Introduction

Multi-dimensional factors such as types, levels, management, and stakeholders have made education rather complex (Hempenstall, 2014; Taka, 2020). Even the contributions made by other disciplines to education have increased this complexity (Taylor, 2009). Despite this complexity, education has maintained its key goal, i.e., students’ learning. Learning is, after all, a primary goal of educational programs…” (Travis, 1995, p.1). In order to place students in the process of learning well, “the goal of good teaching is to draw students into the process of knowing” (Palmer, 1990, p.12). A teacher is the key facilitator of good teaching which can result in good learning. However, not all teachers are equally skilled in the job of facilitating learning. The varying degrees of effectiveness of teaching skills have given birth to the notion of “teacher effect”.

Looping/repeat-teacher

The term ‘looping’ was first coined by Grant et al. (1996). Actually, looping in education was introduced as an instructional strategy in the 20th century by an Austrian educator, Rudolf Steiner, and it met success in Europe (Goodson, 2020). Research shows that repeating teacher for the same students in a temporal extension over a year result in students’ higher grades in mathematics, writing, English Language Arts (ELA) etc. than those with non-looped classes (Tourigny et al., 2020; Franz et al., 2010). Even, students sub-grouped as the non-looped who do not repeat the teacher can have some impacts by sharing and being helped by their peers who loop (Hall, 2021; Hill & Jones, 2018). Looping functions due to two major connected factors which are (i) development of student-teacher relationship, and (ii) effectiveness of teachers (Goodson, 2020; Hill & Jones, 2018). Looping, to some extent, results in increased learning caused by the continuity of a looping teacher’s care, too (Ruprecht, et al., 2016).

Implementing looping centers round students’ multi-needs– academic, emotional, and social (Hall, 2021). “Schools that have effectively implemented looping found benefits to include improved relationships between teachers and students, more efficient instruction, better attendance rates, fewer student retentions, fewer student special education referrals, and improved student discipline” (p. 30). Besides, students who loop have fewer absences from classes.

Looping can be implemented at any scale and at any level (Gaustad, 1998). However, the implementation of looping as an instructional strategy requires support from administration, parents, and an effective teacher (Gaustad, 1998; Hall, 2021). Looping is instrumental for academic gains for all student populations, and it is simple and can be implemented in an inexpensive pedagogical setting (Tourigny et al., 2020). Although looping is usually not multi-aged groups of students with the same teacher, it is possible (Nitecki, 2017). Looping requires an interested cohort of students (Hall, 2021). Usually, best performing teachers tend to loop, and achievement is generally in one subject or those that are similar (Tourigny et al., 2020).

Research has paid attention to the understanding, interpreting, and measuring the phenomenon of teaching. For instance, intended, policy-based looping is a sort of innovation in teaching (Goodson, 2020) and this innovation in instructional strategy results in greater academic and non-academic achievements. The same teacher in the next year(s) at the next grade(s) with same students can increase students’ academic and behavioral achievement (Wedenojet al., 2020). Also, research affirms that school policy makers’ and/or researchers’ intentional class assignments to teachers result in higher grades in some subjects like mathematics, English (language), social studies, and in behavioral appropriacy (Hill & Jones, 2018, Wedenoja et al., 2020) at elementary, middle, and high schools. Sometimes, it is just the repetition of the race and ethnicity of the teachers. Sometimes, a teacher is repeated if they are found to be best among their colleagues for the students. Both types of repetitions are reported to have positive impacts on students’ academic achievement in standardized test scores in mathematics, and science, and their classroom behavior and attitude at elementary and middle school levels (Harbatkin, 2021; Rasheed et al., 2020; Redding, 2019; Yarnell & Bohrnstedt, 2018). Furthermore, the evaluation of the teacher effect is also a mechanism of teacher growth (Chen et al., 2021).

Thus far, the literature shows that the issue of teacher effect and looping has been explored at a lower level of education i.e., kindergarten to high school (Franz et al., 2010; Harbatkin, 2021; Pecanic, 2003; Rasheed et al., 2020; Redding, 2019; Yarnell & Bohrnstedt, 2018). The literature further reveals that teacher effectiveness is mainly measured in math, science, and language reading ability (Franz et al., 2010; Hill & Jones, 2018; Wedenoja et al., 2020). The effects have been only measured in terms of academic success and behavioral aspects, teacher-student relationship development, parental attitude (Nichols & Nichols, 2003; Tourigny et al., 2020; Wedenojet al., 2020). Beyond these school levels and the aforementioned subjects and achievement areas, research has not yet been carried out to understand the effects of repeating teachers on a set of related TESOL subjects for university students of English studies. The literature also shows that the effects of looping on career preparation of the university students have not been explored, either.

