Cooperative learning in third graders' jigsaw groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning training
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9616477 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Elmar Souvignier (0000-0001-7962-7428, Goethe University Frankfurt), Julia Kronenberger (Goethe University Frankfurt) |
| Year | 2007 |
| Volume | 77 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 755-771 |
| Publication date | 2007-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | British Journal of Educational Psychology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0007-0998 • E-ISSN: 2044-8279 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1348/000709906x173297 |
| PMID | 17535507 |
| OpenAlex | W2081356178 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 21 |
Background. There is much support for using cooperative methods, since important instructional aspects, such as elaboration of new information, can easily be realized by methods like ‘jigsaw’. However, the impact of providing students with additional help like a questioning training and potential limitations of the method concerning the (minimum) age of the students have rarely been investigated. Aims. The study investigated the effects of cooperative methods at elementary school level. Three conditions of instruction were compared: jigsaw, jigsaw with a supplementary questioning training and teacher‐guided instruction. Sample. Nine third grade classes from three schools with 208 students participated in the study. In each school, all the three instructional conditions were realized in three different classes. Method. All classes studied three units on geometry and one unit on astronomy using the assigned instructional method. Each learning unit comprised six lessons. For each unit, an achievement test was administered as pre‐test, post‐test and delayed test. Results. In the math units, no differences between the three conditions could be detected. In the astronomy unit, students benefited more from teacher‐guided instruction. Differential analyses revealed that ‘experts’ learned more than students in teacher‐guided instruction, whereas ‘novices’ were outperformed by the students in the control classes. Conclusions. Even third graders used the jigsaw method with satisfactory learning results. The modest impact of the questioning training and the low learning gains of the cooperative classes in the astronomy unit as well as high discrepancies between learning outcomes of experts and novices show that explicit instruction of explaining skills in combination with well‐structured material are key issues in using the jigsaw method with younger students
Achievement test · Cooperative learning · Jigsaw · Mathematics education · Standardized test · Teaching method · Test (biology) · Unit (ring theory) · Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods · Psychology · Science Education and Pedagogy · Various Chemistry Research Topics
A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings?
Do jigsaw classrooms improve learning outcomes? Five experiments and an internal meta-analysis
Comparing Dynamic Versus Pre‐Planned Combinations of Individual and Collaborative Learning in a Classroom Experiment
Learning With Jigsaw
Short- and long-term outreach at the zoo
Restructuring the Classroom
Teaching Students to Generate Questions
Peer interaction and learning in small groups
Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students
Question Asking During Tutoring
Task Talk and Task Awareness Under Different Cooperative Learning Conditions
When the Problem Is Not the Question and the Solution Is Not the Answer
Guiding Knowledge Construction in the Classroom
The Cooperative Elementary School
The effect of peer collaboration on children's problem-solving ability
"How we should measure "change
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,38 |
| Citation span | 2013 - 2026 (14) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |