- Email: [email protected]
Effects of Jigsaw II on Academic Achievement in English Prep Classes
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
Akdeniz Language Studies Conference 2012
Effects of jigsaw II on academic achievement in English prep classes a* a/b
b 14280, Turkey
Abstract The aim of this study is to determine the effects This study was conducted whether jigsaw II has meaningful effects on the academic achievement of English prep Prep classes in an experimental way with 48 students. The experimental and the control group were arranged according to the results of their mid-term and quiz results. After this, the students in the experimental group were divided into the groups of six to initiate the group work. In order to see the effects of technique on their academic achievement, students in the experimental group were asked to learn and teach The Present Perfect Tense, just, yet and already in Jigsaw model, one of the techniques of cooperative learning. The control group, on the other hand, learned the same subject in normal conditions. Both groups took the same exam to see the effects of the study after they learn the subject. The results were analyzed with SPSS 13.0 and the quiz results of the experimental and control group were compared. According to the quiz results, there was significant difference in terms of their academic achievement between the experimental and control group. © 2012 Authors.by Published Elsevier Ltd. and/or peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012 2012The Published ElsevierbyLtd. Selection Selection and peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012 Keywords: Cooperative learning; Jigsaw II; Academic Achievement; English Prep Classes
1. Introduction In traditional ELT classrooms, students with their limited English proficiency receive less teacher and peer communication, and communication at a lower linguistic and cognitive level (Long 1980, SchinekeLlano 1983). Instead of the traditional learning methods focusing on individual and passive learning, the current trends in learning have put the learner in the center believing they are responsible for their
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-507-942-0740; fax: +90-374-253-4659 E-mail address: [email protected].
1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012 doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.236
1652
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
learning and should take part in the learning process actively. The traditional teaching methods have always focused on the lecture-based methods in which the students are passive recipients of knowledge. But in recent years there has been a noticeable shift towards more student-centered activities (Davis & Wilcock 2005). These modern approaches and studies assert that the student is not a passive listener; on the contrary, the one who controls the learning and takes part in this process actively. Individualized learning practices have been applied for many decades at all levels of education, from primary grades to higher education classes. Intellectual ability is considered to be a feature of the individual, according to both cognitive and behaviorist theory. However, in recent years a greater emphasis has been placed on the social development of the individual. Research findings show that social interaction within learning environments has a great effect on cognitive development (Hill & Hill, 1990). Cooperative learning is a student-centered learning method in which students take on the active role (Cooper & Mueck, 1990). Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1998) suggest that cooperation- based learning is -teaching method in which students work in cooperation in small groups (2-4 people) so as to attain their shared learning objectives to the max Johnson (1999) point out that structured cooperation is more effective than individual and competitive environments in learning and transferring the concepts, principles and rules and in assuring permanence in learning. Cooperative learning, requiring students to work together in small, fixed groups on a structured task, is an instructional technique. There are four fundamental components common to all cooperative learning structures (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). First, positive interdependence, or students' perception that they achieve or fail together, must be present. Goal, task, and/or role interdependence achieves this component (Slavin, 1983). Teams of approximately four individuals are most effectively chosen by the instructor (Bohlmeyer & Burke, 1987). This encourages heterogeneity of ability, gender, and race. Next, face-to-face interaction among students must take place, involving verbal interchanges such as talking aloud, challenging one another's points of view, and focusing on the problem-solving process rather than the answer. Then, individual accountability must exist, with every group member accountable to learn all required material. Finally, the structure builds in interpersonal and small group skill building. In this study, the Jigsaw II technique, one of the techniques of cooperative learning, is used. According (1986) made some changes i provides students with the opportunity to be actively involved with the learning process. With multiple exposures to this method, students should feel more comfortable with their roles. Some type of evaluation of the cooperative group could increase its effectiveness by adding accountability to each individual for Although the Jigsaw approach has been flexible in its application, all learners working in small groups must understand that mutual trust is required in this approach. Every learner in the group becomes an expert on the topic studied and contributes by helping his/her classmates. The name Jigsaw reflects a metaphor that means putting all the pieces a puzzle together to see the whole Picture 2010).