The investigation of the teacher effect with special reference to looping at the university level is also significant because it offers an understanding of how a university’s academic and intellectual efforts serve to impart knowledge and skills to its graduates and to prepare them for the careers (in this case, EFL teaching) they pursue. Furthermore, insights from teacher effectiveness broaden the nuances of understanding the dimensions of teacher aspects, teaching qualities, and improvement of learning outcomes (Bardach & Klassen, 2020). The findings of the study are expected to (i) make a contribution to university teaching policy determination in the areas of TESOL, (ii) offer an understanding of looping in higher education, and (iii) help the higher education authorities to reform their pedagogical strategies in teacher education programs or majors such as ELT, TESOL, Applied Linguistics etc.

Research questions and objectives

This study aims to investigate the effects of having a looped lecturer for related TESOL courses on university students’ achieving better academic grades in TESOL courses, and on their preparation for careers as language teachers..

 To achieve these goals, the study sets the following research questions to investigate:

1. What effects does a repeated TESOL lecturer have on students’ academic achievements?
2. What effects does a repeated TESOL lecturer have on students’ career preparation in EFL teaching?

Literature Review

Teacher effect

Theoretically speaking, teaching is an activity in which teachers are considered “actors” by scholars (Alam et al., 2022). However, because of many diverging factors, , teachers are not equally ‘effective’ actors for students’ optimal benefits. In education, the term ‘effect’ basically refers to students’ ‘learning outcomes’. Teacher effect in that sense refers to teachers’ influence or role in the students’ learning outcome (Hanushek, 1971; Wayne & Youngs, 2003). Bardach and Klassen (2020) divide the idea of ‘teacher effect’ as in (a) students’ (learning) outcome, and (b) teacher’s quality of teaching that ultimately contributes to the learning outcome. Together, teacher effect is the measurable differences in students’ achievement in relation to the teacher’s teaching quality.

What makes a teacher effective?

Both schools and students expect a sum of positive qualities in a teacher to be effective because “what students learn would depend on teachers’ effectiveness” (Bada et al., 2020, p.2). These qualities help students get good grades. However, students’ expectation from an effective teacher also goes beyond grades. Although accountability and performativity are two of the most important aspects of effective teachers (Perryman & Calvert, 2020), good teaching also includes personal, professional and instructional effectiveness. Many researchers (Awofala, 2012; Khan, 2015; Magno, 2012) point out teacher competence, attributes, and behavioral patterns as what makes a teacher effective. Stronge (2018) takes a whole-person view of an effective teacher: an effective teacher is “…the whole person who brings into the classroom unique beliefs, values, attitudes, aspirations, motivation, knowledge, and skills, and all rolled into one- the teacher” (p. 3). The inclusivity of all the major qualities of an effective teacher that Stronge highlights in a framework is represented in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Framework for effective teaching adopted from Stronge (2018, p.12).

As a matter of fact, scholars have taken to divergent conceptualizing of teachers’ professional knowledge (Chan & Hume, 2019). That is, there is no single, agreed-upon definition around it. Nevertheless, Shulman (1986) identifies a composition of teachers’ professional knowledge of three types of knowledge: content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and pedagogical knowledge (PK). Research shows that CK, PCK, and PK are closely relational. A study by Kulgemeyer and Riese, (2018), for example, found that physics teachers’ CK increases if their PCK increases.

According to Stronge (2018), “professional knowledge refers to teacher’s understanding to curriculum, subject content, and students’ developmental needs as demonstrated by providing relevant learning experiences” (p.15). Teachers’ subject knowledge/content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) have a casual impact on students’ learning, too (Metzler & Woessmann, 2012). Students and schools often assess all these three domains of knowledge to label a teacher as effective.

 PCK (Amador et al., 2022) distinguishes an expert teacher from a content expert (Yang et al., 2020). Anyway, it is very important to note that CK, PK, and PCK are not only relational but also structurally developmental. The study by Sorge et al. (2019) found that CK development takes place in a structure of ‘general knowledge of content’ following ‘knowledge of specific content’. It is also important to note that teachers’ professional knowledge development mostly takes place in teacher education. It is teacher training in which (re)interpretation and reasoning of pedagogy is done effectively (Hume et al., 2019; Fonsén & Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2019). Considering this, Evens et al. (2018) in their study found that an integrated instruction of CK, PK, and PCK in teacher education leads to teachers’ optimal professional development. Broadly speaking, TESOL courses / programs refer to teacher education / teacher training in which CK, PK, and PCK of language teaching and learning are aimed to be achieved as the teacher learning goals. On this note, this study sets out to investigate the effects of the looping of a university TESOL lecturer who teaches TESOL courses which are part of teacher education for pre-service EFL teachers. The TESOL lecturer or TESOL teacher educator is enriched with PCK and is, therefore, looped to impact students’ development of CK, PK, and PCK towards career preparation in EFL teaching.

An effective TESOL teacher educator

This study investigates a TESOL lecturer or TESOL teacher educator who was looped to teach some TESOL courses to an undergraduate English major class. As for a TESOL teacher’s effectiveness traits that make a TESOL teacher great, Coombe (2019) presents a list of ten striking qualities of a highly effective TESOL teacher which include affective and personality factors, attitude toward the profession, verbal ability, professional and content knowledge, instructional effectiveness, teaching experience, and intercultural competence.

How to measure teacher effectiveness?

