高等经济研究院教师论文被国际权威经济学期刊接收发表
2021年12月14日
2021年11月，高等经济研究院副教授王童与芝加哥大学副教授Susanne NECKERMANN、IESEG管理学院助理教授Uyanga TURMUNKH、埃塞克斯大学副教授Dennie VAN DOLDER的合作论文"Nudging Student Participation in Online Evaluations of Teaching: Evidence from a Field Experiment"被经济学领域权威期刊European Economic Review接收发表。
该论文通过一场大型随机现场实验，调查助推措施在多大程度上可以刺激学生参与教学评估。三种助推措施旨在：（1）提高学生对教学评估的影响的感知，（2）传达高度参与的描述性社会规范，以及（3）通过要求学生承诺参与从而运用一致性原则。助推文献表明这三种助推措施具有最大潜力。与文献预期相反，论文发现此三种助推干预效果都不显著，并且在幅度上接近于零。通过分析干预效果的异质性，论文发现两种干预措施（提高影响的干预和要求承诺的干预）的有效性因学生而异。提高影响的干预措施对本科生的参与度有负面影响，但对硕士生的参与度有正面影响。要求承诺的干预措施提高了平均成绩好的学生的参与度，而降低了平均成绩差的学生的参与度。
论文结果表明文献中记录的助推措施对提高学生教学评估参与度效果不显著。特定助推干预的效果可能取决于多种因素，包括被助推的群体特征和面向的行为领域。该论文结果进一步表明，只有充分掌握多个不同群体和行为领域的证据，才能更深入地探究哪种类型的助推在哪些条件下起作用。
Associate Professor Tong V. WANG's Paper Accepted for Publication by European Economic Review
December 14, 2021
Tong V. Wang, IAER Associate Professor, had her paper accepted for publication in European Economic Review in November, 2021. Entitled "Nudging Student Participation in Online Evaluations of Teaching: Evidence from a Field Experiment", the paper was co-authored with Susanne NECKERMANN (Associate Professor at University of Chicago), Uyanga TURMUNKH (Assistant Professor at IESEG School of Management), and Dennie VAN DOLDER (Associate Professor at University of Essex).
This paper reports the results of a large randomized field experiment that investigates the extent to which nudges can stimulate student participation in teaching evaluations. The three nudges used were designed to either: (1) heighten students’ perceived impact of teaching evaluations, (2) communicate a descriptive norm of high participation, and (3) use the commitment-consistency principle by asking students to commit to participation. These nudges are selected because they show the most promise based on the nudging literature. However, contrary to this expectation, the paper finds that none of the nudges were effective: all treatment effects are insignificant and close to zero in magnitude. Exploring heterogeneous treatment effects, the authors find evidence that the effectiveness of both the impact and commitment treatments differed across students. The impact treatment had a negative effect on the participation of bachelor-level students, but not on that of master-level students. The commitment treatment increased participation among students with good average grades, whereas it decreased participation for students whose average grades were poor.
The results show that nudges that have been documented to work well in the literature were not effective when applied to increase student participation in teaching evaluations. In doing so, the study adds to evidence suggesting that nudges may not always be as effective as sometimes claimed in the literature. The efficacies of particular nudge interventions likely depend on a host of factors, including the characteristics of the group being nudged and the behavioral domain being targeted. Ultimately, a deeper understanding of which types of nudges work under which conditions can only be achieved when sufficient evidence about more varied groups and behavioral domains accumulates. The results add to this evidence.