Student Satisfaction with Teaming and Looping In Middle-school Adolescents: A presentation to the MWERA Annual Meetings, Columbus, Ohio

October, 2002

Lawrence Sherman, Kris Fitz, Richard Hofmann

Miami University, Oxford, Ohio¹

ABSTRACT. Middle school children (n=172) were surveyed with regard to perceptions of satisfaction with a looping and teaming curriculum structure throughout their 7^th and 8^th grade years. Comparisons between their memories of their 7^th grade experience and their present perceptions of their 8^th grade experience, as well as comparisons among three teams, revealed consistent responses to the survey items. Increases in positive perceptions were obtained from the 7^th to the 8^th grade year. Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance theory was used to explain these results. The analyses support earlier theoretical expectations with regard to the positive effects of interdisciplinary teaming and looping structures.

Positive evidence supporting the use of interdisciplinary teams and looping in the middle grades is abundant. However there appears to be a lack of information describing problems associated with this structure. One problem might be associated with student satisfaction with this type of curricular structure. The present study is an attempt at examining student perceptions of satisfaction in interdisciplinary and looped teams in a local middle school program.

The middle school population being studied is very responsive to the needs of its students, teachers, and community in regard to teaming and looping. A question still remains unanswered by the literature addressing a lack of “student-generated” data about their level of satisfaction with teaming and looping. With what characteristics of teams do the students seem most/least satisfied? How do the students’ recollections of their first year on the team compare with their thoughts at the present time during the second year on the team? Also, research states that teaming and looping should be a positive experience, yet there are students who continue to switch teams/loops between the 7^th and 8^th grade. How satisfied are the students with their choice to remain on the same team or switch to another team? How does the data of the students who switch teams compare with those who stay in the loop?

This research is significant in order to understand the feelings of the students toward the teaming and looping structures. In order to gain an understanding of students’ need to make a mid-loop lateral movement some of the teaming/looping barriers need to be identified. Research could uncover possible weak areas that staff and other students could address in order to help less-satisfied students feel better about the team, regardless of whether or not a switch was made.

Lastly, a lack of empirical evidence or study based on research exists. Of sixteen research articles only four had an experimental or quantitative basis; the others were descriptive in nature. Black’s (2000) article focuses on a longitudinal study comparing attendance rates, number of retentions, and amount of discipline problems before and after looping was instituted. Grant (2000) also cites research on discipline and attendance rates, as well as the impact on the number of special education referrals. Lincoln (1998) reports a difference between looped and non-looped students’ academic achievement scores, social skills, self-efficacy, and attitude toward school. Lastly, Erb (1997) describes that teamed students score higher on standardized tests, are less likely to be late, and have higher self-esteem scores. None of this past research deals with student attitudes toward switching teams, looping, or general perceptions of satisfaction with the team/looping experience. Thus, it is necessary to add to the research base that deals with the satisfaction and expectations of students involved in teaming and looping situations.

Methodology, Design and Analysis

To address concerns of past research, a “descriptive study” was accomplished making use of quantitative survey data. The data resulted from a 27-item survey instrument utilizing a semantic differential structure, scaled from 1 (positive perceptions) to 5 (negative perceptions), to measure the students’ general perceptions of satisfaction with their teaming/looping experience. The survey and procedures were guided and approved by Miami University's Institutional Review Board. The survey was administered to 8^th grade students (n=172) in their homerooms where they volunteered to anonymously respond to the 27 item survey. This was done at the end of their 8^th grade year in May. (See Figure 1 for a graphic display of the time lines associated with this study). The survey asked them to rate two sets of 8 parallel items, 16 in all, 8 which were associated with their memories of the 7^th gade experience, and 8 which dealt with their current 8^th grade perceptions. The survey instrument also included such demographic items as team membership, gender, and whether or not the respondents switched or did not switch teams at the end of the seventh grade. (See Appendix A, The Looping Survey) The instrument was piloted on a sample group. Coefficient-alpha was determined on the three parts of the survey as an indicator of its reliability.

