|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
April 29, 2026 03:28 PM
|
After
May 29, 2026 06:05 AM
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
The primary outcomes are teachers’ evaluations and expectations about the student, measured before and after additional information on relative academic standing is revealed.
Stage 1: outcomes measured after the initial vignette
After being shown a student profile containing baseline information, including the student’s number of unexcused absences, prior academic performance (GPA), and the student’s relative disruptiveness rank within the classroom (high or low), the primary outcomes are:
the grade assigned to the student’s work on a 0–10 scale;
whether the teacher reports that the mistake in the exercise is minor or substantial;
whether the teacher reports that the student’s classroom behavior was an important factor in determining the grade;
whether the teacher believes the student’s behavior will affect the student’s future academic performance;
whether the teacher believes the student’s behavior will affect the student’s future career path;
whether the teacher would encourage the student to pursue a competitive university degree;
whether the teacher would encourage the student to pursue a challenging professional path;
whether the teacher would encourage the student’s parents to push the student toward a competitive university degree;
whether the teacher would encourage the student’s parents to push the student toward a challenging professional path.
Stage 2: outcomes measured after academic rank information is added
Participants are then shown the same student profile, augmented with information on the student’s relative academic standing within the classroom (high or low), based on the previously reported GPA. No additional information on absolute academic performance is introduced.
The primary outcomes at this stage are:
whether the teacher chooses to revise the initial grade;
the updated grade assigned to the student’s work;
whether the teacher states that prior student performance should be taken into account when grading;
whether the teacher states that student performance relative to classmates should be taken into account when grading;
whether the teacher believes the student’s behavior will affect the student’s future academic performance;
whether the teacher believes the student’s behavior will affect the student’s future career path;
whether the teacher would encourage the student to pursue a competitive university degree;
whether the teacher would encourage the student to pursue a challenging professional path;
whether the teacher would encourage the student’s parents to push the student toward a competitive university degree;
whether the teacher would encourage the student’s parents to push the student toward a challenging professional path.
The main comparisons of interest are how these outcomes vary with the student’s disruptiveness rank in the first stage, and how revision decisions and updated beliefs vary when relative academic standing is revealed while holding constant absolute academic performance.
|
After
The primary outcomes are teachers’ evaluations and expectations about the student, measured before and after additional information on relative academic standing is revealed.
Stage 1: outcomes measured after the initial vignette
After being shown a student profile containing baseline information, including the student’s number of unexcused absences, prior academic performance (GPA), and the student’s relative disruptiveness rank within the classroom (high or low), the primary outcomes are:
the grade assigned to the student’s work on a 0–10 scale;
whether the teacher reports that the mistake in the exercise is minor or substantial;
whether the teacher reports that the student’s classroom behavior was an important factor in determining the grade;
whether the teacher believes the student’s behavior will positively affect the student’s future academic performance;
whether the teacher believes the student’s behavior will positively affect the student’s future career path;
whether the teacher would encourage the student to pursue a competitive university degree;
whether the teacher would encourage the student to pursue a challenging professional path;
whether the teacher would encourage the student’s parents to push the student toward a competitive university degree;
whether the teacher would encourage the student’s parents to push the student toward a challenging professional path.
Stage 2: outcomes measured after academic rank information is added
Participants are then shown the same student profile, augmented with information on the student’s relative academic standing within the classroom (high or low), based on the previously reported GPA. No additional information on absolute academic performance is introduced.
The primary outcomes at this stage are:
whether the teacher chooses to revise the initial grade;
the updated grade assigned to the student’s work;
whether the teacher believes the student’s behavior will affect the student’s future academic performance;
whether the teacher believes the student’s behavior will affect the student’s future career path;
whether the teacher would encourage the student to pursue a competitive university degree;
whether the teacher would encourage the student to pursue a challenging professional path;
whether the teacher would encourage the student’s parents to push the student toward a competitive university degree;
whether the teacher would encourage the student’s parents to push the student toward a challenging professional path.
The main comparisons of interest are how these outcomes vary with the student’s disruptiveness rank in the first stage, and how revision decisions and updated beliefs vary when relative academic standing is revealed while holding constant absolute academic performance.
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
Most outcomes are directly measured survey responses. The main constructed outcomes are as follows.
Assigned grade: continuous variable ranging from 0 to 10 based on the score assigned by the teacher through the survey slider.
Grade revision indicator: binary variable equal to 1 if the teacher states that they wish to change the initial grade after academic rank information is revealed, and 0 otherwise.
Updated grade: continuous variable ranging from 0 to 10, measured only for teachers who choose to revise their initial grade.
