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.