Cited by 156School Choice and PerformanceSchool Leadership and Teacher PerformanceTeacher Education and Leadership Studies

Learning Job Skills from Colleagues at Work: Evidence from a Field Experiment Using Teacher Performance Data

Open access
Papay, John, Taylor, Eric, Tyler, John, Laski, Mary·2016·American Economic Journal Economic Policy

Abstract

We study a program designed to encourage learning from coworkers among school teachers. In an experiment, we document gains in job performance when high- and low-skilled teachers are paired and asked to work together on improving their skills. Pairs are matched on specific skills measured in prior evaluations. Each pair includes a target teacher who scores low in one or more of 19 skills and a partner who scores high in (many of) the target’s deficient skills. Student achievement improved 0.12 standard deviations in low-skilled teachers’ classrooms. Improvements are likely the result of target teachers learning skills from their partner. (JEL I21, J24, J45, M53)

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3386/w21986

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • New evidence documents the potential of pairing highly effective teachers with less effective colleagues on specific areas of instructional improvement.

    “For example, new evidence documents the potential of pairing highly effect teachers to work with their less effective colleagues on specific areas of instructional improvement (Papay, Taylor, Tyler & Laski, 2016).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Azoulay, P., Zivin, J. S., & Wang, J. (2010). Superstar Extinction. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(2), 549-589.
  2. Kraft, M.A. & Papay, J.P. (2014). Do Supportive Professional Environments Promote Teacher Development? Explaining Heterogeneity in Returns to Teaching Experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476-500.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Papay, J., Taylor, E., Tyler, J., & Laski, M.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
Venue
American Economic Journal Economic Policy
Published
2016-02
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
359-388
ISSN
1945-7731 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2276452652
Cited by
148
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
60.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Economic Journal Economic Policy (publishedVersion)
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Tennessee Department of Education
  • Harvard Graduate School of Education
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Leadership and Teacher Performance
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
Keywords
teacher performance, peer learning, academic performance, teacher professional development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review