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
In the application of Jigsaw technique, students separate from their own groups and form new groups ther students understand the subject; they make plans about how they can teach the subject to their friends, and prepare a report. Afterwards, they turn to their own groups and teach their imsek, 2007). Finally, the students individually take the exam covering the points they have studied. Through the individual grades, the team grade is constituted (Slavin, 1995) A jigsaw classroom is not a loose, "anything goes" situation. It is highly structured. Interdependence is necessary. It is the element of "required" interdependence among students which makes this a unique learning method, and it is this interdependence that encourages the students to take an active part in their learning. Becoming a teacher, each student becomes a valuable resource for the others. Learning from each other gradually decreases the need to try to outperform each other because one student's learning enhances the performance of the other students instead of inhibiting it, as is usually the case in most competitive, teacher-oriented classrooms. Within this cooperative paradigm the teacher learns to be a facilitating resource person, and shares in the learning and teacher process with the students instead of being the sole resource. Rather than lecturing to the students, the teacher facilitates their mutual learning, in that each student is required to be an active participant and to be responsible for what he learns (Aronson, 1978) To this end, in this study the Jigsaw II Slavin (1986) was integrated into a unit in order to improve the teaching and compare results with those of traditional instruction that has been applied in the unit. Therefore, the present study was guided by the following main research question: Is there a significant difference between Jigsaw II-based instruction and traditional instruction in 2. Method 2.1.Participants The participants of the study who (N=48) were involved in the study which was conducted with -2009 Academic Year in Spring semester. The students were all from the Faculty of Arts and Science maths, physics, and chemistry, which offers an English-medium education. The subjects were selected according to their mid-term results. The number of the each group was 24, sharing the same qualities in terms of department and male-female numbers. Table 1. Mid-term 1 means of the experimental and control groups. N
2.2. Instruments
x
Experiment Group
24
34
Control Group
24
33,13
1653
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
1654
Since this study is an experimental one, the first mid-term and the quizzes which were applied to the beginner groups were used to choose the groups. In order to select the groups, the results of the first midterm were used and the two groups which had the most similar results were chosen. The mid-term was a standardized exam applied by the department of foreign languages. While determining the groups, the number of the students and their exam results were taken into consideration. The means of both groups were almost the same and they were equal in terms of their exam results. The first mid-term was used as a tool to determine the experimental and control groups. This mid-term was a general exam applied to all beginner groups based on the course book they had been studying. The use of English part of this mid-term consisted of three parts: multiple choice with four options, sentence completion and circling the correct answer. The final test was a 50-question-quiz based on the materials they had studied for the Jigsaw II. The quiz was designed by the researcher focusing on the points covered during process. It was consisted of 60 multiple choice questions before the main study. First, a pilot study was carried out with 100 students from Pre-intermediate groups in order to test the reliability of the test. The inconsistency coefficient was found to be 0.78 with KR-20 technique. Ten items were found to be unreliable and extracted from the achievement test. The use of the instruments can be seen in Table 2. Table 2. The use of the instruments on groups. Pre-test
Group name
Technique
Post-test
Mid-term
Experimental
Jigsaw II
Achievement test
Mid-term
Control
Instructional teacher-centered teaching method
Achievement test
2.3. Process There are some practices related to the principles of Jigsaw II taught to the experimental group. The researcher determined the topics and sub-topics taking the number of the participants into consideration. These sub-topics were asked to study by each group in terms of their grades from the mid-term. 2.3.1. Experimental group In order to form the experimental group, the mid-term results were analyzed. Depending on the results homogenous groups of eight were identified having ordering the experimental group in three groups as low, medium and high based on their mid-term results. The same subject was given to all groups. The sub-titles of the Present Perfect were distributed among the members of each group. The groups were formed as A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H. The members in the groups were coded according to the sub-topics as A1, A2, and A3. The topic was divided into three subtopics as 1, 2 and 3. SubThe whole procedure lasted for a week in three sessions. Due to the strict curriculum of the department, extra-curricular activities were limited. Therefore, only one week was allocated for the study. The whole process was started by forming the groups, getting the members with same sub-topics together.
