Using the Jigsaw Method of Cooperative Learning to Teach from Primary Sources

by: Joan Maloof

Introduction

Using cooperative learning techniques in the college classroom increases students’ mastery of course content, use of higher-level reasoning skills, enjoyment of the learning process, and social skills (Cooper and Mueck 1990, Johnson and Johnson 1991, Lord 2001). Research shows that the retention and achievement of minority students increases when cooperative learning techniques are used (Posner and Markstein 1994, Treisman 1985). Despite its proven advantages, and its frequent use in the elementary and secondary classroom, cooperative learning has been used less often in the college classroom.

One reason for this disparity is that elementary and secondary teachers have usually studied various educational techniques — including cooperative learning — as part of their undergraduate or graduate education. College teachers, however, must have the time and the initiative to learn about cooperative techniques on their own. Consequently, they often attempt cooperative learning by merely having students “work together in groups.” Students are seldom given explicit directions and practice with the type of skills necessary for effective group work, and often the group time is not formally structured. Attempts of this nature are usually unsuccessful.

In this paper I will describe a successful cooperative learning technique called the “jigsaw”. The jigsaw technique was first introduced by Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp (1978) for use in the K-12 classroom. It was later modified by Slavin (1991), and described as jigsaw II. Clarke (1994) also described various approaches to the jigsaw method. Here I describe the jigsaw method I use, which works in the college classroom. The jigsaw method can be used with any written material, but I have found it especially useful in aiding students’ comprehension of readings from the primary literature.

Primary Sources and Course Design

In almost every field of study journal articles, also called primary sources, contain the detailed reports of new methods and discoveries. Textbooks often contain simplified summaries of the research, and students are familiar, and comfortable, with textbooks, but for a person to be truly competent in a field of study they must be adept at finding and comprehending articles from primary sources. Therefore, it is the goal of many college teachers to introduce their advanced undergraduates to the primary sources. When students are unfamiliar with reading from primary sources, however, the initial assignments can be frustrating for both student and teacher. By using the jigsaw technique to teach from primary sources, students can gain a deeper understanding of the readings and while having a more positive experience.

I used the jigsaw method in two sections of a course called Scientific Knowledge (one section of 16 students and another section of 24 students, all sophomores or juniors). The course was one of four required for graduation with Honors. There was wide variation in the science backgrounds of these students; some students were science majors, and others only had one or two previous science courses. The objective of the course was to introduce the skills necessary to think, design experiments, write, and read, like a scientist. Being comfortable reading and comprehending the primary scientific literature was a key component of the course.

The course opened with discussions about what sorts of questions science can answer, and methods of designing experiments, collecting data, and using statistics to analyze results. For this part of the course we used A Handbook of Biological Investigation (Ambrose and Ambrose 1995) as a reference text. First alone, then in pairs, and finally in teams of four, students designed and completed “mini-experiments.” Using this approach students had an opportunity to become familiar with other class members before they were assigned to their permanent teams. The permanent teams contained five students each.

E.O. Wilson’s Consilience (1998) was the second text for the course. In this book Wilson reaches conclusions by drawing on results from experiments in many different scientific disciplines. By having students read papers related to selected chapters, I hoped that they would not only become practiced reading primary sources, but they would also understand the level of effort and detail needed for the advancement of scientific knowledge.

At first I assumed that I would have to find the supplemental journal articles myself. Then I realized that the very process of finding a journal article on a specific subject was itself an important part of scientific knowledge. Consequently, I listed the topics discussed in selected chapters (Appendix 1) and asked that each student find a journal article, on one of the listed topics, from each chapter. Students were not required to understand the articles they found, they were simply required to copy them and turn them in. This was done early in the semester and most students were able to accomplish the task with little difficulty. (Of course the size and quality of the library has a bearing on the difficulty level of this assignment — yet another lesson in scientific knowledge!)

