The Effectiveness of Using the Jigsaw Technique in

Teaching Cellular Structure among Selected Grade 7

Students of the Laguna College, San Pablo City,
Philippines
Pamela Jean Cacao Salubayba a, Evelie P. Serrano * a, Rowena DT. Baconguis a, and Emely D. Dicolen a
a
University of the Philippines Los Baños

* Corresponding author: Evelie P. Serrano; [email protected]

ABSTRACT
In a collaborative learning environment, students work with their classmates to achieve a
common goal. One technique being used to stimulate collaboration among students is the
Jigsaw technique. The main topic explored for teaching in this study was on “Cellular structure”.
This study aims to compare the knowledge gain of students taught using the Jigsaw technique
and Traditional technique; differentiate the level of engagement of students in using these two
techniques; and analyze students’ attitudes towards learning Cellular Structure using the Jigsaw
technique. It is hypothesized that there is no significant difference in terms of the mean
knowledge gain and student engagement in the Traditional classroom and Jigsaw classroom.
Using experimental research design, data were gathered from Grade 7 students through pre-
and post-test, evaluation questionnaires, and focus group discussion. Students were grouped
into two based on the closeness of their mean first quarter grade. Test results were analyzed
using independent samples t-test. Thematic analysis was conducted to analyze narratives from
the focus group discussion. Overall, the students found the Jigsaw technique to be better than
the traditional method in keeping them engaged. They also noted that the Jigsaw method
offered fun ways to learn the topic. Drawing on from the findings of this study, exploring
collaborative teaching methods in teaching science lessons is highly recommended.

Keywords: collaboration, cooperation, jigsaw classroom, traditional classroom

be in control (International Education Advisory

INTRODUCTION Board, 2008). This means that the students must
have a voice as to why, what, and how learning
For years, there have been some pragmatic experiences develop (McCarthy, 2015).
and theoretical tensions as to which teaching
approach is most likely to yield the best results: Among the 21st century skills that a student must
teacher- or student-centered. In recent years, possess is the ability to collaborate seamless-
the student-centered approach appears to have ly in both physical and virtual spaces, with real
gained following as lecturing, one of the teach- and virtual associates globally. This is important
er-centered methods, starts to be gradually crit- because learners of the digital age are naturally
icized (Nagaraju et al., 2013). Scholars have social. Crockett (2016) observed that students
argued that student-centered approach fits 21st constantly text, post, update, share, chat, and
century learners as these students desire to co-create in technological environments with

Issue No. 7 89
one another. Once the students are unable to (Ansari & Malik, 2013).
do this in school, they tend to be unattached
to their learning. Connection and collaboration A student-centered classroom is a learning
with others are important to their learning as space that focuses on students being in charge
well as to their mental and emotional health. of their own learning. Additionally, in a collab-
Educators must ensure that these 21st century orative and cooperative learning environment,
skills are honed regularly (Crockett, 2016). students work with their classmates to achieve
a shared or common goal. They need to col-
One of the techniques that stimulate collabora- laborate and cooperate with their classmates;
tion among students is the Jigsaw technique. In hence, the Jigsaw technique is a good method
a Jigsaw classroom, the students in the same for cooperative learning (Gravino & Limjuco,
class are divided into 5-6 groups called the Jig- 2012). For younger students (11-13 years old),
saw groups (Aronson, 2014). According to Ar- however, the Jigsaw technique was found to
onson (2014), the lesson for the day is divided be an ineffective cooperative learning method
into segments. Each member of a group is then (Zacharia et al., 2017). This assertion implies
assigned a segment different from the rest. The that there is a need to assess the effectiveness
students are then re-grouped according to the of the Jigsaw technique as a cooperative learn-
segment assigned to them. The new group is ing method for younger students.
designated as the expert group in which each
member has to study and collaborate for the as- Hence, this study aims to: (1) compare the
signed segment. Students from different home knowledge gained by the students in the Jigsaw
teams but with the same assigned learning por- classroom and in the Traditional classroom; (2)
tion meet to discuss and help one another learn differentiate the level of engagement of students
the common material, forming expert groups. in the Jigsaw classroom and in the Traditional
Upon learning their respective assigned seg- classroom; 3) compare the emphasis on intel-
ments, members then return to their Jigsaw lectual activities in the Jigsaw classroom and in
group to teach about their assigned segment. the Traditional classroom; and (4) analyze stu-
Students are given a test individually. Lin (2016) dents’ attitudes toward learning Cellular Struc-
contends that this learning scenario has been ture using the Jigsaw technique.
tested and is proven to have worked in a biology
class. METHODOLOGY
Roles of teachers have significantly changed Locale and Respondents of the Study
in recent years. Aside from conveying con-
tent-based conceptual knowledge, teachers are Grade 7 students under the Regular Curriculum
also expected to deal with 21st century learners of the Laguna College served as the respon-
who are equipped with information and commu- dents of this study. The School was founded
nication-related knowledge and skills (Ansari & in 1923 and is known for being the first private
Malik, 2013). To deal with such type of learners, non-sectarian school in the province of Laguna
teachers must be able to adapt to a dynamic in the Philippines. It offers basic and tertiary ed-
teaching experience. Teachers must trust their ucation.
students and be a risk-taker as they surrender
themselves to the knowledge of their students. There were 260 students in Grade 7 during the
Teachers must use the strengths of their stu- 2017 – 2018 academic year. The students were
dents and have them teach each other (Church- divided into six sections. Class size per section
es, 2008). Hence, 21st century teachers have to ranged from 38 to 46 students. There was a
change their method from a traditional teach- good degree of diversity of respondents in this
er-centered to a student-centered one study. Section 1 was composed of 13 male and