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
In the first session, groups were formed and they were informed about how they should study and what topics and subthe researcher. During the second session, the students formed their expert groups and taught all the points to the group members. The topics were distributed among the students in the way that members with the same code could get the same sub-topic and study the same points (A1, B1, C1, etc), which can be seen in Figure 2. Having finished their teaching and mastered the points, they returned to their home groups and taught their home group members. In the last session, they were given a quiz, testing all the sub-topics based on their teaching experience.
GROUP H1
GROUP A
GROUP G1 MEMBER 1 sub-topic 1 positivenegativequestion forms
MEMBER 2 sub-topic 2 yet, just, already
Fig 1. Example of home groups
MEMBER 3 sub-topic 3 ever-never
GROUP F1
GROUP A1
Sub-topic 1
GROUP E1
GROUP B1
GROUP C1
GROUP D1
Fig. 2. Example of expert groups
2.3.2. Control group Present perfect unit was taught through instructional teacher-centered teaching method. All the theoretical information on all sub-topics were taught by the researcher through using the course book and its exercises as it was done in other beginner groups. At the end of the unit the same quiz was given to the control group. 2.3.4. Data analysis: This study is based on experimental model with post test control group. In post-test control model, there are two groups which are formed unbiased. One of them is the experimental group, and the other one is the control group. Only the post test is applied on these two groups, which means that the evaluation is done after the experiment (Karasar, 2006, p.98).
3. Results
1655
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
1656
In this part, the results of the study are showed. The results of the independent samples test results of the study are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.Group statistics. Tests
Groups
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Post-test
Experimental
24
38,58
7,27
Control
24
28,87
7,37
t
p*
4.58
.000
* (P<0.05)
The table shows that the mean of the experiment group is 38,5833, and the mean of the control group is 28,8750. Thus, it can be seen that the mean of the experiment group is much higher than that of the control group. The results indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between experimental and control groups (t: 4,58 and p:0,000). 4. Discussion The findings of the study and interpretations on these findings are given here. According to the study, the following results were found: 1. 2.
There was a significant difference between the experiment and control groups in terms of using this technique. The Jigsaw II has a meaningful effect on the academic achievement of students.
As it is seen, there is a statistically significant difference between control and experimental groups in terms of their academic achievement. Having shared the responsibility and teaching points, the students took all the risks and successfully dealt with the subject. Therefore, taking active part in learning created a more fruitful learning environment. ) states the reason why the students in the Jigsaw group had higher scores than those in the control group can be attributed to the fact that students in the cooperative (Jigsaw II) group completely learn their subject topics by fulfilling their individual responsibilities, try to make their friends understand the topic, have effective interactions with their friends, and are all actively involved in the process. These findings are in parallel with the other findings in literature (Ernst and Byra, 1998; Wilson, -Longueville et al., 2002; Johnson and Ward, 2001; Barrett, 2005; Ward and It can be asserted that being both a teacher and a student helped students develop a better interaction and actively participate in the process. According to Slavin (1996), motivational perspectives on cooperative learning focus primarily on the reward or goal structures under which students operate. From a motivationalist perspective, cooperative incentive structures create a situation in which the only way group members can attain their own personal goals is if the group is successful. Therefore, the students feel dependent on each other, which creates an atmosphere of real-world-like situations where people
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
have to work as a team. As Slavin (1996) expresses one main purpose of the task specialization used in Jigsaw II mutual aim. Thus, this technique should be considered to be used from the beginning of the semester for foreign language teaching in order to enhance learning through encouraging team- work. One of the most significant features of cooperative learning is that it enhances and improves group and team work which creates productive environment in the class. This study focused on Jigsaw II and the that should be provided for small groups for cooperative learning to be more effective. This is in parallel the topics during expert group studies. In addition, they could completely understand the topic and when they returned to their groups they did not have any difficulty in teaching it to their friends. students learn English more effectively. Many researchers have shown the effectiveness and flexibility of language classes is essential for students to use the target language communicatively (Mirici 2005). -learning process. Therefore, the pair and group activities in an English lesson should be arranged in accordance with this technique. Due to the limited time allocated for the research, the study could not be continued for a semester. In a longterm study, this technique might be used for a semester to get better classroom learning environment. For this reason, in a further study, Jigsaw II-based instruction might be implemented for a longer time to obtain more statistical results. According to the results, it can be asserted that Jigsaw II has positive results in teaching outcomes.
