Literature Survey

Literature Survey

Rosa L. Coley

Concordia University

An Action Research Report Presented to

The Graduate Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Master of Education

February, 24, 2013

Literature Review

In their study, Grant, Richardson, and Forsten (2000) stated that a 1913 memo from the U.S. Department of interior touted that looping as one as one of the most important issues facing urban schools: “Shall teachers in graded schools be advanced from grade to grade with their pupils through a series of two, three, four or more years so that they may come to know the children they teach and be able to build the work of the latter years on that of the earlier years, or shall teachers be required to remain year after year in the same grade while the children, promoted from grade to grade, are taught by a different teacher every year? Because many elementary school teachers spend most of their careers assigned to one grade level, they tend to be thought of as specialists in that grade level rather than as specialist of teaching children.” (Grant, Richardson, & Forsten, 2000, In the Loop).

Therefore the question is, “What is the effect of looping students and the relationships between, parents, teachers, and students? Several scholarly articles were reviewed as the resource of literature and each author and researchers have views that are similar in their findings. The articles reviewed range from the year 1997 up to 2007. In each article the researchers found data that had some answers to whether looping had an effect on students, teachers, and parents relationships.

History of Looping.

The practice of looping dates back to the era where there was only a one room schoolhouse and one teacher that taught students of the ages of six to eighteen years of age. As an educational practice, looping has existed for several centuries in Germany, Japan, and Italy (Simel, 1998). The practice of keeping students and teachers together for several years was and still is intentional. It was implemented in both elementary and secondary schools. It was not until Dewey and his colleagues introduced the idea of a ‘community of learners’ in the early 1900’s that the essence of looping was popularized in the United States. Prior to this time, teachers and students looped, but not for pragmatic reasons-not to build relationships or enhance practice. (Thompson, Franz, & Miller, 2009) Simply because there was only one teacher in a one room school house.

Advantages and Disadvantages.

When teachers and students are looped, researchers found that time. If teachers move up with their classes, the first weeks of the second year will probably be more productive because the teachers will not need the days or weeks it usually takes to become familiar with their student’s learning style, strengths, weaknesses, interests, temperaments, personalities, or their home situation. (Vann, 1997) In an article by Doris Jordan (2000, Looping: Discovering the Difference), a teacher stated, “Over the summer I worried about new students, how they would, fit into our world. Jack and the other students are doing it for me. I watched as Susie helps Alan, a newcomer, set up his notebook. Daniel guides Paul to stay on task during a writing assignment. As my partner, Michael, and I walk around the room, we exchange a glance and a smile. There’s magic unfolding before us.” (Jordan, 2000) The students are showing a growth in their social development.

Another social advantage is that students have reduced apprehension about the new school year and a new teacher and students reap the benefits from time spent on developing social skills and cooperative group strategies in following years. Looping lets students get to know one another well, long term relationships result in an emotional and intellectual climate that encourages thinking, risk-taking, and involvement, English language learners are more comfortable with their teacher, it encourages a strong sense of family within the classroom and parents, and parents embrace looping once they understand how looping works and its benefits. (Brown University, 1997)

From the many children coming to school from fragile homes, looping teachers provide familiar and welcome “significant others” in their lives, giving them a greater sense of security. (Vann, 1997) Students learn best when they feel that they are in a safe and inviting environment. Attendance is much better and because of this, grades are improving and staff absenteeism is lower. (Anonymous, 1998) Parental involvement improves in helping in their child’s classroom. O’Neil states that “the parents of Fleischer’s students-who voluntarily participate in the looping experiment-are frequent visitors to the classroom. (O’Neil, 2004) Little & Dacus (1999, Looping: Moving Up with the Class) notes one teacher as saying, “In the past, I have had a hard time getting to know my students’ parents. Now I know them on a first name basis…They trust me completely.” Parent-teacher relationships have improved so much that many parents have requested a third year with the same year. (Little & Dacus, 1999)

Some disadvantages and concerns include the bond between students and teachers will be hard to break. Time may be lost because the teacher has to learn new curriculum. The higher the grade level, the more curriculum content to be mastered. There will always be a clash between teacher and student personalities, each year some children are ridiculed or even ostracized by others who perceive them as being too smart, dumb, tall, short, fat, thin, etc. looping extends the negative consequences for both those children and their classmates and remaining with the same class limits the child’s chances of making new friends. (Vann, 1997) Classroom management strategies could be affected by the looping cycle. Students who come into the “loop” during the second year may feel left out and parental concerns about looping center on the teacher’s expertise-parents do not want their child to be placed in a classroom with an ineffective teacher for two or more years. Also teachers have the same concerns regarding difficult students and parents. (Thompson, Franz, & Miller, 2009)

The Teacher, Student and Parent Perspective.

