The Teacher Team Method and Full Roster Method provide a more stable approach than the Partial Credit Method for estimating teacher effects when students have multiple teachers for the same subject.¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr?·q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2015: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Compared with the Partial Credit Method, the Teacher Team Method and the Full Roster Method yield more stable estimates of teacher effects on student achievement in co-teaching settings. → Hock 2012
Evidence¶
Hock 2012¶
Hock, H., & Isenberg, E. (2012). Methods for Accounting for Co-Teaching in Value-Added Models. Working Paper 6. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/methods-for-accounting-for-coteaching-in-valueadded-models
q2 · i? · associational · r?
The paper's comparative analysis of three co-teaching value-added methods concludes that "the latter two methods provide a more stable approach to estimating teacher effects on student achievement" than the Partial Credit Method. No effect sizes or test statistics are printed in the available text.
"This paper considers and compares three methods—Partial Credit Method, Teacher Team Method, and Full Roster Method—to estimate teacher effects. Based on the analysis, the authors conclude that the latter two methods provide a more stable approach to estimating teacher effects on student achievement."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The Full Roster Method offers the most promise for robust, practical implementation among the three co-teaching value-added methods considered. — a broader claim this one bears on
- The full roster and full roster-plus methods are empirically similar — related
- The partial credit and teacher team methods for co-teaching are impractical — related
- Successive cohort indicators are subject to false performance gains, and the paper assesses which school evaluation methods provide useful accountability information — related
- The Teacher Team Method and Full Roster Method produce similar estimates of teacher value added — related
- The Full Roster Method effectively counts co-taught students more than once in value-added calculations — related
- Applying the Full Roster-Plus Method instead of the Full Roster Method produces very small empirical differences in value-added estimates in District of Columbia Public Schools data — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
teacher-team-and-full-roster-methods-more-stable-than-partial-credit |
title |
The Teacher Team Method and Full Roster Method provide a more stable approach than the Partial Credit Method for estimating teacher effects when students have multiple teachers for the same subject. |
description |
The Teacher Team Method and Full Roster Method provide a more stable approach than the Partial Credit Method for estimating teacher effects when students have multiple teachers for the same subject. |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2012 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
recheck_by |
2015 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — hock-2012 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.