References
Bilimleri Kongresi, 187-201. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Barrett T (2005). Effects of Cooperative Learning on The Performance of Sixth- Grade Physical Education Students, J. Teach. Phy. Educ., 24: 88-102. Cooper, J., & Mueck, R. (1990). Student involvement in learning: Cooperative learning and college instruction. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 1, 68-76. -Longueville F., Gernigon C., Huet M., Cadopi M., & Winnykamen F. (2002). Peer Tutoring in
1657
1658
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
Performance. J. Teach. Phys. Educ., 22: 105-123 Davis, C. and Wilcock, E., Developing, implementing and evaluating case studies in materials science. Eur. J. Engng Edu., 2005, 30, 59 69. (2nd ed., pp. 93-109). Ankara: Pegama Erdem, L., (1993). The difference between cooperative learning method and traditional method in terms of academic achievement in educational sociology course at higher education level. (Unpublished Ernst M., & Byra M (1998). Pairing Learners in the Reciprocal Style of Teaching Influence on Student Skill, Knowledge and Socialization. Phys. Educ., 55: 24-38.
Kuram-Uygulama-
, 476 493. aw II) method in teaching English as . European Journal of
Engineering Education, 32, 613-625. indeki -Uygulama-
, 421 430.
Hill, S. & Hill, T. (1990). The collaborative classroom: A guide to cooperative learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ive Learning and Model Demonstration Stragies on Motor Proc. Nat. Sci. Council, 2, 255-268. Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. (1999). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning, Allyn & Bacon: Boston. Johnson, D. W. &.Johnson, R. T & Smith, K. A. (1998). Maximizing Interaction Through Cooperative Learning. ASEE Prism, 7. Johnson, M. & Ward, P. Strinki Karasar, N. (2006).
J. Teach. Phys. Educ., 20: 247-263. . (16th ed., text rev.). Ankara: Nobel.
Long, M. H., (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. (Unpublished PhD thesis) University of California, Los Angeles. Lucas, A. C. (2000). Jigsaw Lesson for Operations of Complex Numbers'. PRIMUS (Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies), 10(3): 219-22.
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
Mattingly R.M. & VanSickle R.L. (1991). Cooperative learning and achievement in social studies: Jigsaw II. Soc. Educ., Res. Lib., 55(6): 392. English Teaching Forum, 43, 46 48. (
Pala, A., (1995). Lisans tezi)
Schinke-Llano, L.A., Foreigner talk in content classrooms. In H. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition ( pp. 146-164, 1983). Rowlet, MA: Newbury House. Slavin, R.E. (1996). RESEARCH FOR THE FUTURE Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need to Know. CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 21, 43 69. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning. (2nd ed.). Boston: Ally and Bacon. Slavin, R. E. (1986). Using Student_Team Learning (3rd ed.). Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University. Slavin, R.E.(1983). Cooperative Learning, Longman: NewYork.
Etkisi.(
).
expression course. Educational Research and Reviews, 5, 777-787. Cooperative Learning in Physical Education Achievement, Cognitive Processes and Effects on Social Behaviour. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). Dokuz Eylul University, School of Social Sciences, Izmir. -assisted Learning in Physical Education: A Review of Theory and Ward, P., & J. Teach. Phys. Educ., 24: 205-225. Wilson, S. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport; Abstract of Completed Research.