Comparisons using paired t-tests were made between the parallel forms of the survey requesting information on the students’ attitudes regarding the present eighth grade experience and their recollections of the seventh grade experience. Other comparisons of attitudes using a between subjects one-way ANOVA were used to examine differences in perceptions between those students who switched teams and those who did not. The three teams were compared among each other with regard to the 8 parallel items obtained for their 7^th grade reflections and 8^th grade current perceptions using a within subjects one-way analysis of variance. The 8^th grade perceptions on the 8 items were compared among each other using a repeated measures ANOVA design.

Inasmuch as the nature of this study was descriptive, testing specific hypotheses was not the primary objective. Allowing the data to generate hypotheses was more in line with our approach. Differences in attitudes of students who switched and did not switch teams were examined. Potential differences among demographic categories (gender, teams, age) within the three teams were analyzed using the Chi-square statistic.

In addition two different factor analyses of the survey items was made. The first looked at the overall satisfaction associated with the last 8 items (items 20 through 27). The second factor analysis examined 16 items, the two 8 item parallel sets associated with either the 7^th grade reflections and the 8 items associated with their current 8^th grade perceptions.

Results

The results are reported in 6 Tables and 3 graphs. Of the known 195 students in the eighth grade, 183 surveys were obtained. Thus approximately 94% of the 8^th grade student body volunteered to respond to the survey. However, 11 of these were students who had not attended this middle school last year. They have been excluded from data analysis since they are missing appropriate 7^th grade reflections. The remaining 172 respondents were demographically distributed among the three cohorts (Teams A, B and C) based on their gender, age, and whether or not they switched teams and are described in Table 1. The survey instrument was examined for reliability using coefficient alpha as the statistic which was calculated separately for each of the three subsets of items: the 8 items associated with the 7^th grade reflections (coefficient alpha = .83); the 8 items associated with the 8^th grade current perceptions (coefficient alpha = .86); and, the 8 overall satisfaction items (coefficient alpha = .94). The distribution of gender among the three teams was found to be equivalent (X² ₍₂₎ = 2.23, p>.05). The age groups were distributed in an equivalent manner as well (X² ₍₄₎ = 5.15, p>.05) (only three age groups were used in this analysis, collapsing the 15 and 16-yr-olds together into one category: students who were 15 years old or greater). The 15 students who did switch teams were equally distributed amongst the three 8^th grade teams (X² ₍₂₎ = .43, p>.05). Thus the three teams appear to be equivalent on all demographic variables. These findings allowed us to assume equivalency among the three cohort teams.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics obtained for the 7^th grade reflections on the 8 items (4 through 11). For the most part no statistically different mean ratings were obtained from contrasts among the three teams across the 8 items associated with their 7^th grade reflections. The only exception to this pattern occurred in Team C as contrasted with the other two teams (A and B). Inasmuch as no significant differences were obtained among the three teams, looking at the overall mean ratings among the 8 items rated by all respondents did not reveal any significant differences either. The most negative appear to be "Exciting, homework, reputation, and success." The lowest most positive ratings were associated with "Friends, humor, good people, and teaching well."

[Insert Table 2 about here]

Table 3 displays the descriptive statistics obtained for the 8^th grade current perceptions on the 8 items (12 through 19). Once again, no statistically different mean ratings were obtained from contrasts among the three cohort teams across the 8 items, with the exception of Team B that was more negatively rated than Teams A or C. Inasmuch as no significant differences were obtained among the three teams, looking at the overall mean ratings among the 8 items rated by all respondents did not reveal any significant differences either. Overall, these ratings appear to be in the moderate range tending towards the positive end of the range (less than 3). A 2-way Repeated measures ANOVA was applied to these 8 survey items (the repeated measures factor) across the three teams (the non-repeated factor) and obtained a statistically significant (p<.05) interaction, F_{(14, 1134)}=2.125. As can be seen in Table 3 and Figure 2, the two items, “exciting classes” and “amount of homework” received the highest scores (indicating the most negative feelings) across all three teams. These responses were found to be statistically different from the other six items. Also, two variables, “friends” and “teachers who teach well” were significantly different from the variable “success”. The characteristic showing the most satisfaction (i.e., lowest score) on Team B was the “use of humor in the classroom.” However, these same students report less satisfaction with the level of “excitement” in the classroom (rated 2.59). Team C has also reported an unexpected incongruity. They believe their “teachers teach well” (rated the highest level of satisfaction, 1.71), but are less satisfied with the “amount of homework” and “excitement” (2.79 and 2.60 respectively). The highest reported score (measuring the least satisfaction) was a mean of 2.87 for the variable “homework” on Team A, which is less than the mid-point of the scale (a value of three). Again the students’ ratings for all eight variables indicate an overall satisfaction with the teaming and looping experience.

