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 7th and 8th grade years. Comparisons between their memories of their 7th
grade experience and their present perceptions of their 8th grade
experience, as well as comparisons among three teams, revealed consistent
responses to the survey items. Increases in positive perceptions were obtained
from the 7th to the 8th 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 7th
and 8th 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 8th 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 8th 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 7th gade experience, and 8
which dealt with their current 8th 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 7th grade reflections and 8th
grade current perceptions using a within subjects one-way analysis of
variance. The 8th 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 7th grade reflections and the 8 items
associated with their current 8th 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 8th
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 7th 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 7th
grade reflections (coefficient alpha = .83); the 8 items
associated with the 8th 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 8th
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 7th 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 7th 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 8th 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
7th grade reflections (items 4-11) and 8th 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
8th graders. We believe
this factor has to do with overall satisfaction with the Looping/Teaming
experience in the 8th grade (See Table 3). The second factor loaded on 5 of the 8 items associated with
7th 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 7th 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 7th grade
reflections or the 8th 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 8th
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 8th 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 7th grade social issues factor (F(3, 157)=
6.58, p<.0003), as well as the 7th 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 8th 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 7th grade reflections
and the 8th grade perceptions.
In other words, although Team C was less satisfied with the team’s
reputation in 7th grade, the perception of their reputation in 8th
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 8th grade,
but this difference had not existed in the 7th 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 8th
grade team when compared to the recollections of the 7th 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 8th grade satisfaction from
the 7th 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 7th 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 7th and 8th
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.
|
|
|
Gender1 |
|
|
Age2 |
|
|
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 8th
grade teams (X2 (2) = .43, p>.05).
Table
2.
Descriptive
statistics and factor loadings for 7th grade items 4 through 11 for
the three teams.
|
7th
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, 7th grade social
issues |
Factor 3, 7th grade pedagogy |
Mean/ SD |
Mean/ SD |
Mean/ SD |
|
Exciting: M SD |