Using the Jigsaw Method

From all the journal articles handed in for each chapter, I selected one to be copied and distributed to all students. (See Appendix 1 for a list of the selected articles.) Before copying the article, I divided it into four sections and labeled each of the sections in the margin. Articles were commonly divided into sections as follows:

1. abstract and introduction
   
   
2. materials and methods
   
   
3. results
   
   
4. discussion

Following our class discussion on the relevant chapter in the text, I gave each student a copy of the selected journal article and presented a brief lesson on any biology or terminology necessary to understand the paper. The five-person teams then decided who was to be the “expert” for each section (explained below). Some teams liked to permanently assign experts for each section, and other teams liked to rotate assigned sections. There were four sections to each paper, and five experts on each team.

This overlap allowed for flexibility in attendance. If a student knew in advance that they might not be in attendance for the next class they could alert their teammates to have them be the extra person assigned to a topic. Leaving the decision of “expert assignments” to the student teams worked very well. I believe that in the college classroom it is best to allow the students maximum flexibility within the necessary structure. This not only lets them “own” the process — leading to greater responsibility and less resentment — but it makes things simpler for the teacher as well. (A major consideration!) All students were expected to read the entire paper, outside of class, paying special attention to the section on which they were the expert.

When students arrived for the next class they met with students from different teams who were experts on the same section that they were. These experts were expected to thoroughly understand their section, and, by consensus, to arrive at four major points from that section. Formulating this list of points helped the group focus and use their time productively. It was encouraging to see the students “digging deep” to understand the material and to explain things to each other. Every individual was aware that soon they would be returning to their team and would be responsible for helping their team understand the content of that section. During this process, which took about fifteen minutes, I was available to assist any groups that had a question about the reading, or that needed guidance in working as a group.

Communication, Accountability and Knowledge

When the expert groups were finished with their sections they turned in a copy of their four major points to me, and they returned to their permanent teams to teach their teammates about that section. Again, it was a pleasure to watch each expert, in turn, teaching their teammates and answering questions. Even if students were naturally quiet, and did not take a leadership role in their meeting with the other experts, once they returned to their home team they had critical information that the group depended on them to share. By using this technique even quiet students had to communicate to the team. Although this may be challenging for introverted students, it is less intimidating than speaking in front of the entire class.

All students were fully aware that there would be a quiz on the reading at the end of the class period. The upcoming quiz helped keep them on task. Most teams were finished with their reviews after twenty minutes.

Quizzes were given while students were still sitting with their teams. I frequently asked a question about the main hypothesis being tested, a question about the methodology, and a question about the results. Often I asked questions about the graphs or the tables, encouraging students to pay attention to those critical components in scientific writing. I also asked questions about how the paper related to our text. Individual accountability is an important component of cooperative learning, therefore each student had to complete and turn in his or her own quiz, which was then individually graded.

Having frequent quizzes instead of infrequent major exams reduced the test taking anxiety experienced by some students. I found that using the jigsaw method also dramatically improved attendance. Students didn’t want to miss a class in which the journal article was handed out, they didn’t want to disappoint teammates by not being available as an expert on their section, and, finally, they did not want to miss the points from the quiz.

Summary

To me, the real beauty of the jigsaw method is that each individual begins with a paper that is, by their admission, foreign and confusing. Most likely the paper is from a journal they have never seen, and it is written for professionals in an unfamiliar specialty. Students arrive in class having read the paper, but with no self-confidence about their real understanding of it. After the students have met with the other experts, however, and after they have discussed the paper with their teammates, there is a feeling of understanding and confidence in the room.

Of the 37 students who evaluated the course on a 5-point Likert scale:

• 76% rated the jigsaw method as more effective than traditional college instruction, for understanding the content of the journal articles
  
  
• 84% rated the jigsaw method as more effective than reading on their own, for understanding the content of the journal articles
  
  
• 84% rated the interactions with their classmates as having a higher quality when using the jigsaw method, compared to traditional college instruction
  
  
• 84% rated the jigsaw method as more enjoyable than traditional college instruction
  
  
• 73% would prefer the jigsaw method if they took another course in which many of the readings were from the primary literature

The magic of this approach is that they have done it themselves. Other than defining a few of the terms when I hand out the paper, I do not discuss the paper at all. Students cannot be passive learners and wait to hear what I say about the paper; they must actively seek an understanding, and using the jigsaw approach they are successful in doing so. I think the most important lessons from this technique do not come from the content of the papers. The most important lessons here are that even difficult material can be learned without a teacher, and that reading and comprehending articles from primary sources may require extra time and attention.