1659
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
Akdeniz Language Studies Conference 2012
Effects of jigsaw II on academic achievement in English prep classes a* a/b
b 14280, Turkey
Abstract The aim of this study is to determine the effects This study was conducted whether jigsaw II has meaningful effects on the academic achievement of English prep Prep classes in an experimental way with 48 students. The experimental and the control group were arranged according to the results of their mid-term and quiz results. After this, the students in the experimental group were divided into the groups of six to initiate the group work. In order to see the effects of technique on their academic achievement, students in the experimental group were asked to learn and teach The Present Perfect Tense, just, yet and already in Jigsaw model, one of the techniques of cooperative learning. The control group, on the other hand, learned the same subject in normal conditions. Both groups took the same exam to see the effects of the study after they learn the subject. The results were analyzed with SPSS 13.0 and the quiz results of the experimental and control group were compared. According to the quiz results, there was significant difference in terms of their academic achievement between the experimental and control group. © 2012 Authors.by Published Elsevier Ltd. and/or peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012 2012The Published ElsevierbyLtd. Selection Selection and peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012 Keywords: Cooperative learning; Jigsaw II; Academic Achievement; English Prep Classes
1. Introduction In traditional ELT classrooms, students with their limited English proficiency receive less teacher and peer communication, and communication at a lower linguistic and cognitive level (Long 1980, SchinekeLlano 1983). Instead of the traditional learning methods focusing on individual and passive learning, the current trends in learning have put the learner in the center believing they are responsible for their
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-507-942-0740; fax: +90-374-253-4659 E-mail address: [email protected].
1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012 doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.236
1652
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
learning and should take part in the learning process actively. The traditional teaching methods have always focused on the lecture-based methods in which the students are passive recipients of knowledge. But in recent years there has been a noticeable shift towards more student-centered activities (Davis & Wilcock 2005). These modern approaches and studies assert that the student is not a passive listener; on the contrary, the one who controls the learning and takes part in this process actively. Individualized learning practices have been applied for many decades at all levels of education, from primary grades to higher education classes. Intellectual ability is considered to be a feature of the individual, according to both cognitive and behaviorist theory. However, in recent years a greater emphasis has been placed on the social development of the individual. Research findings show that social interaction within learning environments has a great effect on cognitive development (Hill & Hill, 1990). Cooperative learning is a student-centered learning method in which students take on the active role (Cooper & Mueck, 1990). Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1998) suggest that cooperation- based learning is -teaching method in which students work in cooperation in small groups (2-4 people) so as to attain their shared learning objectives to the max Johnson (1999) point out that structured cooperation is more effective than individual and competitive environments in learning and transferring the concepts, principles and rules and in assuring permanence in learning. Cooperative learning, requiring students to work together in small, fixed groups on a structured task, is an instructional technique. There are four fundamental components common to all cooperative learning structures (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). First, positive interdependence, or students' perception that they achieve or fail together, must be present. Goal, task, and/or role interdependence achieves this component (Slavin, 1983). Teams of approximately four individuals are most effectively chosen by the instructor (Bohlmeyer & Burke, 1987). This encourages heterogeneity of ability, gender, and race. Next, face-to-face interaction among students must take place, involving verbal interchanges such as talking aloud, challenging one another's points of view, and focusing on the problem-solving process rather than the answer. Then, individual accountability must exist, with every group member accountable to learn all required material. Finally, the structure builds in interpersonal and small group skill building. In this study, the Jigsaw II technique, one of the techniques of cooperative learning, is used. According (1986) made some changes i provides students with the opportunity to be actively involved with the learning process. With multiple exposures to this method, students should feel more comfortable with their roles. Some type of evaluation of the cooperative group could increase its effectiveness by adding accountability to each individual for Although the Jigsaw approach has been flexible in its application, all learners working in small groups must understand that mutual trust is required in this approach. Every learner in the group becomes an expert on the topic studied and contributes by helping his/her classmates. The name Jigsaw reflects a metaphor that means putting all the pieces a puzzle together to see the whole Picture 2010).
