7/28/2019 39. Jigsaw
1/3
195
Jigsaw Classroom
David V. Perkins and Michael J. Tagler
Ball State University
An ever-present challenge in college teaching is
student diversity - not just in race and ethnicity but
also with respect to motivation and ability to master
course material. Another challenge is the relatively
limited opportunity instructors have to make a direct
impact on student learning, typically less than three
hours per week for a given course.One strategy that addresses both challenges is
promotion of active engagement of students in
learning the course material. Some instructors are
charismatic, and for others the course subject matter
(sex or drugs, for example) is enough to attract andhold student interest. Fortunately, those of us who are
charisma-challenged, or teach subjects that lack
intrinsic appeal, have another option at our disposal.
We can promote engagement by changing the
structure and process of what happens during class
time, i.e., by reorganizing the classroom as a settingfor learning.
This chapter presents a technique for this
purpose known as the jigsaw classroom (Aronson &
Patnoe, 1997). After describing the origins of this
approach, we explain its implementation and provide
brief examples of its use in college level psychology
courses. In addition, we discuss a conceptual
foundation that supports its effectiveness and offer
some cautions for those interested in using the jigsaw
method.
Background and Description
of the Jigsaw Classroom
Elliot Aronson devised the jigsaw classroom in
1971 to address ethnic tensions in the recently
desegregated Austin, Texas public schools (Aronson,
2008; Aronson & Patnoe, 1997). Aronson and his
students hypothesized that one contributor to
prejudice among students is the traditional teacher-
focused and competitive learning environment. In thetypical classroom, students learn that the teacher is
the only expert and that few, if any, academicbenefits are gained from helping, respecting, or
encouraging others. To change these conditions,
Aronson created the jigsaw classroom as a situation
of mutual interdependence, where cooperation is
required to earn an individual goal: good grades.
Much like a puzzle piece, each student has a unique
role, that when combined with the roles of other
students fully completes an assignment. Students
learn that success results only if they listen carefully
to each other, ask good questions, provide
encouragement, and demonstrate general respect for
each other. Although Aronson designed the jigsaw
classroom to improve intergroup relations, thetechnique delivered academic benefits as well.
Empirical results from the Austin schools showed
that jigsaw children liked their peers and liked school
more than did children in traditional classrooms, and
that jigsaw children had fewer absences, higher self-esteem and empathy, and better academic
performance (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997).
Implementing the Jigsaw Technique
The jigsaw technique requires a carefully
planned lesson, clearly divided into 3-7
interdependent sub-tasks, effective instructor
facilitation, and, because the students may need time
to adjust to the technique, instructor patience and
commitment. However, once planned it is also a
relatively simple technique to administer, and with
minor adjustments can be successfully implemented
in a range of classes. More thorough descriptions andexamples of the technique are available elsewhere
(Aronson, 2008; Aronson & Patnoe, 1997). However,
almost all the existing literature concerns pre-college
settings, so the suggestion and examples we provide
here focus on successfully applying the technique in
college courses.
Design of the Lesson
Aronson (n.d.) found that jigsaw works best
with material that is notconceptually novel (requiring
students to use skills they have not yet learned) (p.25). In other words, the technique is more likely to
succeed if used to practice, review, and apply skills
that have been already covered to some degree. The
tasks must be carefully divided into coherent parts
that, when examined on their own, include enough
information that each is understandable without the
other parts. However, much like a jigsaw puzzle,
each piece must also be necessary, such that when
combined they create a unified whole (e.g., a
completed ANOVA summary table, a full APA
manuscript). In other words, the task must be
7/28/2019 39. Jigsaw
2/3
196
designed such that individual students succeed only if
they work together.
Assignment to Groups
We recommend having five or six students per
jigsaw group, although as few as three may be
appropriate depending on the size of the class and
how the assignment is divided. The instructor shouldhave group assignments planned in advance, although
attendance uncertainties may require some flexibility.
In larger classrooms random assignment to groupsmay be the most efficient approach, but in smaller
classrooms strategic assignment based on the relevant
individual differences (e.g., gender, ethnicity, ability)
may be necessary to achieve diversity. As described
previously, diversity is an essential component of the
technique when seeking academic and social benefits.
Procedure
Students need time to understand the purpose
and parts of the entire assignment, and then tobecome familiar with their specific pieces. There is
no need for them to memorize, reach full
understanding, or have all their questions answered at
this point. Rather, temporary "expert groups" are
formed, where one student from each jigsaw group
joins the students from other groups who wereassigned the same piece. The instructor should ensure
that the expert groups are not too large (more than six
experts may impair the cooperative nature of the
work). In larger classes, redundant expert groups may
be a solution (e.g., have two or more expert groups
composed of students assigned to compute the
interaction sums of squares for their ANOVA jigsaw
group). Give students in these expert groups time to
discuss the main points of their segment and to
rehearse the presentation they will each make to their
respective jigsaw groups. The instructor should
closely monitor the discussions and group dynamicsof these expert groups, but only intervene minimally
and when necessary to correct misunderstandings and
to address problematic social dynamics. In large
classrooms with many expert/jigsaw groups, teaching
assistants who understand the jigsaw technique will
be needed to monitor the groups.
Returning to the jigsaw group, each student
presents her or his expert-validated segment to the
group. Group members may question and clarify thedetails until every student understands each segment.
To ensure that students take the jigsaw workseriously, the instructor can quiz them on the entire
lesson. For assignments that concern the creation of a
final product (e.g., an APA-style report), the
instructor should assess the performance of both
individual students (on their respective pieces) and
groups (the final product).
Illustrative Examples
As we noted, most of the empirical literature on
the jigsaw technique focuses on pre-college
classrooms, with relatively little published
concerning college students. Here we briefly describe
two exceptions, which also illustrate how the
technique can be particularly effective in courses that
may elicit student apathy and/or resistance. In the
first example, Perkins and Saris (2001) applied the
jigsaw method in undergraduate statistics classes to
deal with disparities in student ability and to increase
engagement. On several occasions during the term,
Perkins and Saris divided a statistics worksheet (on
ANOVA, chi-square, and so on) into complementary,
but independent, steps (e.g., sample size, sum of the
raw scores, sum of the squared raw scores, and sum
of squares). Students with the same step completed it
together in expert groups and then joined otherclassmates to finish the entire worksheet in jigsaw
groups. At the end of the term these students
endorsed several benefits of the jigsaw procedure,including opportunities to give and receive help,
understanding the statistical procedure, and using
class time efficiently. They also performed better on
exams and reported more positive evaluations of the
instructor than did students in other sections of the
course taught by the same instructor.
In the second example, Carroll (1986) applied
features of the jigsaw technique to the creation of an
APA-style research project in a laboratory course.
Over a period of approximately 10 weeks, each
member of a small (maximum four) jigsaw group
completed a key experimental task (e.g., pilot study,
instructions, running subjects, statistical analysis) andlater wrote one section of the research report (e.g.,
introduction, method, results, discussion). Compared
with students conducting individual projects, the
jigsaw students had more positive attitudes toward
the course, were more likely to complete the course
successfully, attempted more challenging research
projects, and participated more often in studentresearch conferences.
Conceptual Basis for Jigsaw Effects
Despite limited empirical support for using
jigsaw techniques in college classrooms, there are
compelling conceptual reasons to believe thatmodifying features of the classroom setting can
increase student engagement. Consider, for example,
Barkers Behavior Setting Theory (BST; Schoggen,
1989). BST proposes that regularly occurring human
activities, such as college classes, have important
regularities, including designated participants,
boundaries of time and place, and an organizedprogram (i.e., a sequence of interdependent actions
7/28/2019 39. Jigsaw
3/3
197
performed by setting participants). This behavioral
program results from occupants performing certain
standing patterns of behavior (so called because
they define the setting regardless of who the
individual participants are).