Selecting an effective teacher to repeat with a class follows a critical question of how to measure the effects of looped teacher. Practically speaking, measuring teacher effects is not easy and the measurements are not always 100% accurate.. Classroom observation protocols, and value-added models are the most frequently used tools for measuring effectiveness of a teacher, but they are not valid in all contexts. That is, it depends on the context of purposes and use of appropriate measures. Previous studies (e.g., Belcher, 2020) have so far used year-end grades and/or state scores to measure the looped teacher effects. However, this type of measurement system has a weakness because it is applicable only during the implementation period of looping. To measure the looping effects beyond its implementation stage, other types of measures are required too (Almond, 2018). Little et al. (2009) came up with a practical guide to evaluating teacher effectiveness, based on varying contexts of purposes, authenticity, and validity. Given the context, and purpose of the study, the aim was to find the looping lecturer’s effects during and beyond the looping implementation period and also the effects on the students’ academic and career life. Therefore multi-measures were adopted from Little et al. (2009), and “students’ experiential value and ratings” (p. 16) were added to the effectiveness of the looped lecturer in the academic and non-academic (career) goals as the measures of the effects of the repeat-lecturer. From the interview data, the spoken narration appeared and highlighted experiential values and felt effects of the repeat lecturer. A third-party external TESOL expert was also consulted to assess the portfolio of the looped TESOL lecturer.

University students’ learning scopes

According to Clemes et al. (2008), university students consider learning outcomes as more important than university facilities and environment. The three most important learning areas for university students are (i) subject knowledge, (ii) personal and social education, and (iii) career or vocational preparation. In this connection, university students value most their academic program as a whole, and the instruction quality and academic contents in particular (Walsworth et al., 2021), which requires effective lecturers, instructional strategies, and a modern syllabus and curriculum. Teaching care is especially important (da Silva et al., 2021) for university students’ satisfactory experiences. Furthermore, university students lay great emphasis on courses and skills acquisition. Thus, university courses are expected to be rich in content connected to beyond-university career life (Stewart, 2010). This is where our study posits the second research question concerning the effects of repeat-TESOL lecturer on university students’ career preparation. The projects, which are directly associated with students’ university courses, impart substantial benefits to students’ learning (Santos et al., 2020).

University teaching

The university is a seat of higher learning with a goal of knowledge creation and innovation. Creativity is, therefore, the best attribute of the university. To achieve that level of creativity and intellectuality, university teaching often fits into the higher-order thinking skills in Bloom’s taxonomy. Aheisibwe et al. (2021) recommends that universities should “directly teach higher order thinking skills, and shift from pedagogy to andragogy^[1] which refers to techniques of teaching the adults in colleges and universities (Knowles, 1985; Tough, 1985). Universities should promote psychomotor learning especially apprenticeship, internship and school practice should be encouraged” (Aheisibwe et al., 2021, p. 69). They add that university students should ideally receive effective content input from skilled teachers that will “promote learning especially apprenticeship, internship (p.69) ….” We consider the repeat-TESOL lecturer as an andragogical technique that has connection with language teaching apprenticeship and effective contents in TESOL areas. Scholars (Wieman, 2019) maintain that teaching effectiveness depends on the essential transition of teachers’ to regular pedagogical innovations from traditional teaching methods. These scholars also believe the teacher expertise is related to disciplinary expertise building. TESOL as a discipline directly deals with the teaching of English. On that note, teaching effectiveness is both a means and ends of the discipline’s practices and research. Generally speaking, TESOL courses in university degree studies equip students with content and pedagogical knowledge. ESL / EFL teacher education programs eventually lead the learners of these courses to the apprenticeship of language teaching and help them venture directly into an immediate career. In fact, this ESL / EFL teaching preparation takes place based on two major boosts generated by the TESOL courses which Miller (2020) calls TESOL Education and TESOL Skills. Turner (2021) relates TESOL education as bilingual education theories and insights, and TESOL skills as TESOL pedagogy. This study aims to find the effects of looping of an expert TESOL lecturer on students’ academic and career achievements.

The setting of the study

The idea of the study originated from the context of the University of Creative Technology Chittagong (UCTC), Chittagong, Bangladesh. The participants of the study were ten Bachelor of Arts (BA) in English Language and Literature students of the English Department of the said university. Four of them had approached the Department Coordinator and urged him to repeat lecturer X for all their TESOL courses for all the consecutive semesters. The TESOL courses are offered in the sixth through eighth semester. These students expressed that they wanted to learn TESOL teaching and wanted to open a language center soon after graduating from the university with a BA in ELL degree. They argued that based on their previous experience they had not found all the lecturers equally effective. So, they asked that the most effective TESOL lecturer could improve their success if he was repeated for all of the TESOL courses consecutively for three semesters (1.5 years). The students, thus, planned an immediate-result-oriented project with the TESOL courses from which they expected to learn and start their experience in language teaching. The Department Coordinator found it an interesting idea because it had not been done before and it was important to find the effects of looping in higher education in the mentioned context.