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
In the application of Jigsaw technique, students separate from their own groups and form new groups ther students understand the subject; they make plans about how they can teach the subject to their friends, and prepare a report. Afterwards, they turn to their own groups and teach their imsek, 2007). Finally, the students individually take the exam covering the points they have studied. Through the individual grades, the team grade is constituted (Slavin, 1995) A jigsaw classroom is not a loose, "anything goes" situation. It is highly structured. Interdependence is necessary. It is the element of "required" interdependence among students which makes this a unique learning method, and it is this interdependence that encourages the students to take an active part in their learning. Becoming a teacher, each student becomes a valuable resource for the others. Learning from each other gradually decreases the need to try to outperform each other because one student's learning enhances the performance of the other students instead of inhibiting it, as is usually the case in most competitive, teacher-oriented classrooms. Within this cooperative paradigm the teacher learns to be a facilitating resource person, and shares in the learning and teacher process with the students instead of being the sole resource. Rather than lecturing to the students, the teacher facilitates their mutual learning, in that each student is required to be an active participant and to be responsible for what he learns (Aronson, 1978) To this end, in this study the Jigsaw II Slavin (1986) was integrated into a unit in order to improve the teaching and compare results with those of traditional instruction that has been applied in the unit. Therefore, the present study was guided by the following main research question: Is there a significant difference between Jigsaw II-based instruction and traditional instruction in 2. Method 2.1.Participants The participants of the study who (N=48) were involved in the study which was conducted with -2009 Academic Year in Spring semester. The students were all from the Faculty of Arts and Science maths, physics, and chemistry, which offers an English-medium education. The subjects were selected according to their mid-term results. The number of the each group was 24, sharing the same qualities in terms of department and male-female numbers. Table 1. Mid-term 1 means of the experimental and control groups. N
2.2. Instruments
x
Experiment Group
24
34
Control Group
24
33,13
1653
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
1654
Since this study is an experimental one, the first mid-term and the quizzes which were applied to the beginner groups were used to choose the groups. In order to select the groups, the results of the first midterm were used and the two groups which had the most similar results were chosen. The mid-term was a standardized exam applied by the department of foreign languages. While determining the groups, the number of the students and their exam results were taken into consideration. The means of both groups were almost the same and they were equal in terms of their exam results. The first mid-term was used as a tool to determine the experimental and control groups. This mid-term was a general exam applied to all beginner groups based on the course book they had been studying. The use of English part of this mid-term consisted of three parts: multiple choice with four options, sentence completion and circling the correct answer. The final test was a 50-question-quiz based on the materials they had studied for the Jigsaw II. The quiz was designed by the researcher focusing on the points covered during process. It was consisted of 60 multiple choice questions before the main study. First, a pilot study was carried out with 100 students from Pre-intermediate groups in order to test the reliability of the test. The inconsistency coefficient was found to be 0.78 with KR-20 technique. Ten items were found to be unreliable and extracted from the achievement test. The use of the instruments can be seen in Table 2. Table 2. The use of the instruments on groups. Pre-test
Group name
Technique
Post-test
Mid-term
Experimental
Jigsaw II
Achievement test
Mid-term
Control
Instructional teacher-centered teaching method
Achievement test
2.3. Process There are some practices related to the principles of Jigsaw II taught to the experimental group. The researcher determined the topics and sub-topics taking the number of the participants into consideration. These sub-topics were asked to study by each group in terms of their grades from the mid-term. 2.3.1. Experimental group In order to form the experimental group, the mid-term results were analyzed. Depending on the results homogenous groups of eight were identified having ordering the experimental group in three groups as low, medium and high based on their mid-term results. The same subject was given to all groups. The sub-titles of the Present Perfect were distributed among the members of each group. The groups were formed as A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H. The members in the groups were coded according to the sub-topics as A1, A2, and A3. The topic was divided into three subtopics as 1, 2 and 3. SubThe whole procedure lasted for a week in three sessions. Due to the strict curriculum of the department, extra-curricular activities were limited. Therefore, only one week was allocated for the study. The whole process was started by forming the groups, getting the members with same sub-topics together.
