|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
In this paper, we investigate the influence of students' past academic history on grading outcomes when instructors use blind versus non-blind grading methods, conducting a field experiment in undergraduate courses at Universidad de San Andrés. Additionally, we explore whether variations in grading are associated with other student characteristics such as gender, age, financial aid status, and special educational needs (SEN). To address these questions, we will conduct two experiments. The first experiment targets courses from the second year and higher, assessing the impact of instructors' access to students' historical GPA on their grading decisions; courses are randomly assigned to either blind grading, where instructors only know the students' IDs, or non-blind grading, where they have access to full student profiles. The second experiment focuses on first-year courses, where students have minimal prior academic records, to isolate the effect of grading practices observed solely from performance in the first midterm compared to the second midterm, with blind grading implemented only in the latter. Key outcomes include the differences in average grades under each grading condition, discrepancies between midterm grades and historical GPA, and the proportion of midterm grades that are adjusted post-evaluation.
|
After
This experiment at the University of San Andrés investigates the effects of blind versus non-blind grading methods on the persistence of grades across undergraduate courses, which are randomly distributed into control and treatment groups. In the control group, instructors can easily identify their students during grading, as students are required to write their full names on their exams. Conversely, in the treatment group, students use anonymized ID numbers, which obscures their identities from the graders. The study evaluates various outcomes, including the overall level of grades, fluctuations between midterm grades, alignment with historical GPA, and the incidence of repeating grades. Additionally, the research includes an analysis of how different grading methods influence these outcomes in relation to student characteristics such as gender, age, financial aid status, and special educational needs (SEN).
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
May 29, 2024 10:18 AM
|
After
June 11, 2024 04:15 PM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
First experiment: First midterm blind
The first experiment investigates whether instructors take into account the past academic history of students when grading exams. This study involves randomly assigning undergraduate classes from the second year or higher at Universidad de San Andres to either blind or non-blind grading. In the blind grading setup, instructors evaluate exams knowing only the student IDs, thus remaining unaware of any additional information about the students. Conversely, in the traditional grading setup, instructors are aware of the students' identities and can access further information, such as previous GPA. The eligible population includes all classes from the second year or higher. By comparing the grading of the first midterm exam outcomes of classes under both blind and traditional grading, we aim to determine the influence of prior student performance on current exam assessments. Consistent with existing literature, this experiment also seeks to establish whether there are disparities in grades between blind and non-blind graded classes based on observable student characteristics such as gender, age, financial aid status (specifically full scholarship recipients), and special educational needs (SEN).
Second experiment: Second midterm exam blind
The second experiment aims to explore the grading dynamics in first-year classes at Universidad de San Andres, focusing on the second midterms. This experiment is designed with the consideration that first-year students have minimal or no prior academic history, allowing for a clear analysis of the influence of performance solely observed from the first midterm. All first-year classes will implement non-blind grading for the first midterm, while for the second one, classes will be randomly assigned to either blind or non-blind grading. As in the first experiment, this analysis will also include an examination of differences in grades based on observable student characteristics such as gender, age, financial aid status (full scholarship), and special educational needs (SEN).
|
After
This experiment involves all undergraduate courses at the University of San Andrés. Courses are randomly assigned to two groups, treatment and control, using a computer. This experiment aims to analyze the persistence of grades within courses. That is, we want to analyze whether students' grades on the second midterm are positively related to the grades they received on the first midterm.
Control Group: Teachers will have the following information about their students: full name, email, major, and student photo. In these courses, when taking the first and second midterms, students will write their full names on their papers. Thus, teachers can fully identify their students while grading the exams. When grading the second midterm, they can also fully identify the students. That is, both assessments in the course are traditional (or non-blind).
Treatment Group: In courses assigned to the treatment group, teachers will have access to a complete list of their students from the beginning of the semester with the following information: name, email, major, and photo. In these courses, when taking the first midterm, students will write their student ID number (identifier) on their papers. Thus, teachers cannot fully identify their students while grading the exams. When grading the second midterm, students will write a different ID number on their papers. Thus, teachers cannot identify their students during both assessment instances.