Furthermore, settings that are underpopulated
(have fewer occupants, but the same roles and
performance obligations, than otherwise comparable
settings) have interesting effects. Research by Barker
and others (Schoggen, 1989) found that
underpopulated settings force members to engage in a
greater variety of actions (e.g., helping another as
well as completing ones own task). All members
(even those with marginal ability) are more valuable
in underpopulated settings, because success depends
on every members contribution. Shortcomings in
what individual participants contribute to the setting
are identified and corrected more quickly. Frequentsocial interaction and more cohesive relationships
also characterize an underpopulated setting, along
with a greater likelihood that members will learnfrom each other and develop leadership skills. These
engaging effects occur more readily with repeated
participation in underpopulated settings.
Returning to the college classroom, we noted
earlier that instructors cannot change who their
students are and have only limited control over the
time and place boundaries of class sessions.
However, instructors have considerable control over
behavior setting programs, and can design these
programs to establish standing behaviors of active
cooperation and engagement rather than passivity and
disengagement. Instructors can intensify these effects
on students by underpopulating the setting using thejigsaw technique. That is, jigsaw arrangements
restructure the classroom from a single setting where
all students share one role having limited
responsibilities (as mere members of the class) to
one where there are any number of subsettings
(jigsaw groups) with every student occupying a
critical role. In Barkers terms, the jigsaw techniqueengages students by elevating every one of them to a
performer role in the setting, with a corresponding
increase in the claims made on each student to do
what is necessary for the setting program to succeed.
LimitationsGiven the sparse literature on college
classrooms, a number of empirical questions aboutthe jigsaw technique remain unanswered. For
example, with the increasing prevalence of online
teaching and learning, how much real-time, face-to-
face interaction within a jigsaw experience is
necessary to obtain the desired effects on engagement
and learning? How frequently should the jigsaw
technique be used (e.g., weekly)? What are the
effects on engagement of using and then withdrawing
the jigsaw method (returning everyone to solitary
learning)?
Other cautions are also worth noting. For
example, the jigsaw method moves the center of
gravity in teaching and learning away from the
instructor and toward the students, altering
temporarily the distribution of power in the setting.
As a result, instructors who opt to use this technique
need to be comfortable with ceding control to
students for a significant portion of class time. In
addition, the interpersonal demands of a jigsaw
experience may not be comfortable for all students,
some of whom may prefer to complete all parts of a
project alone and working at their own pace (Huber,
Sorrentino, Davidson, et al., 1992). On the other
hand, we have often been able to convince suchstudents that one of the most engaging ways to learn
is to teach others, and that mastering leadership and
teamwork skills can be useful in other challenginglearning situations (e.g., business and professional
settings).
Conclusion
Variability in student motivation and ability, and
the built-in constraints of a standard classroom
setting, are challenges that all instructors face.
Aronsons jigsaw classroom promotes student
engagement by changing the classroom setting to one
where success is contingent on active cooperationand engagement and every student is cast in a role
that is critical to success. Use of the jigsaw technique
increases the variety of learning experiences,
supplementing relatively passive experiences like
listening to lecture with in-class collaborations that
students value and from which they learn not just
course content but also cooperative social skills.
References
Aronson, E. (n.d.). Jigsaw Basics. Retrieved July 1, 2010 fromhttp://www.jigsaw.org/pdf/basics.pdf.
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building
cooperation in the classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Addison
Wesley Longman.Aronson, E. (2008). The social animal (10th ed.). New York:
Worth/Freeman.
Carroll, D. W. (1986). Use of the jigsaw technique in laboratoryand discussion classes. Teaching of Psychology, 13, 208-210.
Huber, G. L., Sorrentino, R. M., Davidson, M. A., Epplier, R., &Roth, J. W. H. (1992). Uncertainty orientation and
cooperative learning: Individual differences within and
across cultures.Learning and Individual Differences, 4, 1-24.Perkins, D. V., & Saris, R. (2001). A jigsaw classroom technique
for undergraduate statistics courses. Teaching of Psychology,
28, 111-113.Schoggen, P. (1989). Behavior settings: A revision and extension
of Barkers ecological psychology. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Top Related