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
In the first session, groups were formed and they were informed about how they should study and what topics and subthe researcher. During the second session, the students formed their expert groups and taught all the points to the group members. The topics were distributed among the students in the way that members with the same code could get the same sub-topic and study the same points (A1, B1, C1, etc), which can be seen in Figure 2. Having finished their teaching and mastered the points, they returned to their home groups and taught their home group members. In the last session, they were given a quiz, testing all the sub-topics based on their teaching experience.
GROUP H1
GROUP A
GROUP G1 MEMBER 1 sub-topic 1 positivenegativequestion forms
MEMBER 2 sub-topic 2 yet, just, already
Fig 1. Example of home groups
MEMBER 3 sub-topic 3 ever-never
GROUP F1
GROUP A1
Sub-topic 1
GROUP E1
GROUP B1
GROUP C1
GROUP D1
Fig. 2. Example of expert groups
2.3.2. Control group Present perfect unit was taught through instructional teacher-centered teaching method. All the theoretical information on all sub-topics were taught by the researcher through using the course book and its exercises as it was done in other beginner groups. At the end of the unit the same quiz was given to the control group. 2.3.4. Data analysis: This study is based on experimental model with post test control group. In post-test control model, there are two groups which are formed unbiased. One of them is the experimental group, and the other one is the control group. Only the post test is applied on these two groups, which means that the evaluation is done after the experiment (Karasar, 2006, p.98).
3. Results
1655
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
1656
In this part, the results of the study are showed. The results of the independent samples test results of the study are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.Group statistics. Tests
Groups
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Post-test
Experimental
24
38,58
7,27
Control
24
28,87
7,37
t
p*
4.58
.000
* (P<0.05)
The table shows that the mean of the experiment group is 38,5833, and the mean of the control group is 28,8750. Thus, it can be seen that the mean of the experiment group is much higher than that of the control group. The results indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between experimental and control groups (t: 4,58 and p:0,000). 4. Discussion The findings of the study and interpretations on these findings are given here. According to the study, the following results were found: 1. 2.
There was a significant difference between the experiment and control groups in terms of using this technique. The Jigsaw II has a meaningful effect on the academic achievement of students.
As it is seen, there is a statistically significant difference between control and experimental groups in terms of their academic achievement. Having shared the responsibility and teaching points, the students took all the risks and successfully dealt with the subject. Therefore, taking active part in learning created a more fruitful learning environment. ) states the reason why the students in the Jigsaw group had higher scores than those in the control group can be attributed to the fact that students in the cooperative (Jigsaw II) group completely learn their subject topics by fulfilling their individual responsibilities, try to make their friends understand the topic, have effective interactions with their friends, and are all actively involved in the process. These findings are in parallel with the other findings in literature (Ernst and Byra, 1998; Wilson, -Longueville et al., 2002; Johnson and Ward, 2001; Barrett, 2005; Ward and It can be asserted that being both a teacher and a student helped students develop a better interaction and actively participate in the process. According to Slavin (1996), motivational perspectives on cooperative learning focus primarily on the reward or goal structures under which students operate. From a motivationalist perspective, cooperative incentive structures create a situation in which the only way group members can attain their own personal goals is if the group is successful. Therefore, the students feel dependent on each other, which creates an atmosphere of real-world-like situations where people
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
have to work as a team. As Slavin (1996) expresses one main purpose of the task specialization used in Jigsaw II mutual aim. Thus, this technique should be considered to be used from the beginning of the semester for foreign language teaching in order to enhance learning through encouraging team- work. One of the most significant features of cooperative learning is that it enhances and improves group and team work which creates productive environment in the class. This study focused on Jigsaw II and the that should be provided for small groups for cooperative learning to be more effective. This is in parallel the topics during expert group studies. In addition, they could completely understand the topic and when they returned to their groups they did not have any difficulty in teaching it to their friends. students learn English more effectively. Many researchers have shown the effectiveness and flexibility of language classes is essential for students to use the target language communicatively (Mirici 2005). -learning process. Therefore, the pair and group activities in an English lesson should be arranged in accordance with this technique. Due to the limited time allocated for the research, the study could not be continued for a semester. In a longterm study, this technique might be used for a semester to get better classroom learning environment. For this reason, in a further study, Jigsaw II-based instruction might be implemented for a longer time to obtain more statistical results. According to the results, it can be asserted that Jigsaw II has positive results in teaching outcomes.