The looped-TESOL lecturer

The repeat-teacher in this study was a lecturer in English language and linguistics, and TESOL at a private university in Bangladesh. He had a total of 16 years’ experience of teaching English to higher secondary and university students. He held a bachelor and two masters’ degrees in literature, and language and linguistics from Islamic University Bangladesh and The University of Nottingham with a TESOL certificate from The University of Cambridge. During the looped period he was the coordinator of the English department, too.

Methods

This study aimed at an in-depth understanding of how looping works and what were the effects of the looping of a TESOL lecturer on the English major undergraduate students’ TESOL knowledge acquisition and career preparation. As the investigation involves both a process and products, a single-case study was, therefore, designed. According to Stake (1995), “A case study is both the process of learning about the case and the product of our learning" (p.237). Green and Thorogood (2018) maintain that a case study is an "in-depth study undertaken of one particular 'case', which could be a site, individual or policy" (p. 284). In this study looping of a lecturer for teaching TESOL courses to undergraduate English major students is considered as part of the English Department’s offer of BA in English as an educational program and activities for learning teaching. This consideration supported the methodological decision of a case study. A case could also be "a program, events, or activities" (Creswell, 2002, p. 485). The case under this study was centered on the phenomenon / issue of the looping of a TESOL lecturer for undergraduate English major students for more than one semester. The case was single because only the department of English had been chosen as site as well as context. That is, the case was bounded by space. According to Creswell, "'Bounded' means that the case is separated out for research in terms of time, place, or some physical boundaries" (p. 485). Furthermore, a case study is interested in a contemporary phenomenon and the case itself has no distinct boundaries (Yin, 2011).

Participants

The looping class in this study consisted of ten undergraduate English majors. The looping took place during their sixth, seventh and eighth semester. Of the ten students, five were looped and five were their non-looped peers. These five students had an identical poor socio-economic background, and they wanted to generate income and start language teaching career immediately after completing their bachelor’s degree. They had two learning goals (academic and career) from TESOL courses. In other words, they aimed to achieve a TESOL education (theoretical understanding of TESOL) and TESOL skills (pedagogical knowledge). Further descriptions of the participants are given in the table below:

Table 1: Academic details of the class of the looped (5) and non-looped (5) students.

The five students from the seventh semester had an academic goal to achieve from the TESOL courses. These five students did not ask for looping and were the control group for the study. A common thread among both the looped and non-looped peers was that they all had experiences of providing private tutoring of English to the students of schools and colleges.

Data types and data collection

A qualitative case study explores a case “… through detailed, in - depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports)” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 43).

For this study qualitative data was collected from three sources: documents, semi-structured interviews, and field notes (observation) for data and method triangulation. Contemporary life is embedded and reflected in parts in paper-based and computer-mediated documents (Rapley & Rees, 2018). Therefore, documents were also collected including students’ teaching practicum portfolio and the looped-lecturer’s hardcopy of his teaching portfolio. The participating students who were benefited by looping successfully started EFL teaching soon after their courses being over, and the data supporting this insight were collected by field visits (i.e., visiting their teaching centers / job sites). In line with that, the looped students’ newly opened Finix English Language Centre (in Modnagaht, Chittagong district) was visited and field notes were taken. Most importantly, interview data helped develop an understanding of the research subjects’ subjective experiences, opinions, and any other relevant phenomenon (Qu & Dumay, 2011). Interview data were also collected to examine looped and non-looped students’ experiences. The looped-lecturer was also approached to supplement the interview data. Given the research ethics, the participants’ consent was obtained before the study began. All the participants consented to participate in the research project.

 Table 2: Engagement and duration of data collection

Data analysis

Qualitative data of a case study such as documents, semi-structured interviews, and field notes (observation) are often analyzed by data coding system (Scheib, 2003). Accordingly, the qualitative data coding of Williams and Moser (2019) was followed. At first, open coding was carried out across the documents according to the research questions. The interviews were transcribed and open coding was done to reduce the transcripts to many overlapping phrases used by the participants. Next, the axial coding was done to develop some connected codes. Finally, selective coding was used to reduce the data to some central categories that represented the themes related to the research questions. To minimalize the bias, the material was reviewed many times by reading and rereading the transcripts, discussing them, and agreeing on the final thematic synthesis. Finally, the thematic synthesis was presented in association with the participants’ own words. The final findings were validated by the respondents to ensure the rigor and reliability of the study (Hoffart, 1991).

Findings and Discussion

Acquisition of TESOL and grade-rise

Research Question 1 asked what effects the looped-lecturer had had on the students acquisition of TESOL. The data reveal that the looped students oriented their BA degree studies to their future MA ELT education and language teaching career. They were also conscious of the expected outcomes of TESOL courses. This consciousness-driven goal setting idealized university learning (Clemes et al., 2008). It also reflected their readiness for university learning and its projected learning goals. Their conscious approach to TESOL courses and ideal learning expectations form those courses explain their urge for looping a TESOL educator. From the patterned responses represented in interview data, it is apparent that they set three academic goals of (a) acquiring substantial TESOL knowledge, (b) developing TESOL skills, (c) preparing for future Master’s studies in TESOL or ELT. In Miller’s (2020) words the looped students desired a TESOL education and TESOL skills. Their learning objectives were beyond the traditional end-result of grades and marks only and therefore, they expected looping to boost up their readiness for the persuasion of MA ELT and strating language teaching career as well. The participants believed a looped TESOL lecturer would best help them achieve these skills and career goals.