This analysis will include an examination of differences in grades based on observable student characteristics such as gender, age, financial aid status (full scholarship), and special educational needs (SEN). We will show econometric results for all courses and without math courses.
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
First experiment:
Grade; absolute difference between midterm grade and past GPA; share of changed grades (at class level).
Second experiment:
Grade; absolute difference between the second and first midterm exam; share of changed grades (at class level).
|
After
Grade; absolute difference between second midterm grade and first midterm; absolute difference between midterm grade and past GPA; Same grade.
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
First Experiment:
1. Outcome 1: Grades
- Objective: Determine whether blind grading versus non-blind grading results in higher or lower average grades.
2. Outcome 2: Absolute Difference Between Midterm and GPA:
- Objective: Investigate whether the grading method (blind vs. non-blind) influences the discrepancy between midterm grades and students' historic GPA.
3. Share of Grade Changes:
- Objective: Examine if the grading approach (blind vs. non-blind) affects the proportion of midterm grades that are subsequently modified.
Second Experiment:
1. Outcome 1: Grade Analysis for First-Year Classes:
- Objective: Analyze if blind grading versus non-blind grading leads to higher or lower grades on average specifically for first-year classes.
2. Outcome 2: Absolute Difference Between Second Midterm and Midterm:
- Objective: Explore whether the grading method (blind vs. non-blind) impacts the discrepancies between grades of the second midterm and the first midterm.
3. Outcome 3: Share of Grade Changes:
- Objective: Determine if blind grading versus non-blind grading impacts the percentage of grade changes made after the second midterm in first-year classes.
|
After
1. Outcome 1: Grades
- Objective: Determine whether blind grading versus non-blind grading results in higher or lower average first midterm grades.
2. Outcome 2: Absolute Difference Between Second Midterm grade and First Midterm grade:
- Objective: Investigate whether the grading method (blind vs. non-blind) influences the discrepancy between midterm grades.
3. Outcome 3: Absolute Difference Between Midterm and GPA:
- Objective: Investigate whether the grading method (blind vs. non-blind) influences the discrepancy between midterm grades and students' historic GPA.
4. Outcome 4: Same grade.
- Objective: Investigate whether the grading method (blind vs. non-blind) influences the probability of a student receiving identical grades in both the first and second midterms.
5. Outcome 5: Change of grades.
- Objective: Investigate whether the grading method (blind vs. non-blind) influences the probability of a student having his/her grade changed in the first midterm.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
First experiment:
For the first experiment, we will take all second-year classes and above at Universidad de San Andrés and conduct a random assignment without stratification so that half of the classes must grade the blind exam and the other half do not. For this intervention, we will have N=x classes to draw, so x/2 will belong to the treated group and x/2 to the control group.
Second experiment:
For the second experiment, we will take all first-year classes at Universidad de San Andrés and conduct a random assignment without stratification so that half of the classes must grade the blind exam and the other half do not. For this intervention, we will have N=x classes to draw, so x/2 will belong to the treated group and x/2 to the control group.
|
After
We will take all undergraduate courses at Universidad de San Andrés and conduct a random assignment without stratification so that half of the classes must grade the blind exam and the other half do not. For this intervention, we will have N=x classes to draw, so x/2 will belong to the treated group and x/2 to the control group.
|
|
Field
Randomization Method
|
Before
Both experiments: randomization by a computer.
|
After
Randomization by a computer.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
First experiment: We cluster at the class level (X classes).
Second experiment: We cluster at the class level (Y classes).
|
After
We cluster at the class level (X classes).
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
First experiment: X students
Second experiment: Y students
|
After
X students
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
First experiment: X classes, X/2 treated, X/2 controls.
Second experiment: Y classes, Y/2 treated, Y/2 controls.
|
After
X classes, X/2 treated, X/2 controls.
|