90 January - December 2018

24 female students; Section 2, 22 males and 24 group with just 8 students since there were only
females; Section 3, 18 males and 27 females; 44 students in the class. Each group was con-
Section 4, 22 males and 22 females; Section sidered as a Jigsaw group. The lesson for the
5, 21 males and 23 females; and Section 6, 24 day was divided into nine segments. A student
males and 14 females. Age range of the respon- in a group was assigned a segment of the top-
dents was 12 to 14 years. ic. Students with the same assigned segment
were asked to form temporary “expert groups”.
Data Collection They were given the time to read and study their
assigned segment. During the following meet-
A pilot test was conducted in two sections prior ing, the students were asked to return to their
to their actual pre-test. Two sections comprised original Jigsaw groups to present the segment
the experimental group while two other sections earlier assigned to them.
comprised the control group. Considering the
mean grade of the students during the first quar- On the other hand, a lecture, using a PowerPoint
ter, Sections 2 and 4 comprised the experimen- presentation was given to the control group.
tal groups while Sections 3 and 5 comprised The researcher was the one who conducted the
the control groups. The experimental groups 45-minute lecture on Cellular Structure. Toward
were taught using the Jigsaw technique while the end of the lecture, the first author showed a
the control groups were taught using the Tradi- short film about the tasks of each cellular struc-
tional technique. Sections 1 and 6 had the prior ture inside the cell.
testing considering that the mean first quarter
grades of the students differed significantly from A post-test was administered at the end of each
the rest. session both in the experimental and control
groups. A Student Evaluation Questionnaire was
To test the reliability and internal consistency given to the experimental and control groups.
of the evaluation questionnaires used in this In addition to the Student Evaluation Question-
study, a reliability test was conducted using naire, students in the experimental group were
Cronbach’s alpha – a coefficient of reliability or also given a Jigsaw Attitude Questionnaire.
consistency. The values of the Cronbach’s al- Students were asked to rate the statements in
pha for the Student Engagement Questionnaire these two questionnaires using a 4-point Likert
and Jigsaw Attitude Questionnaire were 0.758 scale.
and 0.759, respectively; hence, their respective
reliability and internal consistency were both ac- Lastly, a focus group discussion was conduct-
ceptable (acceptable value is above 0.7). ed among students in the experimental group
to further analyze students’ attitudes toward the
The subject matter to be learned by the stu- Jigsaw method. Six randomly selected students
dents in this study was on “Cellular structure”. were interviewed from each experimental group.
Prior to the conduct of any learning evaluations,
the students in both groups were asked to take Research Design
a pre-test. After which, students in the experi-
mental group were informed that they would be Using experimental research design, the study
taught about the topic using the Jigsaw tech- assessed the effectiveness of the Jigsaw tech-
nique (see Introduction for the description of this nique in terms of knowledge gain, student en-
technique). The students in the Jigsaw class gagement, and students’ attitude toward learn-
were then divided into five groups. For section ing Cellular Structure. The two Jigsaw groups
3 there were 9 students per group since there were the experimental groups while the two lec-
were 45 students in the class. For section 5, ture groups served as the control groups (Table
there were 4 groups with 9 students each and 1 1). The respondents were grouped according to

