The Effect of Looping Technique on the Students

Öz

Looping technique is a teaching method that refers to an educator working with the same class for several years. Looping technique has been many years due to its’ benefits on sense of belonging, development of social and academical skills. The aim of this review study is to evaluate and analyze the studies that examined the effect of the looping method on the students. For this purpose, systematic review method was used to gather articles. The keywords determined within the scope of the study were scanned in ProQuest, Google scholar, ERIC and Semantic Scholar databases, and articles published between 2000-2020 were accepted to the study. As a result of the scanning process a total of 16 studies were reviewed. Within the scope of this study, studies on the effect of looping technique on the students were examined in six main areas: (a) the years of publication, (b) the methodology (c) research instruments, (d) grade levels of the studies (e) the countries of studies conducted, and (f) types of the studies. As a result of the study, it was revealed that the most preferred measurement methodology was the quantitative design, and the most used measurement tool was revealed to be tests. Also, it is found that the studies related to the literature were mainly conducted in years 2007 and 2009. It has also been revealed that studies related to the literature mainly consists of theses. To add more, studies related to the topic were mainly conducted in United States of America (USA) and China, while the highest number of studies were revealed to be conducted in USA. Studies conducted with 2,3,4, 5th and 8th grade students were found to be predominate. In addition to these results, literature review of these studies revealed that the looping technique has many benefits for students especially in social, cognitive and academic areas.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• looping
• looping education
• looping technique

Eğitimde “Looping” Tekniğinin Öğrencilere Etkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Öz

Looping tekniği, bir eğitimcinin aynı sınıf ile birkaç sene boyunca çalışmasını ifade eden bir öğretim yöntemidir. Öğrencilerde okula aidiyet, sosyalleşme becerilerinde gelişme ve akademik becerilerin gelişmesi gibi alanlarda fayda sağladığı ifade edilen Looping eğitimi, uzun yıllardır kullanılmakta olan bir teknik olarak literatürde belirtilmiştir. Bu derleme çalışmasının amacı, Looping yönteminin öğrenciler üzerine etkisini incelemiş olan araştırmaların bir araya getirilmesi olarak belirlenmiştir. Makalelerin bir araya getirilmesi için sistematik derleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Sistematik derleme, literatüre ilişkin çalışmaların seçilip eleştirel olarak değerlendirilmesi, bu çalışmalardan veri toplanması ve analiz edilmesini ifade eden bir araştırma yöntemi olarak tanımlanmıştır. Derleme kapsamında belirlenen anahtar kelimeler ProQuest, Google Scholar, ERIC ve Semantic Scholar veri tabanlarında taranmış, 2000-2020 yılları arasında yayınlanan makaleler kabul edilmiştir. Derleme sürecinde belirlenen kriterlere uygun olarak 16 adet çalışma incelenmesine karar verilmiştir. İncelenen araştırmalar (a)yayınlanma yılları, (b) kullanılan ölçme metodolojisi, (c) kullanılan ölçme araçları ve (d) çalışmaların yürütüldüğü okul kademesi (e)çalışmanın yürütüldüğü ülke ve (f) çalışmanın türü olmak üzere altı temel alanda incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda en sık tercih edilmiş olan ölçme metodolojisinin nicel desen, en fazla kullanılan ölçme aracının başarı testleri olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Literatürdeki çalışmalar yayınlanma yıllarına göre ele alındığında 2007 ve 2009 yıllarında yapılmış olan çalışmaların ağırlıkta olduğu bulunmuştur. Derlenen çalışmalar türleri bakımından sınıflandırıldıklarında, alana ilişkin tez çalışmalarının ağırlıkta olduğu bulunmuştur. İlgili konuda çalışma yapan ülkeler Amerika Birleşik Devletleri (ABD) ve Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti olduğu görülmüştür, en çok çalışma yapan ülke ABD olarak belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca ilişkili alanyazında en çok çalışmanın 2,3,4 ve 5.sınıf ve 8.sınıf öğrencileriyle yapılmış olduğu belirlenmiştir. Looping tekniğinin, öğrencilere sosyal, bilişsel ve akademik alanlarda birçok yararı olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• looping
• looping eğitimi
• looping tekniği

Kaynakça

1. Aaron, L. (2008). Writing a Literature Review Article, Radiologic Technology, 80(2),185-186.
2. Almeida, M. J. (2004). The impact of looping fourth grade students on their reading achievement. Florida International University, Florida.
3. Barger, T. M. (2013). Impact of Looping on Middle School Science Standardized Achievement Tests, Liberty University.
4. Belcher, A. R. (2020). Effects of Looping, Kindergarten to First Grade and Performance on State Reading Tests in Third, Fourht and Fifth Grades:A Case Study, The University of Findlay’s College of Education.
5. Bolaños, J. D. (2012). Educación rural en escuelas primarias de Cuba, Sinéctica, (38), 1-18.
6. Bulau, R. J. (2007). Looping and its impact on student connectedness. Walden University, Minnesota.
7. Christenson, C., Palan, R. ve Scullin, S. (2009). Family-school partnerships: An essential component of student achievement. Principal Leadership, 9(9), 10-16.
8. Danley, A. J. (2012). The Effects of a Looping Classroom Among Third Grade Students in an Urban School District, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri-Kansas City, USA.