Actually, I like English teaching. I wanted to learn how to do teaching better. (Student C)

I have a dream that I can become an English teacher, so I need kind of training on this. (Student A)

I need to know the subjects of TESOL or ELT very well so that I can get admission in MA in ELT in other universities. (Student D)

I thought that I would get to practically see how to teach when my teacher demonstrated how to teach. (Student B)

Both the looped students and their non-looped peers had a positive opinion about the looped lecturer. From some previous random semesters, the participants had some positive experiences with the lecturer and they realized that he effectively impacted their learning. Given that, they did a ‘compare-contrast’ analysis of the available lecturers in the department and suggested the looped lecturer teach the TESOL courses for three consecutive semesters. In their view, the looped lecturer was effective since he was ‘knowledgeable’, ‘pedagogically creative’, ‘experienced in rapport-building’, ‘affectionate’, and ‘approachable’.

We had a really amazing relationship with the lecturer in the previous semester. (Student A)

I think he is most knowledgeable teacher in our department. (Student C)

I believe that we have many things to learn form that lecturer. (Student B)

His teaching is excellent and I feel like sitting in his class and I try to not miss his any class. (Student H)

You know that Sir is very friendly. He calls me mom. We can go to him for any need easily. (Student I)

Turner (2021) terms TESOL education as bilingual education theories and insights. The looped students were greatly satisfied that their goal of theoretical understanding and insights were achieved. They admit that the looping of their suggested TESOL lecturer had huge effects on this goal achievement. They discovered for the first time that they were themselves the success models of old Grammar Translation Method (GTM). Further, they gathered comparative knowledge about other old and contemporary TESOL methods, approaches, and techniques from the looped lecturer who was proficient in TESOL knowledge. They found Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) especially interesting.

CLT was very good thing. Before we heard about it in school life. But we do not think we were taught in CLT. Although out school syllabus was CLT. (Student A)

I did not even know that there are other methods of English teaching. (Student B)

I feel as if I became a master of methods. (Student H)

First time, I learn that we do not need worry too much about our grammar for CLT. (Student B)

I was excited to teach in CLT method. (Student D)

In the Methods and Materials Course, I understood very much and I just blasted in the exam and got A+. (Student I)

Their new theoretical discoveries across language teaching theories are comparable to typical university level of higher order learning skills recommended by Aheisibwe et al. (2021). The looped and non-looped students turned theoretically sound candidates for English teaching. They “re-educated” themselves by learning CLT and unlearning GTM. In Turner’s (2021) words the students ended up with a very good “TESOL education” form looping. Precisely, the looping had gradual effects on not only students’ theoretical learning but also a mindset for the theoretical paradigm shift from GTM to CLT. The research into the students’ academic success showed that looped students got consistently higher grades in the TESOL courses. Students A, B, and C, and E got A+ (80-89%) in each of the three TESOL courses i.e.,Methods and Materials of English Teaching, Syllabus Design, and Practice Teaching. These were higher grades than those they got from the lecturer in their course during previous non-looping semesters. Student D got A-, A and A+ which showed consistent improvement through the three courses. This suggests that looping can increase undergraduate students’ university grades in TESOL courses. This is related to the experiences reported in previous studies indicating that looping helps students get higher grades in non-TESOL subjects in lower educational levels (Hill & Jones, 2018; Wedenoja et al., 2020). Every non-looped student’s grades also increased significantly.   

Turner (2021) refers to TESOL skills as TESOL pedagogy. Looped students developed a theory and practice-based “unknown pedagogy”. They themselves learnt English from the old teachers of traditional pedagogy. The students were, thus, preparing to become “new kind of teachers”. They were heading towards a new identity of CLT teachers with new TESOL pedagogy. Students’ developed TESOL skills range from classroom management, teaching philosophy, four-skill teaching techniques, lesson planning, to different activities. This type of achievement caused by the looped-lecturer may be connected to what Knowles (1985) and Tough (1985) sort out as university andragogy suitable for colleges and universities towards creativity across Bloom’s taxonomy.

I learnt many techniques of language teaching. PPP [presentation, practice, production] and TTT [Teacher talk time] were very interesting things for me. I learnt many techniques of classroom management from the theories, and my teacher’s demonstration classes. I applied this all in my own micro-teaching. (Student A)

I liked the student-centered classes. (Student C)

I did never pair work, group work in when I read in school and college. (Student F)

Students’ seating in U-shape classroom was very useful and used this in my teaching class supervised my teacher. (Student J)

Lesson planning was a great thing for me. It was half of my teaching success. (Student A)

I benefited from the genre analysis system for good writing essays. (Student E)

Gains in TESOL knowledge and skills from the looping had an extended effect on the major determination in looped and non-looped students’ future MA’s. Before participation in looping and interaction with the looped-lecturer, the students were all undecided on which major they would choose for their master’s degree studies. However, looped lectures in TESOL gave them a leverage on major choice of ELT for master’s studies. Three students (D, G, and E) enrolled in a MA in ELT studies program at two universities. The looped-lecturer was able to create interest for TESOL degree persuasion and career choice in EFL teaching.