[Insert Table 3 and Figure 2 about here]

Table 4 displays the descriptive statistics obtained for the last 8 items which attempted to focus on overall satisfaction with the looping experience. Again, no statistically different mean ratings were obtained from contrasts among the three cohort teams across the 8 items (items 20 through 27). And, these ratings tended to be the most positive, tending towards the low end of our scale, 1. The last eight items on the survey asked students to reflect on their decision to switch teams or stay on the same team. The data generated from the student responses can be found in found in Table 4. A 2-way repeated measures ANOVA was utilized to examine the differences among the 8 items (the repeated measures factor) and the three teams (the non-repeated measures factor) and is shown in Figure 3. While a marginally significant interaction F-ratio was obtained, it appeared somewhat complex and difficult to interpret F_{(14, 1113)}=1.733, p<.04). To explore this further, 8 1-way ANOVA, one for each of the 8 items, contrasted the three teams mean ratings of the 8 items. None of these analyses obtained any significant differences, so each team must have received responses that were relatively similar to the other teams. This is a desirable outcome, which symbolizes that for these items, the teams are equal; no team stands out as one whose members are any more or less satisfied than the others. Despite the lack of significant differences, some trends in the data are worth noting. Team B received the lowest average scores for five of the characteristics measured by the survey, including level of acceptance, feelings of success, fulfillment, thankfulness, and overall team satisfaction. It is important to reiterate that a lower average score indicates the highest level of the positive characteristic. Also, Team A received the highest average scores for five of the characteristics including, “feelings of success, fulfillment, level of inclusion, lack of anxiety, and overall team satisfaction.” While the highest value reported for this part of the survey was 2.29 for the variables describing the “relaxed” feeling and “overall satisfaction” with their choice, this value still relays a general feeling of satisfaction when viewed on a one-to-five scale.

[Insert Table 4 and Figure 3 about here]

A factor analysis of these last 8 items obtained one single factor accounting for 73% of the variance. Factor scores (See Table 4) from this analysis were applied to these 8 items to derive a single "Satisfaction" score which was then used to examine differences among four types of students who either switched or did not switch teams and were "glad" or not glad about this decision. Significant differences among these four subgroups were obtained (F_{(3, 157)}= 21.06, p<.00001). As can be seen in Figure 4, children who expressed “gladness” or satisfaction with the looping/teaming experience also tended to rate the last 8 satisfaction items the most positive (lower mean scores) and children who said they were “not glad” of their decision to switch or not switch teams tended to rate these same items more negatively (towards the high end of the scale). While most of these ratings were quite positive (tending towards the low end of our Looping/Teaming survey scale) those children who were “not glad” of their decisions rated the satisfaction items significantly higher. Only 24 out of 162 children (nearly 15%) said they were “not glad” of their decision to either switch (6 children) or not switch (18 children). Thus, the majority of the children (85%) were “glad” of their decision to either switch (8 children) or not switch (129). We believe the statistically significant patterns obtained in this analysis tend to establish some internal construct validation to our instrument, as well as a confirmation of Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance theory.

[Figure 4 here]