References
Bilimleri Kongresi, 187-201. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Barrett T (2005). Effects of Cooperative Learning on The Performance of Sixth- Grade Physical Education Students, J. Teach. Phy. Educ., 24: 88-102. Cooper, J., & Mueck, R. (1990). Student involvement in learning: Cooperative learning and college instruction. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 1, 68-76. -Longueville F., Gernigon C., Huet M., Cadopi M., & Winnykamen F. (2002). Peer Tutoring in
1657
1658
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
Performance. J. Teach. Phys. Educ., 22: 105-123 Davis, C. and Wilcock, E., Developing, implementing and evaluating case studies in materials science. Eur. J. Engng Edu., 2005, 30, 59 69. (2nd ed., pp. 93-109). Ankara: Pegama Erdem, L., (1993). The difference between cooperative learning method and traditional method in terms of academic achievement in educational sociology course at higher education level. (Unpublished Ernst M., & Byra M (1998). Pairing Learners in the Reciprocal Style of Teaching Influence on Student Skill, Knowledge and Socialization. Phys. Educ., 55: 24-38.
Kuram-Uygulama-
, 476 493. aw II) method in teaching English as . European Journal of
Engineering Education, 32, 613-625. indeki -Uygulama-
, 421 430.
Hill, S. & Hill, T. (1990). The collaborative classroom: A guide to cooperative learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ive Learning and Model Demonstration Stragies on Motor Proc. Nat. Sci. Council, 2, 255-268. Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. (1999). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning, Allyn & Bacon: Boston. Johnson, D. W. &.Johnson, R. T & Smith, K. A. (1998). Maximizing Interaction Through Cooperative Learning. ASEE Prism, 7. Johnson, M. & Ward, P. Strinki Karasar, N. (2006).
J. Teach. Phys. Educ., 20: 247-263. . (16th ed., text rev.). Ankara: Nobel.
Long, M. H., (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. (Unpublished PhD thesis) University of California, Los Angeles. Lucas, A. C. (2000). Jigsaw Lesson for Operations of Complex Numbers'. PRIMUS (Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies), 10(3): 219-22.
Hüseyin Evcim and Ömer Faruk İpek / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1651 – 1659
Mattingly R.M. & VanSickle R.L. (1991). Cooperative learning and achievement in social studies: Jigsaw II. Soc. Educ., Res. Lib., 55(6): 392. English Teaching Forum, 43, 46 48. (
Pala, A., (1995). Lisans tezi)
Schinke-Llano, L.A., Foreigner talk in content classrooms. In H. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition ( pp. 146-164, 1983). Rowlet, MA: Newbury House. Slavin, R.E. (1996). RESEARCH FOR THE FUTURE Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need to Know. CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 21, 43 69. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning. (2nd ed.). Boston: Ally and Bacon. Slavin, R. E. (1986). Using Student_Team Learning (3rd ed.). Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University. Slavin, R.E.(1983). Cooperative Learning, Longman: NewYork.
Etkisi.(
).
expression course. Educational Research and Reviews, 5, 777-787. Cooperative Learning in Physical Education Achievement, Cognitive Processes and Effects on Social Behaviour. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). Dokuz Eylul University, School of Social Sciences, Izmir. -assisted Learning in Physical Education: A Review of Theory and Ward, P., & J. Teach. Phys. Educ., 24: 205-225. Wilson, S. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport; Abstract of Completed Research.
1659