Actually, I was not sure what I will study in Masters’ course. But you know after reading some courses with Sir I fell in love with TESOL. So, I decided, you know… I must do my master’s in TESOL or ELT (Student E)

I feel more confident in ELT courses, so I thought that I will do better in ELT. (Student G)

Uhh, to be honest… I kind of forgot what learnt in many other literature courses but I remember most of the TESOL courses because it was all practically learnt. (Student D)

Preparedness for career start in EFL teaching

Research Question 2 asked about the effects of looping of a TESOL-lecturer on students’ initiation into EFL teaching. Looping for TESOL courses over three semesters (one and a half years) ultimately left positive effects on the looped-students’ entry into teaching EFL. While students were interested in getting good grades, they were also worried about being able to teach EFL on graduation. The academic gains in TESOL knowledge and TESOL skills (Turner, 2021) that the students maximized from the looped lecturer offered them “immediate readiness” beginning teaching. This outcome of university courses typifies the recommended university education that results in students’ career readiness (Aheisibwe et al., 2021). In reality, all the looped students had already begun tutoring English language to students at their homes. However, they all were using the GTM. After the looping experience, they changed their mindset. They became CLT teachers and were anxious to put their new TESOL knowledge and skills into practice. Eventually, four of the looped students (A, B, C, and E) built enough confidence in their TESOL ability to give them a career boost and they set up their own private English language center called “Finix English Language Centre” in Modhnaghat, Chittagong where A, B, C came from.

Actually, I have been in teaching for a long time not as a language teacher but as a grammar teacher. Staying three semesters with Sir, I became a new teacher of language skills. (Student A)

I was so excited to use what I have learnt from the TESOL courses in my practical teaching. (Student C)

Actually, we dared to set up a language center because of our Sir. He prepared us with theories, practical skills, knowledge of English teaching in CLT. So, we were feeling very confident that we can. (Student C)

We did not have to search jobs like other students which is very tiring and often frustration [sic]. But we immediately started our self-employment in our own language centre. We started income very easily from language teaching. (Student E)

I got A+ in Sir’s course for the first time and I decided to do MA in ELT. I started thinking of becoming English teacher. Honestly, I did not think of teaching profession before. (Student G)

Conclusion

As a means of increasing students’ learning, looping or repeat-teacher is appreciated as an innovation in instruction (Goodson, 2020). We designed a case study to understand the students’ experiences when exposed to looping. In this study, we asked two research questions concerning the effects of looping a TESOL lecturer on the students’ academic achievements and career preparation in EFL teaching.

In terms of the looping effects on students’ academic goal achievements, students received ideal university higher-order learning in areas of TESOL education. The looped students re-educated themselves by learning about Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and its benefits when compared to the Grammar Translation Method (GTM). The looped teaching of the TESOL courses developed a mindset in the students for a methodological, theoretical, and philosophical shift from GTM to CLT. Besides, looping increased all the students’ final exam grades to A+, higher than before for each.

In the area of TESOL skills, the looped students developed sufficiently as well. They developed a new language pedagogy which led to a parallel development of a new identity of CLT educators for them as prospective EFL teachers. Their mastered TESOL skills include classroom management, teaching philosophy, four-skill (listening, speaking, reading, writing) teaching techniques, lesson planning, and different classroom activities. This kind of acquisition of TESOL skills through looping university level is comparable to the outcomes of university andragogy. A further effect of looped lecturer on students’ academic results was that looping for TESOL courses encouraged them to continue on to a future Masters degree in ELT / TESOL.  

The effects of looping on the students’ career preparation was that the looped students were able to start teaching EFL immediately on graduation since they had been equipped with a high quality of TESOL education and had learned TESOL skills during the looping period. The four looped students eventually ventured into EFL teaching at their own language center. Research says that looping bears fruits if the same subject is repeated. This study adds that looping in higher education can have good effects on undergraduate English major students’ TESOL knowledge acquisition, and their immediate EFL/ESL career preparation.

References

Aheisibwe, I., Kobusigye, L., & Tayebwa, J. (2021). Bridging education gap in higher institutions of learning using Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. African Educational Research Journal, 9(1), 69-74.https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.91.20.213

Alam, M. S., Asmawi, A., Fatema, S., Ullah, M. M., & Azad, M. A. K. (2022). A local alternative to global wholesale online schooling during COVID-19: A phenomenological single-case study of a standalone school in Bangladesh. Education Research International, 2002(1). https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6003710

Almond, S. L. (2018). Using a longitudinal approach to determine the long-term impact of looping (Publication No. 10747447)[Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.https://www.proquest.com/openview/44d5e8fd9e2bec28386e122a6af71e1b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

Amador, J. M., Rogers, M. A. P., Hudson, R., Phillips, A., Carter, I., Galindo, E., & Akerson, V. L. (2022). Novice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for planning and implementing mathematics and science lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103736

Awofala, A. O. (2012). Development and factorial structure of students' evaluation of teaching effectiveness scale in mathematics. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(1), 33–44.

