Please take the 2014 Global South User Survey. Share your experiences and improve Wikipedia!

Jigsaw (teaching technique)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has
insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more
precise citations. (April 2011)
The jigsaw technique is a method of organizing classroom activity that makes students
dependent on each other to succeed. It breaks classes into groups and breaks assignments into
pieces that the group assembles to complete the (jigsaw) puzzle. It was designed by social
psychologist Elliot Aronson to help weaken racial cliques in forcibly integrated schools.[1][2][3]
The technique splits classes into mixed groups to work on small problems that the group collates
into a final outcome.[1] For example, an in-class assignment is divided into topics. Students are
then split into groups with one member assigned to each topic. Working individually, each
student learns about his or her topic and presents it to their group. Next, students gather into
groups divided by topic. Each member presents again to the topic group. In same-topic groups,
students reconcile points of view and synthesize information. They create a final report. Finally,
the original groups reconvene and listen to presentations from each member. The final
presentations provide all group members with an understanding of their own material, as well as
the findings that have emerged from topic-specific group discussion.

Contents

1 History
2 Research findings
o 2.1 Bridgeman
o 2.2 Geffner
o 2.3 Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield, Aronson and Sikes
o 2.4 Hnze and Berger
o 2.5 Perkins and Saris
o 2.6 Walker and Crogan
o 2.7 Bratt
3 See also
4 References

History

In the late 1950s, America was going through desegregation of public schools. In 1954, the
Brown v. Board of Education decision of the Supreme Court of the United States created a legal
requirement for integration of public schools by ruling that separating schools made them
inherently unequal. Actual integration was a more painful process, taking years.
Schools were plagued with fights, discrimination, and hate crimes. White supremacist groups
and hateful white students terrorized new students. This prevented students from feeling safe in
their schools and harmed all their learning abilities. Students often could hardly sit in the same
room together without incident, much less work together. This created a problem for teachers,
students, parents, communities, and the country alike, as an entire generation of students were
distracted from learning by rampant hatred and discrimination.
It was at this time that psychologists were pulled in to advise schools on what to do to correct
this problem. In 1971, Dr. Elliot Aronson was hired to advise an Austin, Texas school district on
how to defuse the problems of hostile classrooms and distrust between the students. Aronson was
a psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin at the time, and took a psychological
approach to help fix the problems in the classrooms. Competition among students had become
extremely high. It was quickly realized that the competitive nature of the classroom encouraged
students to taunt each other and discriminate against those different than them, so that they might
vault themselves higher in status. In order to counter this problem, students were placed in
diversified groups so that they would be required to work together and reduce the competitive
atmosphere. Students were having difficulty adjusting to the mixing of ethnicity in the
classroom. Aronson created an atmosphere for increased collaboration and reduction of the
resistance to work with one another. Aronson created assignments that made every member of
the group equally important. The students had to pay attention and obtain much information from
other group members. This allows for each member of the group to add a small piece of the
larger picture so that they are all important to the group. This teaches the students to rely on each
other and reduces their competitive attitudes toward each other because they need everyone in
their group to do well because their grade depends on the other students. [1]

Research findings
Students in jigsaw classrooms ("jigsaws") showed a decrease in prejudice and stereotyping, liked
in-group and out-group members more, showed higher levels of self-esteem, performed better on
standardized exams, liked school more, reduced absenteeism, and mixed with students of other
races in areas other than the classroom compared to students in traditional classrooms ("trads").

Bridgeman
Diane Bridgeman demonstrated that jigsaws displayed greater empathy than trads. She assessed
fifth-graders.
Half of her subjects had spent two months in a jigsaw classroom while the other half were in a
traditional classroom. The children viewed cartoons to assess their empathy. Trads displayed
lower empathy than jigsaws.

Geffner
Geffner assessed fifth-graders' attitudes about themselves, school, and other students. He worked
in the Santa Cruz County, California, school district which had a ratio of 50% Caucasian
students to 50% Hispanic students. He assessed trads, jigsaws and students in classrooms that
used a cooperative technique that did not rely on interdependence ("coops"). He used a modified
version of Blaney's questionnaire and a modified version of the Pictorial Concept Scale for
Children. This scale placed cartoon stick figures in various situations, including five self-esteem
dimensions: athletic abilities, scholastic abilities, physical appearance, family interactions and
social interactions. These measures were used as pre- and post-intervention measures.
Interventions lasted eight weeks.
Coops and jigsaws improved or maintained positive attitudes about themselves, school, peers and
academic abilities and self-esteem. Trads demonstrated poorer attitudes about peers, themselves,
and academic abilities.

Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield, Aronson and Sikes

The first experiment with the jigsaw classroom was by Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield, Aronson,
and Sikes in 1977. The technique was assessed in ten fifth grade classes across seven schools.
Three fifth grade classes from each school were the controls. Trad teachers were peer-rated as
good teachers. The experimental classes worked in jigsaw groups for 45 minutes a day, three
days a week, for six weeks. Both groups used similar curricula. The jigsaw groups contained
members from all ethnic groups. Student questionnaires assessed attitudes about themselves,
school and toward peer teaching, cooperation and attitudes towars group members other students
in the class. These measures were used as pre- and post-intervention.
Significant increases were seen in jigsaw self-esteem accompanied by a decrease in trad selfesteem. Jigsaw students liked school more, (Caucasians generally, Mexican-Americans slightly,
but not African-Americans.) Trad students liked school less (Caucasians generally, not MexicanAmericans, and African-Americans significantly.) The authors contribute this to the fact that
Mexican-American jigsaws may have felt forced to participate in peer teaching. Two other
questions produced significant results. Competitiveness among jigsaws decreased and increased
among trads. Jigsaws felt they could learn more from other students while trads did not. Students
reported increase liking of their group members, but they also increased their liking of other
students in the class.[1]

Hnze and Berger

Hnze and Berger assessed 12th-grade physics classes in 2007. They took eight 12th-grade
classes and randomly assigned them to either the jigsaw technique or direct instruction. Students
were assessed for academic performance and completed a questionnaire looking at personality
variables (goal orientation, self-concept, and uncertainty orientation). The topics (motion of
electrons and electromagnetic oscillations and waves) were introduced through direct instruction
in both branches. Students completed the learning experience questionnaire after the instruction

as a pretest measure. Jigsaws were given the learning experience questionnaire after working in
the expert group and after working in the jigsaw group. Trads were given the learning experience
questionnaire at the end of the lesson.
Academic performance was reasessed a few days after the learning unit. Clear difference
emerged in the learning experience, but not in academic performances. Jigsaws showed higher
achievement in their "expert" areas, but trads scored better on areas that jigsaws learned from
their peers. Jigsaws had a more favorable view of the learning experience, stronger intrinsic
motivation, greater interest in the topic and more cognitive activation and involvement than
trads. Jigsaws were more involved and more interested in the material and were seen as more
competent, more socially related to other students and more autonomous. Indirect effects on
performance were implied because students viewed themselves as more competent, but without
direct impact on achievement.[4]

Perkins and Saris

Perkins and Saris assessed an undergraduate statistics course in 2001. They noted that a part of
class instruction was doing worksheets. Worksheets give immediate feedback, allow for repeated
practice, make students active rather than passive learners and allow students to ask for help
from the instructor. Drawbacks include students' uneven readiness the substantial time required
to complete.
Students worked in groups on two separate occasions. In the first, four worksheets were
supplied. Pairs of students were given the same worksheet and worked together to compute
various statistical quantities. For the first study an example of the computation and interpretation
were provided. After discussion, students received one of two worksheets that directed them
through the steps for completing the procedures for one of the remaining designs with a partial
solution for each step.
The handout also contained the next-to-last step for the other design. One group of students
received step-by-step instruction and partial solutions for the second and a nearly complete
solution for the third design and the other group received step-by-step information for the third
design and the almost complete solution for the second. Students were instructed to work with a
classmate holding a complementary handout. Students were then asked to rate the exercise on
usefulness of getting help, giving help, working with classmates, providing an alternative to a
lecture, saving time and understanding the statistical procedures.
Students perceived the jigsaw procedure as being very positive especially as an alternative
learning experience. Jigsaws rated the technique as more useful for practical purposes than for
interpersonal purposes such as working with others or giving/getting help. Students appreciated
the technique as a time-saver and viewed it is a change of pace.[5]