One further factor analysis was done on the 16 items which were parallel among the 7^th grade reflections (items 4-11) and 8^th grade current perceptions (items 12-19). This oblique solution determined three significant factors whose loadings are displayed in Tables 2 and 3. The first factor of this analysis loaded on all 8 of the items associated with the 8^th graders. We believe this factor has to do with overall satisfaction with the Looping/Teaming experience in the 8^th grade (See Table 3). The second factor loaded on 5 of the 8 items associated with 7^th grade reflections. All of the items seemed to focus on social relationships and we chose to describe this factor as the "social issues" factor. The third factor tended to load on 7^th grader reflections associated with teaching issues and we chose to describe it as "pedagogy" factor. Both the second and third factor loadings are displayed in Table 2. Using these three factor scores as dependent variables we then applied several ANOVAs which examined differences which might be attributed to gender, age, the three cohorts (Teams A, B, and C) in either the 7^th grade reflections or the 8^th grade perceptions, switched vs no switch, and the combination of switch/glad, switch/not glad, stayed/glad and stayed/not glad. Neither the sex or ages or cohort membership of the children significantly differentiated these three dependent measures. Whether or not the children switched or stayed in the same cohort during their 8^th grade year was not significant for any of the three dependent measures. All three dependent measures were differentiated by the fourway grouping of 1) switched/glad, 2) switched/not glad, 3) stayed/glad and ) stayed/not glad. For factor 1, the 8^th grade satisfaction factor, we obtained statistically significant results (F_{(3, 157)}= 11.54, p<.0001). The same was true with regard to factor 2, the 7^th grade social issues factor (F_{(3, 157)}= 6.58, p<.0003), as well as the 7^th grade pedagogy factor (F_{(3, 157)}= 5.71, p<.001). We have tried to portray these findings in Figure 5

[Figure 5 about here]

Discussion

Several research questions were addressed by administering a 27-item survey to the three different teams of 8^th grade students. In general, the three teams appear to have equivalent and for the most part quite perceptions. Only two of the variables showed a statistical difference when the teams were compared, and these differences did not exist for both the 7^th grade reflections and the 8^th grade perceptions. In other words, although Team C was less satisfied with the team’s reputation in 7^th grade, the perception of their reputation in 8^th grade was not statistically different from the other teams. The same can be said about the amount of homework for Team B. The Team B students were more satisfied than the other teams for the 8^th grade, but this difference had not existed in the 7^th grade perceptions. However, there was a slight tendency for Team B to respond as more satisfied than the other teams, and Team A to be rated with less satisfaction. While these differences are not statistically significant, team attitudes should continually be monitored for the appearance of an “elite” team.

Overall students seem to be most satisfied with the social aspects of their teams (“good people”, “friends”, “humor”) and less satisfied with curricular aspects (“excitement in the classroom”, “homework”, “academic success”). These attitudes are fairly consistent with what would be expected for adolescents, given their inclination toward the social aspect of any event.

All of the variables were rated lower (again indicating more satisfaction) when describing the present 8^th grade team when compared to the recollections of the 7^th grade team. The idea indicates that students are more satisfied after they have been part of a looping/teaming structure. Perhaps a longitudinal study in the future could reproduce these differences and at the same time eliminate the inaccuracy introduced when people report on a recollection or memory of an event.

The data collected about the students’ satisfaction with their choice to leave a team or stay provided useful insight. The switch that some students make does not appear to exclude them from a new team or make them social outcasts; those who switched and were glad were the most satisfied group studied, a prediction that Festinger’s (1957) theory would predict. Conversely, staying on the same team does not in any way guarantee satisfaction. The students who regretted their choice to stay on the same team were often the least satisfied group. A large majority of students who did stay on the same team rated that team experience with high satisfaction levels.

The 24 items on the survey were rated with a fairly high degree of satisfaction, so the teaming/looping structure appears to be working for the majority of students at this middle school. In this sense, we believe our data suggests the looping/teaming structure is a positive and satisfying experience for middle school children.

Some suggestions for future research include a longitudinal study in order to eliminate the less reliable answers generated when people are asked to “…reflect on an earlier experience.” This longitudinal format could be useful to predict the 8^th grade satisfaction from the 7^th grade ratings. Lastly, the student perceptions could give insight into areas of this curricular structure that could be improved or refined to better meet the needs of future students. A qualitative research strategy might be tried on the children who actually did make a switch from one team to another. Those children who actual did make the switch from one team to another might be interviewed about their experience and their responses might be qualitatively examined for patterns.