Bada, H. A., Tengku Ariffin, T. F., & Nordin, H. B. (2020). The effectiveness of teachers in Nigerian secondary schools: The role of instructional leadership of principals. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 27(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1811899

Bardach, L., & Klassen, R. M. (2020). Smart teachers, successful students? A systematic review of the literature on teachers’ cognitive abilities and teacher effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100312

Belcher, A. (2020). Effects of Looping, Kindergarten to First Grade, and Performance on State Reading Tests in Third, Fourth, and Fifth Grades: A Case Study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] University of Findlay. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=findlay1595442483274655

Benetti Corrêa da Silva, M., Matte, J., Bebber, S., Dalla Santa de Carvalho, M., de Atayde Moschen, S., & Fachinelli, A. C. (2021). Student satisfaction from the influence of the built environment, price fairness and teaching care: A study at a community-supported university. Facilities, 39(11/12), 703–721. https://doi.org/10.1108/f-09-2020-0112

Chan, K. K. H., & Hume, A. (2019). Towards a consensus model: Literature review of how science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is investigated in empirical studies. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.). Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (pp. 3–76). Springer.

Chen, H., Li, M., Ni, X., Zheng, Q., & Li, L. (2021). Teacher effectiveness and teacher growth from student ratings: An action research of school-based teacher evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101010

Clemes, M. D., Gan, C. E. C., & Kao, T.-H. (2008). University student satisfaction: An empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17(2), 292-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841240801912831

Coombe, C. (2019). Quality education begins with teachers: What are the qualities that make a TESOL teacher great?. In J. D. Martínez Agudo (Ed.), Quality in TESOL and teacher education (pp. 173-184). Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative. Prentice Hall.

Dornan, T., Scherpbier, A., King, N., & Boshuizen, H. (2005). Clinical teachers and problem‐based learning: A phenomenological study. Medical Education, 39(2), 163-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01914.x

Evens, M., Elen, J., Larmuseau, C., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Promoting the development of teacher professional knowledge: Integrating content and pedagogy in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.001

Fonsén, E., & Ukkonen-Mikkola, T. (2019). Early childhood education teachers’ professional development towards pedagogical leadership. Educational Research, 61(2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1600377

Franz, D. P., Thompson, N. L., Fuller, B., Hare, R. D., Miller, N. C., & Walker, J. (2010). Evaluating mathematics achievement of middle school students in a looping environment. School Science and Mathematics, 110(6), 298-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2010.00038.x

Ganeson, K., & Ehrich, L. C. (2009). Transition into high school: A phenomenological study. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41(1), 60-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00476.x

Gaustad, J. (1998). Implementing looping (ED429330). ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED429330.pdf

Goodson, H. (2020). Looping in education. Education, 141(2), 79-82.

Grant, J., Johnson, B., & Richardson, (1996). The looping handbook: Teachers and students progressing together. Crystal Springs Books.

Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2018). Qualitative methods for health research. Sage.

Hall, K. (2021). Looping and academic achievement in elementary schools (Publication No. 28527017) [Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University] ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3878

Hanushek, E. (1971). Teacher characteristics and gains in student achievement: Estimation using micro data. The American Economic Review, 61(2), 280–288. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1817003

Harbatkin, E. (2021). Does student-teacher race match affect course grades?. Economics of Education Review, 81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2021.102081

Hempenstall, K. (2014). What works? Evidence-based practice in education is complex. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 19(2), 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2014.921631

Hill, A. J., & Jones, D. B. (2018). A teacher who knows me: The academic benefits of repeat student-teacher matches. Economics of Education Review, 64, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.03.004

Hoffart, N. (1991). A member check procedure to enhance rigor in naturalistic research. Western Journal of Nursing Research,13(4), 522-534. https://doi.org/10.0077/019394599101300408

Hume, A., Cooper, R., & Borowski, A. (2019). Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science. Springer.

Khan, M. A. (2015). An empirical study of determinants of teachers’ effectiveness in higher education institutions in Pakistan. In S. F. Tang & L. Logonnathan (Eds.), Taylor’s 7th teaching and learning conference 2014 proceedings: Holistic education: Enacting change (pp. 295-310). Springer.

Knowles, M. S. (1985). Applications in continuing education for the health professions: Chapter five of Andragogy in action. Möbius: A Journal for Continuing Education Professionals in Health Sciences, 5(2), 80-100. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.4760050212

Kulgemeyer, C., & Riese, J. (2018). From professional knowledge to professional performance: The impact of CK and PCK on teaching quality in explaining situations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(10), 1393–1418. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21457

Little, O., Goe, L., & Bell, C. (2009). A Practical guide to evaluating teacher effectiveness. (ED543776). National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543776.pdf

Magno, C. (2012). Assessing higher education teachers through peer assistance and review. The International Journal of Education and Psychological Assessment, 9(2), 104-118. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2287173

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Wiley.