Walker and Crogan

Walker and Crogan looked at the effects of a cooperative learning environment, the jigsaw
method and traditional classes on academic performance, self-esteem, liking of school, liking of

peers and racial prejudice in Australia. They looked at 103 students in grades 46 at one private
and one public school. Cooperative learning was used as a baseline measure for the effects of
cooperation.
The sixth-grade and fifth grade classes hosted coops and trads, respectively. The study was
confounded by changes in procedures for the coops and the departure of the trad teacher,
resulting in a shortened, four week schedule. The choice to designate the sixth grade class as
"traditional cooperation" rather than "failed jigsaw" was criticized by Bratt. In the public school,
a fourth-grade class experienced a three-week jigsaw program. The trad class was a split
fourth/fifth-grade class. Each experimental branch had a same-school control.
For the private school, there were 31 students in the experimental group and 29 students in the
control group. At the public school, there were 20 students and two teachers in the experimental
group, with 23 students and only one teacher in the control group. Teachers were given a
description of the program and the key facts were discussed with them.
Public school jigsaw groups balanced ethnicity, academic ability and sex evenly. "Best" friends
and "worst" enemies were separated. Prior to implementation, jigsaws familiarized themselves
with their group peers, practiced their roles as peer tutors and practiced relevant skills such as
discussing main ideas, reading for meaning, listening and quizzing peers on important
information.
At the private school, students in the experimental class received the cooperative learning
program for 90 minutes each day, twice a week, for four weeks. At the public school, students in
the experimental class received the Jigsaw program for an hour a day, five days a week, for three
weeks. Measures were taken pre- and post-intervention. Academic performance data was
available only from the public school. Self-esteem was measured by the Piers-Harris Childrens
Self-concept Scale (CSCS). Students rated their classmates according to how much they would
like to work and play with them. Racial prejudice measures were assessed students attitudes to
Asian-Australians, Aborigines and European-Australians using one measure of social distance
and one of stereotyping.
Academic performance improved for those in the Jigsaw group. Jigsaw self-esteem increased at
both schools compared to trads, for liking of school and for playing with peers but the gains were
not significant. Jigsaws increased their ratings in working with peers when compared to their
relative control group. Coops were not motivated by the prospect of working cooperatively.
Jigsaws liked ingroup and outgroup peers more in work-oriented relationships, but not for coops.
Social distance ratings for Asian-Australian and European-Australian children decreased across
the program, but European-Australian ratings increased. Jigsaws attributed fewer negative traits
to Asian- and European-Australians. Coops showed an increase in stereotyping. The study
demonstrated that the Jigsaw method is effective in Australian social conditions in producing
positive change in academic performance, attitudes to peers and prejudice. Cooperative learning
on the other hand produced generally negative results. Interdependence seemed to be more
important than cooperation.[6]

Bratt
Bratt presented two studies on Jigsaw, one in grade 6 (Study 1), one in grades 8 to 10 (Study 2).
Bratt focused on the claimed effectiveness of Jigsaw to reduce prejudice. The first study gave
similar findings as Walker and Crogan, but Bratt stressed that the data could not be interpreted as
establishing positive Jigsaw effects. Bratts Study 1 included two schools, with one Jigsaw class
and one control class at each school. The experiment covered seven weeks. The analysis focused
on ethnic Norwegian children (n = 34 in each class).[7]
The study of sixth graders was confounded by the fact that the Jigsaw class had two teachers
whereas the control class had only one teacher.[7]
Study 2 assessed 11 Jigsaw classes and 11 matched control classes. Jigsaw teachers were well
trained and repeatedly met during the eight week experiment. The analysis focused on 264 ethnic
Norwegian students. Study 2 failed to indicate effects of Jigsaw on intergroup attitudes, crossgroup friendship, common ingroup identity, empathy and attitudes toward school. These
variables were measured before, immediately after and six months after the first measure. Bratt
concluded that the two studies did not support Jigsaw. Bratt also pointed out methodological
limitations in previous studies.[7]

References
1. Lestik, M., & Plous, S. (2012). "Jigsaw Classroom". Retrieved October 24, 2012, from
jigsaw.org
2. Aronson, E. (n.d.). "Jigsaw Basics". Retrieved December 5, 2012, from jigsaw.org
3. Perkins, D. V., & Tagler, M. J. (n.d.). "Jigsaw Classroom". Retrieved December 5, 2012
4. Hnze, 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: 2941.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.004.
5. Perkins, D. V., & Saris, R. N. (2001). "A "Jigsaw Classroom" technique for
undergraduate statistics courses". Teaching of Psychology 28. pp. 111113. Retrieved
December 5, 2012.
6. Walker, I., & Crogan, M. (1998). "Academic performance, prejudice, and the jigsaw
classroom: New pieces to the puzzle". Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 8, 381-393
7. Bratt, C. (2008). The jigsaw classroom under test: No effect on intergroup relations
present. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18, 403-419

Jigsaw
Kai Hakkarainen
The jigsaw strategy is used to develop the skills and expertise needed to participate effectively in
group activities. It focuses on listening, speaking, co-operation, reflection, and problem-solving
skills.
Jigsaw method is a very useful tool for trying to help students integrated knowledge and
understanding from various sources and experts. The basic idea is very simple: students are
divided into groups which all have their own research topic to study. After research each topic
group is split in such a manner that new groups have a single member from each of the old topic
groups. After the new groups have been assembled each topic expert is resonposible for
integrating the knowledge of his/her topic specific knowledge into the understanding of the new
group he/she is in.
This is where the name for the method comes from: students are organized like pieces in a jigsaw
to form different kind of groups, where each student (piece) must be part of the solution to the
jigsaw puzzle.
Jigsaw method is a group work method for learning and participating in the following group
learning activities.

Listening - Students must listen actively in order to learn the required material and be
able to teach it to others in their original groups.
Speaking - Students will be responsible for taking the knowledge gained from one group
and repeating it to new listeners in their original groups.
Cooperation - All members of a group are responsible for the success of others in the
group.
Reflective thinking - To successfully complete the activity in the original group, there
must be reflective thinking at several levels about what was learned in the expert group.
Creative thinking - Groups must devise new ways of approaching, teaching and
presenting material.

How-to
Directions for the jigsaw strategy are given below. Information about this strategy is from the
Muskingum Area Technical College (Zanesville, Ohio) Newsletter, September 14, 1994.

Define the group project on which the class will be working.

Randomly break the class into groups of 4-5 students each, depending on the size of the
class, and assign a number (1 to 4-5) to students in each group.
Assign each student/number a topic in which he/she will become an expert.
The topics could be related facets of a general content theme.
For example, in a computer class the general theme might be hardware and the topics
might be central processing unit (student #1), memory (student #2), input devices
(student #3), and output devices (student #4).
Rearrange the students into expert groups based on their assigned numbers and topics.
Provide the experts with the materials and resources necessary to learn about their topics.
The experts should be given the opportunity to obtain knowledge through reading,
research and discussion.
Reassemble the original groups.
Experts then teach what they have learned to the rest of the group.
Take turns until all experts have presented their new material.
Groups present results to the entire class, or they may participate in some assessment
activity.

Background
Jigsaw is a multifunctional structure of cooperative learning. Jigsaw can be used in a variety of
ways for a variety of goals, but it is primarily used for the acquisition and presentation of new
material, review, or informed debate. The use of this structure creates interdependence and status
equalization.
Each student on the team becomes an "expert" on one topic by working with members from
other teams assigned the corresponding expert topic. Upon returning to their teams, each one in
turn teaches the group; and students are all assessed on all aspects of the topic.

Process for expert group jigsaw

1. Assign Topics - The learning unit is divided into four topics and each student on the team
is assigned one topic. For teams of five, two students are assigned one topic and
instructed to work together. For three member teams, only three topics are assigned and
the members learn the fourth from another team.
2. Expert Groups Meet - All Topic 1 students meet in one area, Topic 2 students in another
area, Topic 3 students and Topic 4 students. If eight teams exist in the classroom, two
groups of each topic may be formed to reduce the size of the expert groups. A balance of
achievement levels may have advantages for topic groups.
3. Experts Consult - Experts consult and discuss their topic, making certain each group
member understands the information. A variety of strategies for checking for
understanding can be used. For example, work sheets, cross group interviews, dialogue
etc.
4. Experts Create and Practice a Teaching Plan - Expert groups design and practice a plan
for teaching their expertise to team members.

5. Experts Return to Teams to Share and Tutor - Experts take turns sharing their individual
topic expertise with team members.
6. Demonstration of Knowledge - The culminating activity allows individual team members
to demonstrate their knowledge of all topics identified in the unit.

References
Cooperative Learning, Spencer Kagan, Resources for Teachers, Inc., 1992.
The Jigsaw classroom, Elliot Aronson, Official web site for Jigasw Classroom method, website
with instructions at: http://www.jigsaw.org