Abstract
AbstractBased on the theoretical approaches of social capital and institutional trust, this paper seeks to identify contextual factors and conditions behind teacher behaviours which aim to alter the results of standardised tests in the Italian low-stakes accountability system. Numerous studies report significant factors associated with student cheating, but research into the factors of teacher-led opportunistic actions is scarce. Logistic regression models with fixed-effects at classroom level, with interaction terms, were carried out to identify factors increasing the likelihood of teacher misbehaviour. Models included approximately 79,100 primary, lower and upper secondary classrooms. Indicators of teacher cheating were estimated through algorithms based on suspicious answer strings from standardised tests. The results suggest that teacher cheating may be understood as a form of support for the most vulnerable students, since it is, to a greater extent, found helping low-income students, grade-retained students, as well as students in socially homogenous school settings. The findings also reveal that teacher cheating is consistently related to collectively share non-civic-minded behaviours and practices undertaken by teachers, which do not match legal requirements, such as within-school social segregation and exclusion of students from tests. Heterogeneous effects show that, even in classrooms with external controllers, the lower the civic capital in a school, the more misbehaviour are found. Relevant implications for research, social theory and policy are discussed.
Funder
H2020 European Research Council
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Education
Reference56 articles.
1. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). An analysis of some unintended and negative consequences of high-stakes testing. EPSL-0211-125-EPRU Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University Retrieved November 20, 2022, https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/EPSL-0211-125-EPRU.pdf
2. Amrein-Beardsley, A., Berliner, D. C., & Rideau, S. (2010). Breaking professional law: Degrees of cheating on high stakes tests. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(14). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v18n14.2010
3. Angoff, W. H. (1974). The development of statistical indices for detecting cheaters. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/2285498
4. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational researcher, 36(5), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523
5. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献