupils and students. The
  ultimate aim of such research would be to initiate preventative
  strategies that can solve the problem and support pupils and teachers
  towards a new culture of successful learning and teaching.