¹Author notes

Lawrence W. Sherman, Ph. D. is a Professor of Educational Psychology in the Department of Educational Psychology at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056. He may be reached through e-mail at: shermalw@muohio.edu. Copies of this paper may be requested from Lawrence W. Sherman, Department of Educational Psychology, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056. The paper is available on the web at: http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermalw/Fitz_MWERA2002.htm

Kris Fitz received her Master’s in Education from Miami University in 2001. This paper is an outgrowth of a research project which she completed in partial fulfillment of her Master’s Degree in Education at Miami University. She is presently a middle school teacher in the Ross Local School District, Ross, Ohio. She may be reached through e-mail at: RO_Fitz@SWOCAI.SWOCA.NET

Rich Hofmann is a Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056. He may be reached through e-mail at: hofmanr@muohio.edu

References

Black, Susan. (2000). Together again. The American School Board Journal, 187 (6), 40-3.

Chapman, Janet. (1999). A looping journey. Young Children, 54 (3), 80-3.

Crosby, Patricia. (1998). Looping in the middle school: why do it?. Teaching PreK-8, 29 (3), 46-7.

Elliot, Ian. (1998). When two years are better than one. Teaching PreK-8, 29 (3), 38-41.

Erb, Thomas O. (1997). Meeting the needs of young adolescents on interdisciplinary teams. Childhood Education, 73 (5), 309-11.

Festinger, L. (1957). Theory of Cogitive Dissonance. Evanston, Il: Row, Peterson & Company.

Gable, Robert A. and Manning, M. Lee. (1999). Interdisciplinary teaming: solution to instructing heterogeneous groups of students. Clearing House, 72 (3), 182-5.

Gaustad, Joan. (1998). Implementing Looping. Eric Digest: ED429330. http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed429330.html.

Grant, Jim. (2000). In the loop. School Administrator, 57 (1), 30-3.

Jordan, Doris. (2000). Looping: discovering the difference. Teaching PreK-8, 30 (6), 58-9.

Kruse, Sharon D. and Louis, Karen Seashore. (1997). Teacher teaming in middle schools: dilemmas for a school wide community. Educational Quarterly, 33 (3), 261-89.

Lincoln, Robert D. (1997). Multi-year instruction: establishing student-teacher relationships. Schools in the Middle, 6 (3), 50-2.

Lincoln, Robert D. (1998). Looping in the middle grades. Principal, 78 (1), 58-9.

Little, Thomas S. (1999). Looping: moving up with the class. Educational Leadership, 57 (1), 42-5.

McMackin, Mary C. and Blackwell, Alison. (1997). Exploring the multiage classroom. The New England Reading Association Journal, 33 (2), 22-3.

Vann, Allan S. (May, 1997). Looping: looking beyond the hype. Principal, 76, 41-2.

Vann, Allan S. (October, 1997). Leveling about looping. The Education Digest, 63, 52-3.

Walsh, Kevin J. and Shay, Kevin J. (1993). In support of interdisciplinary teaming: the climate factor. Middle School Journal, 24 (4), 56-60.

Appendix A

THE TEAMING AND LOOPING SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Please fill in the bubble for the answers that describe you. You may use pen or pencil.

Please bubble in your sex male female

Bubble in your age 13 14 15 16

.1 What team were you on in 7^th grade?

1. A team 2. Dream team 3. Extreme team

4. None of these apply (student new to the school)- do #2, then skip to question #12.

2. What team are you on now (in eighth grade)?

1. A team 2. Dream team 3. Extreme team

3. Describe your situation about switching teams between 7^th and 8^th grade.

1. switched teams and I’m glad 2. switched teams and wish I hadn’t

3. did not switch teams and I’m glad 4. did not switch teams but wish I had

Directions for items 4-27. Rate your feelings by bubbling in a number from 1 to 5 for each question. Circling 1 means you feel strongly about the quality on the left side of the scale, circling a 5 means you feel strongly about the quality on the right side of the scale, and a 3 would be no real feelings about one quality or the other. A 2 or 4 mean your feelings are somewhere in between.