Metzler, J., & Woessmann, L. (2012). The impact of teacher subject knowledge on student achievement: Evidence from within-teacher within-student variation. Journal of Development Economics, 99(2), 486-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.06.002

Miller, A. J. (2020). A curriculum evaluation of MATESOL degrees and TESOL graduate certificates in the United States. (Publication No. 27744795) [Doctoral Dissertation, Mercer University] ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/openview/524fe14d155ab3130897a3e6ba1287db/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Nichols, J. D., & Nichols, G. W. (2003). The impact of looping classroom environments on parental attitudes. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 47(1), 18-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880309604424

Nitecki, E. (2017). Looping and attachment in early childhood education: How the applications of epigenetics demand a change. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17(2), 85-100. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v17i2.20840

Palmer, P. J. (1990). Good teaching: a matter of living the mystery. Change the Magazine of Higher Learning, 22(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1990.9937613

Perryman, J., & Calvert, G. (2020). What motivates people to teach, and why do they leave? Accountability, performativity and teacher retention. British Journal of Educational Studies, 68(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2019.1589417

Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(3), 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111162070

Rasheed, D. S., Brown, J. L., Doyle, S. L., & Jennings, P. A. (2020). The effect of teacher–child race/ethnicity matching and classroom diversity on children's socioemotional and academic skills. Child Development, 91(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13275

Redding, C. (2019). A teacher like me: A review of the effect of student–teacher racial/ethnic matching on teacher perceptions of students and student academic and behavioral outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 89(4), 499-535. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319853545

Ruprecht, K., Elicker, J., & Choi, J. Y. (2016). Continuity of care, caregiver–child interactions, and toddler social competence and problem behaviors. Early Education and Development, 27(2), 221-239.https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1102034

Santos, G., Marques, C. S., Justino, E., & Mendes, L. (2020). Understanding social responsibility’s influence on service quality and student satisfaction in higher education. Journal of cleaner production, 256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120597

Scheib, J. W. (2003). Role stress in the professional life of the school music teacher: A collective case study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(2), 124-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345846

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi;org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

Sorge, S., Kröger, J., Petersen, S., & Neumann, K. (2019). Structure and development of pre-service physics teachers’ professional knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 862-889.https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1346326

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

Stewart, D. W. (2010). The purpose of university education. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 13(4), 244-250.https://doi.org/10.1080/10887156.2010.522480

Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3^rd ed.) ASCD.

Taka, M. (2020). The role of education in peacebuilding: Learner narratives from Rwanda. Journal of Peace Education, 17(1), 107-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2019.1669146

Taylor, C. (2009). Towards a geography of education. Oxford Review of Education, 35(5), 651-669. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203844137

Tough, A. (1985). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. The Journal of Higher Education, 56(6), 707–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980903216358

Tourigny, R., Plante, I., & Raby, C. (2020). Do students in a looping classroom get higher grades and report a better teacher-student relationship than those in a traditional setting? Educational Studies, 46(6), 744-759.https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1663152

Travis, J. E. (1995). Models for improving college teaching: A faculty resource. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6, 1995 (ED403811). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED403811.pdf

Turner, M. (2021). The role of CLIL in learning about TESOL: Reflections from an Australian master of TESOL course. In C. Hemmi & D. L. Banegas (Eds.). International Perspectives on CLIL, (pp. 151–169).

Walsworth, S., Somerville, K., & Robinson, O. (2021). The importance of weak friendships for international student satisfaction: Empirical evidence from Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 80, 134-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2020.11.004

Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073001089

Wedenoja, L., Papay, J. P., & Kraft, M. A. (2020). Second time’s the charm? How repeat student teacher matches build academic and behavioral skills. [Working Paper]. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/repeatteachers20200721.pdf

Wieman, C. E. (2019). Expertise in university teaching & the implications for teaching effectiveness, evaluation & training. Daedalus, 148(4), 47-78. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01760

Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45-55. http://www.imrjournal.org/uploads/1/4/2/8/14286482/imr-v15n1art4.pdf

Yang, L., Peng, E. T. C., & Rajalingam, P. (2020). Pedagogical and content expertise in team-based learning: Re-aligning two teaching perspectives in an undergraduate medical school. In T. W. Teo, A.-L. Tan, & Y. S. Ong (Eds.), Science education in the 21^st century: Re-searching issues that matter from different lenses (pp. 37–49). Springer.

Yarnell, L. M., & Bohrnstedt, G. W. (2017). Student-teacher racial match and its association with Black student achievement: An exploration using multilevel structural equation modeling. American Educational Research Journal, 55(2), 287–324. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217734804

Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research. Sage.

^[1] Pedagogy is the teaching of children while andragogy is the teaching of adults.