Experimental Design
In the experiment, real teachers read short descriptions of fictitious vignette students whose characteristics are randomly varied across four dimensions: gender, ability, school behavior, and essay quality. The introductory sentence conveys the student’s gender—signaled by their first name and further clarified through explicit mention—as well as their general ability level (high, middle, or low). For example, the sentence reads: Anna is a middle-ability girl in the class.
After this introduction, teachers first review the student’s behavior profile (presented in the behavior vignette) and then assess a sample of the student’s writing (presented in the essay vignette).
Teachers are first primed with the student’s behavior described in the behavior vignette. After reviewing the behavior vignette, they grade the student’s behavior (Task 1). Once this is completed, they revisit the behavior vignette and then read the student’s writing piece (essay). After reviewing both materials, teachers evaluate the essay (Task 2). Finally, in Task 3, teachers are asked whether they would recommend the student for the elite academic secondary track, followed by an assessment of the student’s potential social status in Task 4.
In Task 1, the respondent teacher is asked to grade the described (fictitious) student’s behavior using the standard grading scale, ranging from 5 (exemplary behavior) to 2 (poor behavior). After the traditional behavior assessment, school behavior is additionally evaluated on a scale from 0 to 100.
In Task 2, the respondent teacher is asked to grade the student’s essay using a standard five-point scale: excellent (5), good (4), average (3), satisfactory (2), or unsatisfactory (1). After the traditional assessment, the student’s essay is additionally evaluated on a scale from 0 to 100.
In Task 3, respondent teachers are asked whether they would recommend the student to apply for the elite academic secondary track after completing fourth grade. This eight-year academic track is often considered an elite pathway reserved for the most talented students, as most students are tracked only after eighth grade, resulting in the standard four-year instead of an eight-year secondary education. Teachers can express their recommendation using the response options: “Yes,” “No,” or “I do not know.”
In Task 4, teachers are asked to rate, on a scale from 0 to 100, how likely it is that the described student comes from a working-class family and, separately, how likely it is that the student comes from an intellectual family.
Teachers evaluate six fictitious students, so this procedure will be repeated for each student.