Looking back, I thought my seventh grade team had…

4. many of my friends 1 2 3 4 5 few of my friends

5. a good reputation 1 2 3 4 5 a bad reputation

6. teachers who taught well 1 2 3 4 5 teachers who taught poorly

7. good sense of humor 1 2 3 4 5 lacks a sense of humor

8. not much homework 1 2 3 4 5 too much homework

9. exciting classes 1 2 3 4 5 boring classes

10. ways to help me succeed 1 2 3 4 5 ways to make me fail

11. good people to be around 1 2 3 4 5 people I’d rather avoid

I think my eighth grade team has…

12. many of my friends 1 2 3 4 5 few of my friends

13. a good reputation 1 2 3 4 5 a bad reputation

14. teachers who taught well 1 2 3 4 5 teachers who taught poorly

15. good sense of humor 1 2 3 4 5 lacks a sense of humor

16. not much homework 1 2 3 4 5 too much homework

17. exciting classes 1 2 3 4 5 boring classes

18. ways to help me succeed 1 2 3 4 5 ways to make me fail

19. good people to be around 1 2 3 4 5 people I’d rather avoid

What feelings do you have now about your choice to switch or not switch teams?

20. accepted 1 2 3 4 5 not accepted

21. successful 1 2 3 4 5 unsuccessful

22. fulfilled 1 2 3 4 5 unfulfilled

23. thankful 1 2 3 4 5 regretful

24. included 1 2 3 4 5 excluded

25. relaxed 1 2 3 4 5 nervous

26. in control 1 2 3 4 5 out-of-control

27. satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 unsatisfied

28. If you are new to this school, how long have you been here? ______months

Notes:

This survey instrument was designed for a Master’s Degree project that Kris Fitz carried out in 2001 for the Department of Educational Psychology at Miami University. As part of the project coefficient alpha reliability for the instrument was computed on a sample of 183 middle school children. Coefficient Alphas were computed separately for each of the three sections of the instrument: Section 1 (items 4 through 11) obtained an alpha of .83; Section 2 (items 12 through 19) obtained an alpha of .86; and Section 3 (items 20 through 27) obtained an alpha of .94.

Table 1.

Demographic Information for n=172 students.

		Gender^1			Age^2			Switched?^3
Team	N	Male	Female	13	14	15	16	Yes	No
A	61	30	31	10	45	5	1	6	55
B	59	37	22	9	46	3	0	4	55
C	52	29	23	12	32	7	1	5	47

Note. There were 11 new students in the school between seventh and eighth grade. Their responses have not been included in this data

¹The distribution of gender among the three teams was found to be equivalent (X² ₍₂₎ = 2.23, p>.05).

²The age groups were distributed in an equivalent manner as well (X² ₍₄₎ = 5.15, p>.05). Ages 15 and 16 were collapsed together for this analysis.

³The 15 students who did switch teams were equally distributed amongst the three 8^th grade teams (X² ₍₂₎ = .43, p>.05).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and factor loadings for 7^th grade items 4 through 11 for the three teams.

7^th grade	Total n=172	^2Factor Loadings	^2Factor Loadings	Team A n=62	Team B n=55	Team C n=55
Items 4-11	Mean/ SD	Factor 2, 7^th grade social issues	Factor 3, 7^th grade pedagogy	Mean/ SD	Mean/ SD	Mean/ SD
Exciting: M SD	2.98 1.17	0.14	0.01	2.98 1.18	2.96 1.20	3.00 1.14
Homework: M SD	2.88 1.29	0.04	0.26	2.87 1.25	2.73 1.38	3.04 1.23
Success: M SD	2.34 0.96	0.29	0.68	2.37 1.04	2.36 0.93	2.28 0.90
Reputation: M SD	2.24 1.08	0.70	0.06	2.06 0.94	2.13 1.14	*2.56 1.10
Good people: M SD	2.13 1.10	0.56	0.36	2.13 1.09	2.16 1.12	2.09 1.10
Humor: M SD	2.12 1.03	0.56	0.26	2.15 0.85	1.98 1.19	2.22 1.04
Teach well: M SD	2.13 1.13	0.00	0.70	2.08 1.12	2.31 1.18	2.00 1.06
Friends: M SD	2.12 1.07	0.73	0.01	1.98 1.02	2.35 2.05	2.05 0.99

Note. A low score (1) describes the more positive attribute for any item. A reliability coefficient alpha for this part of the survey was found to be .83.