Minor-error indicator / substantial-error indicator: binary variables based on whether the teacher reports that the severity of the mistake was relevant and considered minor or relevant and considered substantial.
Behavior-considered indicator: binary variable equal to 1 if the teacher states that the student’s classroom behavior was an important factor in determining the initial grade.
Future academic impact belief: binary variable equal to 1 if the teacher reports that the student’s behavior is likely to affect future academic performance.
Future career impact belief: binary variable equal to 1 if the teacher reports that the student’s behavior is likely to affect future career outcomes.
Competitive-degree recommendation: binary variable equal to 1 if the teacher reports that they would encourage the student to pursue a competitive university degree.
Challenging-career recommendation: binary variable equal to 1 if the teacher reports that they would encourage the student to pursue a challenging professional path.
Parental competitive-degree recommendation: binary variable equal to 1 if the teacher reports that they would encourage the student’s parents to push the student toward a competitive university degree.
Parental challenging-career recommendation: binary variable equal to 1 if the teacher reports that they would encourage the student’s parents to push the student toward a challenging professional path.
Prior-performance grading belief: binary variable based on whether, after academic rank information is revealed, the teacher reports that prior student performance should be taken into account when grading.
Relative-performance grading belief: binary variable based on whether, after academic rank information is revealed, the teacher reports that performance relative to classmates should be taken into account when grading.
For the post-information recommendation outcomes, we will also examine changes relative to the teacher’s initial responses by constructing indicators for whether the teacher switches their answer after academic rank information is revealed.
|
After
Most outcomes are directly measured survey responses. The outcomes related to teachers' beliefs and recommendations are elicited using a five-point Likert scale, where 1 corresponds to “Certainly not,” 2 to “Probably not,” 3 to “Neither yes nor no,” 4 to “Probably yes,” and 5 to “Definitely yes.” Our primary analysis will use these underlying Likert-scale responses. In particular, we will study both the level of responses at each stage of the experiment and how responses change when information about the student’s relative academic rank is revealed. For ease of interpretation, selected results will also be presented using binary indicators equal to one if the respondent selects either “Probably yes” or “Definitely yes,” and zero otherwise.
Stage 1 outcomes
Assigned grade: continuous variable ranging from 0 to 10 based on the score assigned by the teacher through the survey slider.
Minor-error indicator / substantial-error indicator: binary variables based on whether the teacher reports that the severity of the mistake was relevant and considered minor or relevant and considered substantial.
Behavior-considered indicator: binary variable equal to 1 if the teacher states that the student’s classroom behavior was an important factor in determining the initial grade.
Future academic impact belief: five-point Likert-scale measure of the extent to which the teacher believes the student’s behavior is likely to positively affect future academic performance.
Future career impact belief: five-point Likert-scale measure of the extent to which the teacher believes the student’s behavior is likely to positively affect future career outcomes.
Competitive-degree recommendation: five-point Likert-scale measure of the teacher’s willingness to encourage the student to pursue a competitive university degree.
Challenging-career recommendation: five-point Likert-scale measure of the teacher’s willingness to encourage the student to pursue a challenging professional path.
Parental competitive-degree recommendation: five-point Likert-scale measure of the teacher’s willingness to encourage the student’s parents to push the student toward a competitive university degree.
Parental challenging-career recommendation: five-point Likert-scale measure of the teacher’s willingness to encourage the student’s parents to push the student toward a challenging professional path.
Stage 2 outcomes
Grade revision indicator: binary variable equal to 1 if the teacher states that they wish to change the initial grade after academic-rank information is revealed, and 0 otherwise.
Updated grade: continuous variable ranging from 0 to 10, measured only for teachers who choose to revise their initial grade.
Grade change: difference between the updated and initial grade.
For the belief and recommendation outcomes, we will analyze post-information responses as well as within-teacher changes in the underlying Likert-scale measures between Stage 1 and Stage 2. This approach allows us to capture both the direction and magnitude of revisions in teachers’ beliefs and recommendations following the introduction of information on relative academic standing.
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
The study is an online survey experiment administered to teachers, designed to examine how information about students’ relative behavioral and academic standing affects grading decisions, beliefs, and expectations.
Participants are presented with a vignette describing an anonymized student and a piece of student work containing a mistake. The task is designed so that the correct grade is below full marks, requiring participants to exercise judgment in grading.
The experiment follows a two-stage structure.
Stage 1 (Baseline profile with behavioral information):
All participants are shown identical student work and baseline profile information. This profile includes basic student characteristics such as the number of unexcused absences (i.e., hours the student was asked to leave the classroom due to disruptive behavior), and the student’s prior academic performance, measured by grade point average (GPA).
While the student work and baseline characteristics are held constant across participants, participants are randomly assigned to receive information about the student’s relative standing within the classroom in terms of unexcused absences (high or low disruptiveness rank).
Participants are then asked to:
assign a grade on a 0–10 scale;
report confidence in their evaluation;
indicate the factors that influenced their grading decision;
report expectations about the student’s future academic performance and career path;
indicate whether they would encourage the student to pursue a competitive university degree and a challenging professional path.
Stage 2 (Addition of relative academic information):
Participants are subsequently shown the same student profile and work. No new information on absolute academic performance is introduced. Instead, the profile is augmented with information about the student’s relative academic standing within the classroom (high or low academic rank), based on the previously reported GPA.
Academic rank is randomly assigned independently of disruptiveness rank, generating a 2×2 design.
Participants are then asked:
whether they would revise their initial grade;
to provide an updated grade if they choose to revise;
to explain the reasoning behind revising or not revising;
whether prior student performance and/or performance relative to classmates should be taken into account when grading;
to report updated expectations regarding the student’s future academic performance and career path, and recommendations regarding higher education and career choices.
Treatment structure:
The experiment implements a 2×2 between-subject design defined by:
Disruptiveness rank (High vs Low)
Academic rank (High vs Low)
Participants are randomly assigned at the individual level to one of the four treatment conditions. The main variation arises from (i) differences in disruptiveness rank across participants in Stage 1, and (ii) within-participant updating when information about academic rank is introduced in Stage 2.
Subject-specific versions:
The experiment includes two versions of the vignette tailored to participants’ field of teaching. Teachers in scientific fields are presented with a mathematics exercise containing a mistake, while teachers in humanities fields are presented with short-answer questions on a literary text (the Iliad), also containing mistakes. The structure of the task, the grading scale, and the informational treatments are held constant across versions, with only the content of the assignment varying.
Data and anonymity:
All profiles are hypothetical and anonymized. No real student data are used in the vignettes.
|
After
The study is an online survey experiment administered to teachers, designed to examine how information about students’ relative behavioral and academic standing affects grading decisions, beliefs, and expectations.
Participants are presented with a vignette describing an anonymized student and a piece of student work containing a mistake. The task is designed so that the correct grade is below full marks, requiring participants to exercise judgment in grading.
The experiment follows a two-stage structure.
Stage 1 (Baseline profile with behavioral information):
All participants are shown identical student work and baseline profile information. This profile includes basic student characteristics such as the number of unexcused absences (i.e., hours the student was asked to leave the classroom due to disruptive behavior), and the student’s prior academic performance, measured by grade point average (GPA).
While the student work and baseline characteristics are held constant across participants, participants are randomly assigned to receive information about the student’s relative standing within the classroom in terms of unexcused absences (high or low disruptiveness rank).
Participants are then asked to:
assign a grade on a 0–10 scale;
report confidence in their evaluation;
indicate the factors that influenced their grading decision;
report expectations about the student’s future academic performance and career path;
indicate whether they would encourage the student to pursue a competitive university degree and a challenging professional path.
Stage 2 (Addition of relative academic information):
Participants are subsequently shown the same student profile and work. No new information on absolute academic performance is introduced. Instead, the profile is augmented with information about the student’s relative academic standing within the classroom (high or low academic rank), based on the previously reported GPA.
Academic rank is randomly assigned independently of disruptiveness rank, generating a 2×2 design.
Participants are then asked:
whether they would revise their initial grade;
to provide an updated grade if they choose to revise;
to explain the reasoning behind revising or not revising;
whether prior student performance and/or performance relative to classmates should be taken into account when grading;
to report updated expectations regarding the student’s future academic performance and career path, and recommendations regarding higher education and career choices.
Treatment structure:
The experiment implements a 2×2 between-subject design defined by:
Disruptiveness rank (High vs Low)
Academic rank (High vs Low)
Participants are randomly assigned at the individual level to one of the four treatment conditions. The main variation arises from (i) differences in disruptiveness rank across participants in Stage 1, and (ii) within-participant updating when information about academic rank is introduced in Stage 2.
Subject-specific versions:
The experiment includes two versions of the vignette tailored to participants’ field of teaching. Teachers in scientific fields are presented with a mathematics exercise containing a mistake, while teachers in humanities fields are presented with short-answer questions on a literary text (the Iliad), also containing mistakes. The structure of the task, the grading scale, and the informational treatments are held constant across versions, with only the content of the assignment varying.
Data and anonymity:
All profiles are hypothetical and anonymized. No real student data are used in the vignettes.
|