ISSN: 2375-3781
International Journal of Modern Education Research  
Manuscript Information
 
 
The Jigsaw Method in 12th-Grade Physics Classes – Impact of the Group’s Ability Composition on Academic Performance
International Journal of Modern Education Research
Vol.3 , No. 5, Publication Date: Sep. 3, 2016, Page: 28-36
2034 Views Since September 3, 2016, 838 Downloads Since Sep. 3, 2016
 
 
Authors
 
[1]    

Roland Berger, Physics Education Group, Department of Physics, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.

[2]    

Martin Hänze, Institute of Psychology, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany.

 
Abstract
 

Two hundred thirty-six students in 12th-grade physics classes took part in a quasi-experimental study comparing homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping in a jigsaw classroom. Students were assigned to expert groups according to their prior topic knowledge. Students showed higher intrinsic motivation, activated deeper level processing strategies, and performed better on their expert topic when working in homogeneous groups. Self-reported quality of communication was identified as a partial mediator between the composition of the expert group and academic performance.


Keywords
 

Cooperative Learning, Jigsaw Classroom, Group Composition, Physics


Reference
 
[01]    

Slavin, R. E., Hurley, E. A., & Chamberlain, A. (2003). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and research. In W. M. Reynolds, G. E. Miller, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, Volume 7, Educational Psychology (Chapter 9, pp. 177 –197). New York: Wiley.

[02]    

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & Spence, J. C. (2000). Effects of within-class grouping on student achievement: An exploratory model. The Journal of Educational Research, 94 (2), 101-112.

[03]    

Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2005). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation. Instructional Science, 33, 105-119.

[04]    

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423-458.

[05]    

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Company.

[06]    

Aronson, E. (2002). Building empathy, compassion, and achievement in the jigsaw classroom. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement. Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 209-225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

[07]    

Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 419-454.

[08]    

Bierman, K. L., & Furman, W. (1981). Effects of role and assignment rationale on attitudes formed during peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 33-40.

[09]    

Robinson, D. R., Schofield, J. W., & Steers-Wentzell, K. L. (2005). Peer and cross-age tutoring in math: Outcomes and their design implications. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 327-362.

[10]    

Allen, V. L. (1983). Impact of the role of tutor on behavior and self-perceptions. In J. M. Levine (Ed.), Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for learning (pp. 367-389). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

[11]    

Renkl, A. (1995). Learning for later teaching: An exploration of mediational links between teaching expectancy and learning results. Learning and Instruction, 5, 21-36.

[12]    

King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell, & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (Chapter 4, pp. 87-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[13]    

Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73-97.

[14]    

Kaartinen, S., & Kumpulainen, K. (2002). Collaborative inquiry and the construction of explanations in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 12, 189-212.

[15]    

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[16]    

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.

[17]    

Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2006). What do we know about cognitive and motivational effects of small group tutorials in problem-based learning? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11, 321–336.

[18]    

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21-51.

[19]    

Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366-389.

[20]    

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.

[21]    

Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 607-651.

[22]    

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1998). High-achieving students’ interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 227-267.

[23]    

Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 943-989.

[24]    

Neber, H., Finsterwald, M., & Urban, N. (2001). Cooperative learning with gifted and high-achieving students: A review and meta-analyses of 12 studies. High Ability Studies, 12, 199-214.

[25]    

Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Fung, I. Y. Y. (2002). Small-group composition and peer effects. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 425-447.

[26]    

Häussler, P. (1987). Measuring students’ interest in physics – design and results of a cross-sectional study in the Federal Republic of Germany. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 79-92.

[27]    

Berger, R. & Hänze, M. (2009). Comparison of two small group learning methods in 12th grade physics classes focusing on intrinsic motivation and academic performance. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1511-1527.

[28]    

Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61, 315-343.

[29]    

Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1-29.

[30]    

Hänze, M. & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17, 29-41.

[31]    

Jürgen-Lohmann, J., Borsch, F., & Giesen, H. (2001). Kooperatives Lernen an der Hochschule: Evaluation des Gruppenpuzzles in Seminaren der Pädagogischen Psychologie [Cooperative learning at the university: An evaluation of jigsaw in classes of educational psychology]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 15, 74-84.

[32]    

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.

[33]    

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

[34]    

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.

[35]    

Lawrenz, F., & Munch, T. W. (1984). The effect of grouping of laboratory students on selected educational outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 699-708.

[36]    

Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2005). The relation between prior knowledge and students’ collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 264-282.

[37]    

De Fraine, B., Belfi, B., & van Damme, J. (2011). Composition of learning groups. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 688-690). New York: Springer.

[38]    

Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Is a partner’s competence threatening during dyadic cooperative work? It depends on resource interdependence. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 145-154.

[39]    

Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1981). Help-seeking: An understudied problem-solving skill in children. Developmental Review, 1, 224-246.

[40]    

Weinert, F. E., & Helmke, A. (1998). The neglected role of individual differences in theoretical models of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 8, 309-323.





 
  Join Us
 
  Join as Reviewer
 
  Join Editorial Board
 
share:
 
 
Submission
 
 
Membership