|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
April 08, 2024 07:46 AM
|
After
April 08, 2024 07:48 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
Interventions are in the form of different pieces of information about each presented high school in the conjoint survey experiment. Specifically, we provide information about schools' share of non-Western student, education levels of parents, how hard schools have worked the past year to improve performance, and how many new initiatives schools have set up to improve in the future.
|
After
We provide descriptions of fictive high schools to a large sample of Danish high-school teachers and ask them to rate the outcome attainment of the presented schools.
Within each description, we randomly assign a number of different pieces information about outcomes: socioeconomic mobility, wellbeing, and transition to higher education. In addition, we provide teachers with information about schools' "production attributes", i.e. the inputs and outputs preceding outcomes.
For organizational inputs, we use two sets of wordings related to student backgrounds—one tied to student origin (e.g., “Has a high proportion of students with a non-Western background.”) and the other linked to parents’ educational background (e.g., “Has a high proportion of parents without higher education.”).
For organizational outputs, we use two distinct sets of wordings—one focusing on past efforts (e.g., “Has implemented many initiatives to improve quality in the past year.”) and the other on potential future efforts (e.g., “Significant focus on developing the teaching in the future.”).
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
We provide descriptions of fictive high schools to a large sample of Danish high-school teachers and ask them to rate the performance of the presented schools. Within each description we randomly assign a number of different pieces of performance information. In addition, we provide teachers with information of schools' "deservingness" to see if teachers give higher ratings to schools with low performance but high in deservingness. Specifically, we provide information about schools' share of non-Western student, education levels of parents, how hard schools have worked the past year to improve performance, and how many new initiatives schools have set up to improve in the future.
We have two primary outcomes: 1) The probability that schools with certain characteristics are chosen as highest performing, and 2) the rating respondents assign to each school.
|
After
We provide descriptions of fictive high schools to a large sample of Danish high-school teachers and ask them to rate the outcome attainment of the presented schools.
Within each description, we randomly assign a number of different pieces information about outcomes: socioeconomic mobility, wellbeing, and transition to higher education. In addition, we provide teachers with information about schools' "production attributes", i.e. the inputs and outputs preceding outcomes.
For organizational inputs, we use two sets of wordings related to student backgrounds—one tied to student origin (e.g., “Has a high proportion of students with a non-Western background.”) and the other linked to parents’ educational background (e.g., “Has a high proportion of parents without higher education.”).
For organizational outputs, we use two distinct sets of wordings—one focusing on past efforts (e.g., “Has implemented many initiatives to improve quality in the past year.”) and the other on potential future efforts (e.g., “Significant focus on developing the teaching in the future.”).
We have two primary outcomes: 1) The probability that schools with certain characteristics are chosen as highest performing, and 2) the rating respondents assign to each school.
|