Teachers and Deserving Students

Last registered on March 25, 2021
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Teachers and Deserving Students
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0007410
Initial registration date
March 25, 2021

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
March 25, 2021, 6:26 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country
Denmark
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Paw Hansen
Affiliation
University of Copenhagen, Department of Political Science
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2021-04-06
End date
2021-04-27
Keywords
Education, Other, Welfare
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Abstract
We present a large sample of Danish high-school teachers with four distinct vignette descriptions of fictive dilemmas with students. We randomly manipulate a number of student attributes and examine how these relate to teachers' choices in each dilemma.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Hansen, Paw. 2021. "Teachers and Deserving Students." AEA RCT Registry. March 25. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7410-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Interventions are different pieces of information about the students in the four different fictive dilemmas. The dilemmas examine whether teachers would be willing to (a) stay after class to help with an assignment, (b) discuss an assignment over the phone in the weekend, (c) allow a student to hand-in an assignment after deadline, and, finally, (d) push the deadline for a hand-in one week to accommodate a student.

Interventions are the same across all four dilemmas. We hypothesize, based on previous literature, that receiving some pieces of information will trigger a sense of student deservingness and consequently cause teachers to "move towards" students, e.g. by being willing to stay after class to discuss an assignment. Specifically, our interventions are information about the student's: (1) effort the previous school year, (2) effort recently, (3) academic achievement, and (4) social achievement class. In addition, for contextual realism, we provide a name for each student. Names differ in terms of sex and ethnicity.
Intervention Start Date
2021-04-06
Intervention End Date
2021-04-27

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our primary outcomes of interest is how teachers reply in each of the four dilemmas. Specifically, we ask teachers how willing they would be on a 10-point scale to: (a) stay after class to help with an assignment, (b) discuss an assignment over the phone in the weekend, (c) allow a student to hand-in an assignment after deadline, and, finally, (d) push the deadline for a hand-in one week to accommodate a student.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Our primary outcomes of interest is how teachers reply in each of four dilemmas concerning interactions with students. Specifically, we ask teachers how willing they would be on a 10-point scale to: (a) stay after class to help with an assignment, (b) discuss an assignment over the phone in the weekend, (c) allow a student to hand-in an assignment after deadline, and, finally, (d) push the deadline for a hand-in one week to accommodate a student.

Interventions are different pieces of information about the students in the four different fictive dilemmas. We employ the same groups of information across all dilemmas. We hypothesize, based on previous literature, that receiving some pieces of information will trigger a sense of student deservingness and consequently cause teachers to "move towards" students. The design is conjoint so all pieces of information are given simultaneously. Specifically, our interventions are information about the student's: (1) effort the previous school year, (2) effort recently, (3) academic achievement, and (4) social achievement class. In addition, for contextual realism, we provide a name for each student. Names differ in terms of sex and ethnicity.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization is done with computer.
Randomization Unit
Each respondent receives all four dilemmas. Within each dilemma, we randomly assign four pieces of information about student deservingness.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Approx. 9,000 high school teachers.
Sample size: planned number of observations
Approx. 9,000 high school teachers.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
For each treatment, approx. 4,500 teachers will receive a treatment, and approx. 4,500 will receive a control.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials