scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Luiz Felipe Fontes

Bio: Luiz Felipe Fontes is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Grading (education) & Achievement test. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 2 publications receiving 6 citations.

Papers
More filters
Posted Content
14 May 2020
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors found that teachers inflate test scores of better-behaved students, and deduct points from worse-behaving ones, and that teachers' decision to approve pupils that are bellow the passing cutoff grade is influenced by how these students behaved in class.
Abstract: Recent evidence has established that non-cognitive skills are key determinants of education and labor outcomes. However, little is known about the mechanisms producing these results. This paper tests a channel that could explain part of the association between some non-cognitive characteristics and educational attainment: teachers' assessment practices that unequally evaluate students on the basis of their classroom behavior rather than their scholastic competence. Evidence is drawn from unique data on middle- and high-school students in Brazilian private schools. Our main empirical strategy is based on the contrasting of teacher-assigned and blindly-assigned scores on achievement tests that are high-stakes and cover the same material. Using detailed data on student classroom behaviors and holding constant performance in exams graded blindly, evidence indicates that teachers inflate test scores of better-behaved students, and deduct points from worse-behaved ones. We also find that, conditional on end-of-year grade, teachers' decision to approve pupils that are bellow the passing cutoff grade is influenced by how these students behaved in class. Back of the envelope calculations suggest that this grading behavior may significantly change the proportion of students failing the school year depending on their classroom attitudes.

8 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors found that teachers inflate test scores of better-behaved students and deduct points from worse-behaving ones, and that teachers' decision to promote students is influenced by how they behave in class.

1 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: This article found that teachers inflate test scores of better-behaved students, and deduct points from worse-behaving ones, and that this grading behavior may significantly change the proportion of students failing the school year depending on their classroom attitudes.
Abstract: This paper tests a channel that could explain part of the association between some non-cognitive characteristics and educational attainment: teachers' assessment practices that unequally evaluate students on the basis of their classroom behavior rather than their scholastic competence. Evidence is drawn from a unique dataset on middle- and high-school students in Brazilian private schools. Our main empirical strategy is based on the contrast between teacher-assigned and blindly-assigned scores on achievement tests that are high-stakes and cover the same material. Using detailed data on student classroom behavior and holding constant the performance on exams graded blindly, evidence indicates that teachers inflate test scores of better-behaved students, and deduct points from worse-behaved ones. We also find that, conditional on end-of-year grade, the teachers' decision to approve pupils that are below the passing cutoff grade is influenced by how these students behave in class. Rough calculations suggest that this grading behavior may significantly change the proportion of students failing the school year depending on their classroom attitudes.

Cited by
More filters
01 Jan 2016

1,631 citations

Journal ArticleDOI

727 citations

01 Feb 2010
TL;DR: The authors discuss and analyse recorded talk in teacher moderation meetings showing the processes that teachers use as they work with stated standards to award grades (A to E) and show how they move to and fro between supplied textual artefacts, including stated standards and samples of student responses, drawing into the moderation, and social processes of dialogue and negotiation.
Abstract: There is a strong quest in several countries including Australia for greater national consistency in education and intensifying interest in standards for reporting. Given this, it is important to make explicit the intended and unintended consequences of assessment reform strategies and the pressures to pervert and conform. In a policy context that values standardisation, the great danger is that the technical, rationalist approaches that generalise and make superficial assessment practices, will emerge. In this article, the authors contend that the centrality and complexity of teacher judgement practice in such a policy context need to be understood. To this end, we discuss and analyse recorded talk in teacher moderation meetings showing the processes that teachers use as they work with stated standards to award grades (A to E). We show how they move to and fro between (1) supplied textual artefacts, including stated standards and samples of student responses, (2) tacit knowledge of different types, drawing into the moderation, and (3) social processes of dialogue and negotiation. While the stated standards play a part in judgement processes, in and of themselves they are shown to be insufficient to account for how the teachers ascribe value and award a grade to student work in moderation. At issue is the nature of judgement as cognitive and social practice in moderation and the legitimacy (or otherwise) of the mix of factors that shape how judgement occurs.

25 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, a field experiment in which graders at one university were randomly assigned students' exams that did or did not contain the students' names, on average they found favoritism but no discrimination by nationality, and neither favoritism nor discrimination by gender, finding that a changing correlation between endophilia and exophobia can generate perverse predictions for observed market discrimination.
Abstract: The immense literature on discrimination treats outcomes as relative: One group suffers compared to another But does a difference arise because agents discriminate against others – are exophobic – or because they favor their own kind – are endophilic? This difference matters, as the relative importance of the types of discrimination and their inter-relation affect market outcomes Using a field experiment in which graders at one university were randomly assigned students' exams that did or did not contain the students' names, on average we find favoritism but no discrimination by nationality, and neither favoritism nor discrimination by gender, findings that are robust to a wide variety of potential concerns We observe heterogeneity in both discrimination and favoritism by nationality and by gender in the distributions of graders' preferences We show that a changing correlation between endophilia and exophobia can generate perverse predictions for observed market discrimination

17 citations