In the articles that were researched the teachers, students and parents take of looping were supportive of looping. Teachers’ perspectives varied one teacher declared that a main concern was the new curriculum. “How would I be ready in such a short time to teach new skills using different textbooks and unfamiliar resources? My biggest fear became, would my students be at a disadvantage for having me for two years in a row?” (Little & Dacus, 1999) Another said, “I think looping has made me a better teacher. I find myself approaching problems differently. Also “having the same set of students to work with two years in a row is terrific. I no longer worry over the summer about what a new class will bring. Instead, I search for new ways to enrich the curriculum and tailor my lessons for my students needs. (Little & Dacus, 1999)

David Bell, a father of two students who opted to stay with their teachers for two years announced, “I’m a firm believer in the program. The continuity has made my kids much more stable socially and psychologically.” (Little & Dacus, 1999) Another parent stated, “It was a very pleasant experience. I just hope the rest of our school years can be as nice as this one has been.” (Brown University, 1997)

Students have similar experiences in looping with the sane teacher. In one article, these statements were made by students, “This is the best first day of school. I can be with my teacher from last year. I can see my friends, I like school.” “After being together for two years, some of the kids I didn’t know as well. Or get along with as well, I get along with better now than I did before,” (Brown University, 1997)

Analysis.

In reviewing the literature, the articles gave a better perspective on the effects that looping have in the relationships between, teachers, students, and their parents. The analysis gave pertinent information on the benefits and concerns of having teachers move up for two years with their students. There were several causes that support the reasons for looping in schools. The practice of looping ensures that students move from one grade to the next with a minimum of anxiety and eliminates the transitional period that a new school year often requires thereby providing more time for new learning, and also fosters greater relationship building, for students and for parents. (Thomas, 2007) Looping may not be a good fit for everyone nor solve all the problems in education. But teacher proponents express it this way: Looping provides the most rewarding opportunity for helping children succeed. (Hitz, Somers, & Jenlink, 2007)

Conclusion.

The practice of looping offers the potential for both academic and social benefits fro students. This literature review has information that explains the effect of looping has on the relationships of teachers, students, and parents. It explains the advantages such as improved social skills, cognitive skills, less stress of staring a new year, and a community of learners. The relationships with the teachers and parents are stronger; parents are more involved in school activities and visit their child’s classroom more often. The only disadvantages were the personality conflict of a student and a teacher, learning new curriculum that has to be taught, and perhaps the uneasiness of a new student, but these can easily happen in a classroom that has a different teacher. The literature that was researched provided ample information that answered the research question, “What is the effect of looping students and the relationships between, parents, teachers, and students?”

References

Brown University, (1997) Looping: Supporting student learning through long-term

relationships. Office of Educational Research. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.cu-portland.edu

Bruke, D.L. (1997). Looping: Adding time, strengthening relationships. Eric Digest, The Educational Resource Information Center. Contract no. RR93002007

Grant, J., Richardson, I., & Forsten, C. (2000). In the loop. School Administrator, 57(1),

30-30. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.cu-portland.edu

Hegde, A.V., & Cassidy, D.J. (2004) Teacher and parent perspective on looping. Early Childhood education Journal, 32(2), 133-138.

Hitz, M.M., Somers, C.M., & Jenlink, C.L. (2007, March). The looping classroom:

Benefits for children, families, and teachers. Young Children, 80-84.

Jordan, D., (2000). Looping: Discovering the difference. ProQuest Educational Journals,

Teaching Pre-K-8, 30(6), 58-59. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.cu.portland.edu

Little, T.S., & Dacus, N.B. (1999) Looping: Moving up with the class. ProQuest

Educational Journals, Educational Leadership, 57(1), 42-45. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.cu.portland.edu

O’Neil, J., (2004). We’re baaack. ProQuest Educational Journals, NEA Today, 22(7), 40-

42. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.cu.portland.edu

Thompson, N.L., Franz, D.P., & Miller, N. (2009). Research summary: Looping.

Retrieved January 25, 2013, from http://www.nmsa.org.

Thomas, (2007). Looping in education-Time to make it a fundamental practice?

Retrieved February 14, 2013, from http://www.OpenEducation.net

Vann, A.S., (1997). Leveling about looping. ProQuest Educational Journals, The

Education Digest, 63(2), 52-53.

Looping: Two years with the same class. (1998). ProQuest Educational Journals, NEA

Today, 17(2), 21. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.cu.portland.edu

References: Brown University, (1997) Looping: Supporting student learning through long-term relationships Bruke, D.L. (1997). Looping: Adding time, strengthening relationships. Eric Digest, The Educational Resource Information Center. Contract no. RR93002007 Grant, J., Richardson, I., & Forsten, C Hitz, M.M., Somers, C.M., & Jenlink, C.L. (2007, March). The looping classroom: Benefits for children, families, and teachers Jordan, D., (2000). Looping: Discovering the difference. ProQuest Educational Journals, Teaching Pre-K-8, 30(6), 58-59 Little, T.S., & Dacus, N.B. (1999) Looping: Moving up with the class. ProQuest Educational Journals, Educational Leadership, 57(1), 42-45 O’Neil, J., (2004). We’re baaack. ProQuest Educational Journals, NEA Today, 22(7), 40- 42 Thompson, N.L., Franz, D.P., & Miller, N. (2009). Research summary: Looping. Retrieved January 25, 2013, from http://www.nmsa.org. Thomas, (2007). Looping in education-Time to make it a fundamental practice? Retrieved February 14, 2013, from http://www.OpenEducation.net Vann, A.S., (1997). Leveling about looping. ProQuest Educational Journals, The Education Digest, 63(2), 52-53. Looping: Two years with the same class. (1998). ProQuest Educational Journals, NEA Today, 17(2), 21