Skip to Main Content

Panel A of table 4 shows the effects of teaching repetition in courses taught by students. For these instructors, the effects of repetition on grades, the probability of dropping the course, and study hours appear as before—small and statistically insignificant. Unlike table 3, column 3 suggests economically relevant and statistically significant positive effects of repetition on teaching evaluations for instructors. Students and PhD students receive 16 percent, 24 percent, and 29 percent of a standard deviation higher evaluations in their second, third, and fourth sections, respectively. However, these effects are less precisely estimated than those in table 3, and the F-test for joint significance for all section indicators fails to reject the null hypothesis. We therefore interpret these results as merely suggestive evidence that teaching repetition improves teaching evaluations for instructors who are students.

Table 4.

Heterogeneous Effects by Instructor Academic Rank

Standard GradeDropoutStandard EvaluationHours
Dependent Variable(1)(2)(3)(4)
Panel A: Student and PhD Student Instructors 
2nd section −0.027 0.005 0.155** 0.606 
 (−0.081 to 0.027) (−0.010 to 0.020) (0.028 to 0.283) (−0.518 to 1.731) 
3rd section −0.022 0.010 0.238** 0.450 
 (−0.115 to 0.070) (−0.019 to 0.038) (0.043 to 0.433) (−1.363 to 2.263) 
4th section −0.030 0.019 0.294** 0.549 
 (−0.161 to 0.101) (−0.019 to 0.057) (0.018 to 0.570) (−1.986 to 3.084) 
Observations 38,678 41,916 13,228 12,983 
R2 0.579 0.283 0.550 0.386 
Section 1 average outcome −.044 .078 −.166 13.88 
p-value joint significance of all section variables .5735 .6913 .1026 .4563 
Panel B: Senior Instructors 
2nd section 0.021 0.003 −0.043 −1.086 
 (−0.049 to 0.091) (−0.015 to 0.021) (−0.259 to 0.173) (−2.443 to 0.272) 
3rd section 0.066 0.004 −0.044 −1.786 
 (−0.058 to 0.190) (−0.029 to 0.037) (−0.457 to 0.369) (−4.193 to 0.620) 
4th section 0.095 −0.004 0.026 −2.412 
 (−0.076 to 0.266) (−0.050 to 0.042) (−0.550 to 0.601) (−5.861 to 1.036) 
Observations 38,591 41,279 13,916 13,935 
R2 0.559 0.300 0.547 0.437 
Section 1 average outcome .096 .066 .085 14.883 
p-value joint significance of all section variables .5242 .5973 .4040 .4766 
Standard GradeDropoutStandard EvaluationHours
Dependent Variable(1)(2)(3)(4)
Panel A: Student and PhD Student Instructors 
2nd section −0.027 0.005 0.155** 0.606 
 (−0.081 to 0.027) (−0.010 to 0.020) (0.028 to 0.283) (−0.518 to 1.731) 
3rd section −0.022 0.010 0.238** 0.450 
 (−0.115 to 0.070) (−0.019 to 0.038) (0.043 to 0.433) (−1.363 to 2.263) 
4th section −0.030 0.019 0.294** 0.549 
 (−0.161 to 0.101) (−0.019 to 0.057) (0.018 to 0.570) (−1.986 to 3.084) 
Observations 38,678 41,916 13,228 12,983 
R2 0.579 0.283 0.550 0.386 
Section 1 average outcome −.044 .078 −.166 13.88 
p-value joint significance of all section variables .5735 .6913 .1026 .4563 
Panel B: Senior Instructors 
2nd section 0.021 0.003 −0.043 −1.086 
 (−0.049 to 0.091) (−0.015 to 0.021) (−0.259 to 0.173) (−2.443 to 0.272) 
3rd section 0.066 0.004 −0.044 −1.786 
 (−0.058 to 0.190) (−0.029 to 0.037) (−0.457 to 0.369) (−4.193 to 0.620) 
4th section 0.095 −0.004 0.026 −2.412 
 (−0.076 to 0.266) (−0.050 to 0.042) (−0.550 to 0.601) (−5.861 to 1.036) 
Observations 38,591 41,279 13,916 13,935 
R2 0.559 0.300 0.547 0.437 
Section 1 average outcome .096 .066 .085 14.883 
p-value joint significance of all section variables .5242 .5973 .4040 .4766 

Notes: All regressions include instructor-course-parallel-course fixed effects. Additional controls include cubic polynomials for student age and grade point average, as well as indicator variables for section starting time, student gender, and student nationality. 95 percent confidence intervals based on standard errors clustered at the course level are in parentheses.

**p < 0.05.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal