Looping: does keeping the same secondary school mathematics teacher lead to better outcomes?

Figures & data

Table 1. Number of looped classrooms in the TALIS video study by country.

	Not looped		Looped
	Classes	Pupils	Classes	Pupils
Chile	38	1034	40	1101
Colombia	53	1581	20	587
England	59	1386	16	371
Germany	25	591	23	522
Japan	27	755	40	1161
Madrid	42	1013	10	242
Mexico	68	1868	16	435
Shanghai	14	443	64	1972
Total	326	8,671	229	6,391

Note: Looped classes are defined as those where at least 75% of pupils were taught by their mathematics teacher for at least two consecutive years.

Table 2. Background characteristics of schools, teachers and pupils where classes are looped compared to not looped.

		Not looped	Looped
School characteristics	Private school	14%	11%
	Urban school	74%	76%
	Number of teachers	53	46
	Number of pupils	909	770
Teacher characteristics	Teacher years of experience	13.5	15.2
	Male teacher	55%	50%
	Teacher holds postgraduate qualification	41%	36%
	Teacher completed a teacher training course	84%	83%
	Number of students in the class	28.9	28.2
	Teacher reports of whether pupil background hinder instruction (standardised)	−0.02	0.15
Pupil characteristics	Pupil self-efficacy under previous teacher (standardised)	0.00	0.00
	Pupil mathematics interest under previous teacher (standardised)	0.02	−0.05
	Possessions at home scale (standardised)	0.04	0.00
	Father holds degree	34%	32%
	Mother holds degree	33%	32%
	Male pupil	49%	49%
	Baseline test scores (standardised)	−0.04	−0.03

Notes: Data on number of teachers in school only available for Madrid, Mexico and Shanghai. Data on number of pupils in school only available for Chile, Colombia, England and Japan. Figures refer to cross-country average, with each country assigned equal weight.

Table 3. The association between looping and pupil outcomes.

	Effect size	SE
Test scores	0.00	0.02
Absence from lessons	−2.9%**	1.2%
Self-confidence	−0.07**	0.03
Personal interest	0.01	0.04
General self-efficacy	−0.06**	0.03

Notes: N ~ 13,000 pupils and ~ 550 teachers. ‘Effect size’ captures the standard deviation change in the outcome for those in a looped versus a non-looped class. SE = standard error. * and ** indicates effect size significantly different from zero at the ten and five percent levels. Models include controls for country fixed effects, pupil, teacher and class background characteristics, pupils’ views of mathematics when taught by their previous mathematics teacher and baseline test scores. See online Appendix C for analogous estimates using alternative model specifications.

Table 4. The association between looping and behaviour in the classroom.

	Effect size	SE
(a) Pupil reports
Teacher classroom management (start of year)	0.14**	0.05
Class behaviour environment (start of year)	0.12**	0.06
Class behaviour environment (end of year)	0.10	0.06
Teacher classroom management (end of year)	0.08	0.05
Disruptions (end of year)	0.07	0.05
Disruptions (start of year)	0.04	0.06
(b) Teacher reports
Class behaviour environment (start of year)	0.02	0.04
Disruptions (start of year)	−0.01	0.07
Teacher classroom management (start of year)	−0.04	0.07
Class behaviour environment (end of year)	−0.05	0.05
Disruptions (end of year)	−0.08	0.05
Teacher classroom management (end of year)	−0.08	0.05
(c) Expert observers
Classroom routines (video)	0.00	0.02
Classroom disruptions (video)	−0.01	0.01
Classroom management (video)	−0.07**	0.03

See notes to Table 3.

Table 5. The association between looping and pupil/teacher relations.

	Effect size	SE
(a) Pupil reports
Student-teacher relationship (start of year)	0.05	0.05
Teacher support for competence (start of year)	0.04	0.05
Student-student relationship (start of year)	0.03	0.03
Student-teacher relationship (end of year)	0.03	0.05
Teacher support for competence (end of year)	0.02	0.05
Student-student relationship (end of year)	0.02	0.03
(b) Teacher reports
Teacher support for competence (start of year)	0.01	0.07
Student-teacher relationship (start of year)	−0.08	0.10
Teacher support for competence (end of year)	−0.14*	0.08
Student-teacher relationship (end of year)	−0.15*	0.09
(c) Expert observers
Pupils willing to take risks in class (video)	0.00	0.09
Respectful classroom (video)	0.00	0.05

See notes to Table 3.

Table 6. The association between looping and teacher outcomes.

	Effect size	SE
Enthusiasm for teaching the class (start of year)	0.12	0.08
Enthusiasm for teaching the class (end of year)	0.06	0.08
Anxious when teaching the class (end of year)	0.00	0.07
Angry when teaching the class (end of year)	−0.02	0.04
Self-efficacy in classroom management (end of year)	−0.02	0.06
Achievement of learning goals (end of year)	−0.03	0.08
Teacher self-efficacy (end of year)	−0.03	0.08
Self-efficacy in classroom management (start of year)	−0.07	0.07
Enjoyed teaching the class (end of year)	−0.09	0.10
Teacher self-efficacy (start of year)	−0.10	0.11

See notes to Table 3.

Table 7. Comparison of outcomes across pupils who remained with the same teacher to those who were new to their class.

	Effect size	SE
(a) Pupil outcomes
Self-efficacy mathematics tasks	0.03	0.02
Test scores	0.03*	0.02
Personal interest	0.00	0.02
General self-efficacy	−0.01	0.03
Self-confidence	−0.02	0.03
Absence from lessons	−2.6%**	1.3%
(b) Pupil-teacher relationship and views on class management
Student-teacher relationship (start of year)	0.04	0.03
Student-teacher relationship (end of year)	0.04	0.03
Teacher support for competence (start of year)	0.04	0.03
Teacher support for competence (end of year)	0.04	0.03
Teacher classroom management (end of year)	0.03	0.03
Teacher classroom management (start of year)	0.03	0.03
Student-student relationship (start of year)	0.02	0.03
Student-student relationship (end of year)	0.00	0.03

Notes: Estimates based on TALIS video study data pooled across all participating countries. N ~15,000 pupils and ~ 650 teachers. The ‘effect size’ column captures the standard deviation difference in the outcome for pupils who had the same mathematics teacher the previous academic year compared to those who had a different teacher. The SE column records the standard error. Standard errors have been clustered by teacher. * and ** indicates that the effect size is significantly different from zero at the ten and five percent levels respectively. Models include controls for class fixed effects, pupil characteristics, pupils’ views of mathematics when taught by their previous mathematics teacher and baseline test scores. See online Appendix C for analogous estimates using alternative model specifications.

Table 8. Outcomes for pupils who are new entrants into an otherwise looped class.

	Effect size	SE
(a) Pupil outcomes
Personal interest	0.07	0.04
Absence from lessons	4.5%*	2.7%
Self-confidence	0.03	0.05
General self-efficacy	0.02	0.04
Self-efficacy mathematics tasks	0.01	0.04
Test scores	−0.07**	0.03
(b) Pupil-teacher relationship and views on class management
Student-student relationship (end of year)	−0.04	0.05
Teacher support for competence (start of year)	−0.04	0.04
Teacher support for competence (end of year)	−0.04	0.05
Student-teacher relationship (start of year)	−0.05	0.04
Teacher classroom management (end of year)	−0.07	0.06
Teacher classroom management (start of year)	−0.08	0.05
Student-teacher relationship (end of year)	−0.09*	0.05
Student-student relationship (start of year)	−0.11**	0.05

Notes: N ~5,500 pupils and ~229 teachers. See notes to Table 7 for further details.