9. Gandini, L. (2004). Foundations of the Reggio Emilia approach. In J. Hendrick (Ed.), Next steps toward teaching the Reggio way: Accepting the challenge to change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
10. Gaustad, J.(1998). Implementing Looping, Eric Digest,123(98).
11. Gilliam, L. E. (2005). Good teachers don’t let go: A case study of middle school looping teachers. Capella University, Minnesota.
12. Grant, J., Johnson, B., Richardson, I. 1996). The Looping Handbook: Teachers and Students Progressing Together, England:Crystal Springs Books.
13. Gregory, B. S. (2009). The impact of looping on academic and social experiences of middle school students, Walden University.
14. Hegde, A.V. ve Cassidy, D.J. (2004). Teacher and parent perspectives on looping. Early Childhood Education Journa,l 32 (2). 133-138.
15. Hitz, M.M., Somers, M. ve Jenlink, C. L. (2007). The Looping Classroom: Benefits for Children, Families, and Teachers, Young Children, 62(2), 80-82.
16. Holmes, N.H. (2008). The impact of looping on student achievement in high performing schools, Walden University.
17. Johnston, R. C. (2003). A revolutionary education. Education Week. 22(25), 34-41.
18. Jordan, S. A. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of looping in elementary schools in relation to select demographic variables. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
19. Leckrone, M. J. ve Griffith, B. G. (2006). Retention realities and educational standards. Children & Schools, 28(1), 53.
20. Lenart, C. M. (2000). Waldorf schools: Educating the whole child. Conscious Choice.
21. LeTendre, G. K. (2000). Learning to be adolescent: Growing up in U.S. and Japanese middle schools. New Haven: Yale University Press.
22. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C:, Ionnidis, J.P.A.,Clarke, M., Devereaux, P.J., Kleijnen, J. ve Moher, D.(2009). The PRISMA statement for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions:explanation and elaboration, Journal of Clinical Epidemology, 62(10).
23. Lincoln, R. (1997). Multi-year instruction: Establishing student-teacher relationships, Schools In the Middle, 6(3), 50-52.
24. Little, T. S. ve Little, L. P. (2001). Looping: Creating elementary school communities. Phi Delta Kappa Fastbacks. (478), 7-39
25. Liu, J. (1997). The Emotional Bond Between Teacher and Students:Multi-year Relationships. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(2), 156-157.
26. Mecham, N. A. (2010). A Place to Grow, Young Children, 65(6), 38-40.
27. Menconi, J. P. (2006). A case study: Principal perspectives of the strengths and weaknesses of looping and multiage education. Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois.
28. Miller, B. (1991). A review of the qualitative research on multiage instruction, Journal of Research in Rural Education, 7(2), 3-12.
29. Minkel, J. (2015). Why Looping Is a Way Underappreciated School-Improvement Initiative. EducationWeek
30. Morrill, R. (2003). Denmark: Lessons for American principals and teachers? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(6), 460- 463.
31. O’Neill, K. R. (2002). Looping: A study of multi-year instruction in the primary grades. Eastern Michigan University, Michigan
32. Peters, B. A. (2002). A case study investigating the perceived benefits and problems of looping at Winchester Elementary School. State University of New York at Buffalo.
33. Riley, J.(2014). The Effects of Looping on Second Graders’ Reading Achievement and Attitudes Towards School, Goucher College.
34. Roberts, J. M. (2003). A comparative study of student performance in elementary looping and conventional classrooms in selected northern California schools. University of La Verne, California
35. Roberts, C. (2001). Teachers – and Students – Love to Loop, Edutopia.
36. Sato, N.(1993). Teaching and learning in Japanese elementary schools: A context for understanding, Peabody Journal of Education,. 68(4),111-149.
37. Sherman, S. R. (2000). The effect of looping on ITBS and ITED test scores in a midwestern district middle school. Saint Louis University, Missouri.
38. Snyder, L. L. (2003). An investigation of elementary looping practices and outcomes in a rural school district. The University of Minnesota.
39. Simel, D. (1998). Education for Bildung:Teacher Attitudes Towards Looping, International Journal of Educational Reform, 7(4),330-337.
40. Snoke, J. (2007). Looping:the Impact of a Multi-Year Program on the Academic Progress, Retention and Special Education Placements of Students in Two South Central Pennysylvania Schools, Duquesne University.
41. Tucker, S. C.(2006).The Impact of Looping On Student Achievement On the Colorado Student Assessment Program, Regis University.
42. Wang, L., Wu, M., Shi, Y., Chen, Y., Loyalka, P., Chu, J., Kenny, K ve Rozelle, S.(2017). The Effect of Teacher Looping on Students Achievement: Evidence from Rural China.
43. Washington, A.(2015). The Effect of Looping on the Reading and Math Grade Equivalencies of Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Grade Students, Tennessee State University.
44. Westerfield, T.S.(2009). The Effect of Looping and Teaming on Rural Black Middle School Students’ Sense of Belonging, Mississippi State University.