Appendix A

References

Brunner, H. G., Nelen, N., Breakefield, X. O., Ropers, H. H. & van Oost, B. A. (1993). Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science, Vol. 262, 578-580.

Johnston, V. S. & Oliver-Rodriguez, J. C. (1997). Facial beauty and the late positive component of event-related potentials. The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 34, No. 2, 188-189.

Lawrie, S. M., Whalley, H., Kestelman, J. N., Abukmeil, S. S., Byrne, M., Hodges, A., Rimmington, J. E., Best, J. J. K., Owens, D. G. C., & Johnstone, E. C. (1999). Magnetic resonance imaging of brain in people at high risk of developing schizophrenia. The Lancet, Vol. 353, 30 - 33.

Masataka, N. (1993). Effects of experience with live insects on the development of fear of snakes in squirrel monkeys, Saimiri sciureus. Animal Behaviour, Vol. 46, 741 - 746.

Rudan, I. (1999). Inbreeding and cancer incidence in human isolates. Human Biology, Vol. 71, No. 2, 173-187.

Watt, M. C., Evans, S. & Joss, J. M. P. (1999). Use of electroreception during foraging by the Australian lungfish. Animal Behaviour, Vol. 58, 1039 - 1045.

Watts, C. R. & Stokes, A. W. (1971). The Social Life of Turkeys. In, E. O. Wilson, ed. Ecology, Evolution and Population Biology. pp 48-54. 1974. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.

References

Ambrose, H. & Ambrose, K. (1995). A Handbook of Biological Investigation. 5th ed. Hunter Textbooks Inc., Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Sage. Beverly Hills, California.

Brunner, H. G., Nelen, N., Breakefield, X. O., Ropers, H. H. & van Oost, B. A. (1993). Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science, Vol. 262, 578-580.

Clarke, J. (1994). Pieces of the puzzle: the jigsaw method. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 34-50). Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.

Cooper, J. & Mueck, R. (1990). Student involvement in learning: cooperative learning and college instruction. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, Vol.1, 68-76.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Active learning: cooperation in the college classroom. Interaction Book Company, Edna, Minessota.

Johnston, V. S. & Oliver-Rodriguez, J. C. (1997). Facial beauty and the late positive component of event-related potentials. The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 34, No. 2, 188-189.

Lawrie, S. M., Whalley, H., Kestelman, J. N., Abukmeil, S. S., Byrne, M., Hodges, A., Rimmington, J. E., Best, J. J. K., Owens, D. G. C., & Johnstone, E. C. (1999). Magnetic resonance imaging of brain in people at high risk of developing schizophrenia. The Lancet, Vol. 353, 30 - 33.

Lord, T. R. (2001). 101 Reasons for using cooperative learning in biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 63, No. 1, 30 - 38.

Masataka, N. (1993). Effects of experience with live insects on the development of fear of snakes in squirrel monkeys, Saimiri sciureus. Animal Behaviour, Vol. 46, 741 - 746.

Posner, H. & Markstein, J. (1994). Cooperative learning in introductory cell and molecular biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 23, No. 4, 231-233.

Rudan, I. (1999). Inbreeding and cancer incidence in human isolates. Human Biology, Vol. 71, No. 2, 173-187.

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Student team learning: a practical guide to cooperative learning. 3rd ed., National Education Association. Washington, D. C.

Treisman, P. (1990). A study of the mathematics performance of black students at the University of California, Berkeley. In Fisher et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Mathematicians and Education Reform Network NSF Workshop (pp. 33-46). American Mathematics Society.

Watt, M. C., Evans, S. & Joss, J. M. P. (1999). Use of electroreception during foraging by the Australian lungfish. Animal Behaviour, Vol. 58, 1039 - 1045.

Watts, C. R. & Stokes, A. W. (1971). The Social Life of Turkeys. In, E. O. Wilson, ed. Ecology, Evolution and Population Biology. pp 48-54. 1974. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.

Wilson, E. O., (1998). Consilience. Vintage Books, New York.