*Significantly different from the other teams, independent sample ANOVA, p<. 05

²Factor analysis of all responses (n=161) of the 16 7^th and 8^th grade items (4 through 19) from the survey obtained an Oblique solution indicating three factors of which the second (social issues) and third (pedagogy) factors are displayed in this table. Factor 2, social issues, accounted for 20% of the variance while factor 3, pedagogy, accounted for 25% of the variance. Factor 1, overall satisfaction with the looping experience of the 8^th grade, is displayed in Table 3 and account for 28% of the variance in this oblique solution.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics for 8^th grade items 12 through 19 by Teams.

8^th grade	Total^+ n=171	^2Factor Loadings	Team A n=60	Team B n=59	Team C n=52
Item 12-19	Mean/ SD	Factor 1, 8^th grade satisfaction	Mean/ SD	Mean/ SD	Mean/ SD
Exciting: M SD	2.66 1.11	0.57	2.80 1.14	2.59 1.10	2.60 1.11
Homework: M SD	2.63 1.25	0.49	2.87 1.26	*2.24 1.26	2.79 1.14
Success: M SD	2.12 1.00	0.50	2.17 1.10	2.07 0.99	2.14 0.92
Reputation: M SD	1.99 0.97	0.52	2.08 1.00	1.85 0.93	2.04 1.00
Good people: M SD	1.99 1.05	0.59	2.12 1.14	2.00 1.07	1.83 0.90
Humor: M SD	1.98 1.04	0.55	2.23 1.08	1.80 1.14	0.81
Teach well: M SD	1.94 1.07	0.56	2.12 1.18	1.95 1.12	1.71 0.82
Friends: M SD	1.85 1.02	0.56	1.82 0.97	1.81 1.07	1.92 1.04

Note. A low score (1) describes the more positive attribute for any item. A reliability coefficient alpha for this part of the survey was found to be .86.

*Significantly different from the other teams, independent sample ANOVA, p<. 05

⁺A repeated-measures ANOVA contrasting the 8 items amongst each other obtained a significant F(7, 1148) = 26.75, p < .05.

²Factor analysis of all responses (n=161) of 16 7^th and 8^th grade items from the survey obtained an Oblique solution indicating three factors of which the first factor displayed in this table accounted for 28% of the variance. The other two factors are displayed in Table 2. We believe this factor describes overall satisfaction with the looping experience of the 8^th grade. All 8 items significantly contributed to this factor.

Table 4.

Descriptive statistics and overall factor loadings for items 20 through 27 by teams.

	Total n=166		Team A n=58		Team B n=56	Team C n=52
Items 20-27	Mean/ SD	^1Factor Loadings		Mean/SD	Mean/ SD	Mean/ SD
Accepted: M SD	1.92 1.14	0.86		1.92 1.19	1.75 1.09	2.12 1.13
Success: M SD	1.95 1.08	0.90		2.14 1.28	1.80 1.07	1.90 0.82
Fulfilled: M SD	2.07 1.05	0.89		2.19 1.08	1.88 1.08	2.15 0.96
Thankful: M SD	2.03 1.17	0.86		2.10 1.22	1.84 1.11	2.15 1.16
Included: M SD	2.01 1.11	0.88		2.09 1.21	1.98 1.12	1.94 0.99
Relaxed: M SD	2.15 1.20	0.85		2.29 1.30	2.07 1.21	2.06 1.06
Control: M SD	2.07 1.08	0.76		2.07 1.07	2.09 1.16	2.06 1.02
Satisfied: M SD	2.02 1.27	0.82		2.29 1.45	1.79 1.09	1.98 1.19

Note. A low (1) score describes the more positive attribute for any item. A reliability coefficient alpha for this part of the survey was found to be .94.

¹Factor analysis of all responses (n=166) to the last 8 items of the survey obtained an Oblique solution indicating three factors of which the first one single factor accounted for 73% of the variance. The other two factors where relatively week and contributed little to the solution, therefore the first factor was utilized in later analyses. We believe this factor describes overall satisfaction with the looping experience.

Figure 1.

Teaming and looping structure

Figure 2.

Comparison of Team Ratings for Eighth Grade Items 12 through 19

FIGURE 3

MEAN RESPONSES FOR ITEMS 20-TO 27 FOR THE THREE TEAMS

Figure 4

Bar Graph of four opinions regarding satisfaction with or with out switching from teams.

Figure 5

Plot of Three Mean Factor Scores by Four Switch/satisfaction groups.