Issue No. 7 91
the closeness of the mean first quarter grades students toward the use of the Jigsaw technique
of their respective sections. Having two groups in teaching Cellular Structure, a Jigsaw Attitude
provides basis for comparison. In the end, re- Questionnaire was administered to the stu-
sults were combined to make generalizations of dents. A focus group discussion was also con-
findings. ducted to gain further insights on the students’
experience in participating in a Jigsaw class-
Table 1. The experimental design of the study. room. Narratives from the focus group discus-
sion were analyzed thematically. Additionally, to
Mean Mean differentiate the level of engagement of the stu-
Jigsaw Knowl- Lecture Knowl- dents taught using the Jigsaw technique from
Group Group edge Group edge
Gain Gain the ones taught using the Traditional technique,
Group 1 Section 2 Score Section 3 Score the students were asked to complete a Student
Group 2 Section 4 Score Section 5 Score Evaluation Questionnaire. The responses of the
Com- Sections Score Sections Score students on the Jigsaw Attitude Questionnaire,
bined 2 and 4 3 and 5 Student Evaluation Questionnaire, and focus
group discussion were then consolidated. Con-
The following hypotheses were tested: clusions were drawn based on the consolidated
findings of the study.
HO: There is no significant difference in terms
of the mean knowledge gain between the Tra-
ditional and the Jigsaw techniques. The Jig-
RESULTS AND
saw technique and the Traditional technique DISCUSSION
in teaching Cellular Structure are basically the
same in terms of effectiveness. Knowledge Gain

Ha1: There is a significant difference in terms Knowledge gain is computed by getting the dif-
of the mean knowledge gain between the Tra- ference between the post- and pre-test scores.
ditional and the Jigsaw techniques. The use of A positive value indicates that the student
Jigsaw technique in teaching Cellular Structure learned through the method used, i.e. either
is more effective than the Traditional teaching Traditional or Jigsaw; a negative value indicates
method. the reverse (Table 2).

Ha2: There is a significant difference in terms of The p-value (0.634) for Group 1 is significantly
the mean knowledge gain between the Tradi- higher than the chosen significance level
tional and the Jigsaw techniques. The Tradition- (α=0.05). Thus, there is no significant difference
al method in teaching Cellular Structure is more in terms of the mean knowledge gain between
effective than the Jigsaw technique. students taught using the Traditional technique
and those taught using the Jigsaw technique.
The decision rule used was to reject the null hy- This result can be explained further by look-
pothesis (Ho) if the observed p-value is ing at the first quarter grades. The first quarter
less than the chosen level of significance. Oth- grades of Section 2 (Jigsaw group) and Section
erwise, the null hypothesis (Ho) stands. 3 (Lecture Group) are comparable. The average
grade for Section 2 was 86%; Section 3, 85%.
Data Analysis Based on their average grades, it can be said
that the students performed well in Science.
Descriptive statistics such as the mean, was
computed, and an independent samples ttest In contrast, the p-value (0.005) for Group
was conducted. To analyze the attitudes of the 2 is less than the chosen significance level

92 January - December 2018

(α=0.05). This indicates that there is a signifi- Table 2. The mean knowledge gain by the stu-
cant difference in terms of the mean knowledge dents and the p-value obtained in the indepen-
gain between the students taught using Tradi- dent samples t-test.
tional technique (lecture) and the Jigsaw tech-
nique. The mean knowledge gain (2.58) in the Mean Knowledge t-test
Jigsaw Group (Section 4) is significantly lower Gain p-value
than (5.02) that of the Lecture Group (Section Group 1 Jigsaw 6.11 0.634 Not sig-
nificant
5). The use of Traditional method in teaching Lecture 6.52
Cell Structure is more effective than the Jigsaw Group 2 Jigsaw 2.58 0.005** Signifi-
technique in this case. Among the factors that cant
Lecture 5.02
may help explain this result is that students in Com- Jigsaw 4.40 0.033* Signifi-
the second group had lower first quarter grades bined cant
Group Lecture 5.78
compared with their counterparts in the first
group. The average first quarter grade of the * Statistical significance at α = 0.05; ** Statistical significance
at α = 0.01
students in the Jigsaw and Lecture groups was
80%, which means that the students in the first Student Engagement in the Experimental
group performed better in Science. Simply put, Design
if the students are known to be not doing well
in Science, the traditional method is more ef- For the first part of the Student Engagement
fective to use. The Organisation for Economic Questionnaire, the students described forms of
Co-Operation and Development (2016) notes engagement that transpired before, during, and
that low-performing students have less per- after the discussion on Cellular Structure (Ta-
severance, motivation, and self-confidence. It ble 3). The students were asked to rate each
should also be noted that during the course of statement, based on frequency, using a 4-point
data collection, the students from the second Likert scale: 1 – Never; 2 – Sometimes; 3 – Of-
Jigsaw group were observed to show signs of ten; and 4 – Very Often to measure their level of
unpreparedness and disinterest. engagement.

The results of the test for the combined group For Group 1, most of the statements had a mean
indicate a p-value (0.033) that is less than the rating greater than 2.00, which means that stu-
chosen significance level (α=0.05). Hence, dents in this group showed moderately high stu-
there is a significant difference in terms of the dent engagement. There were two statements
mean knowledge gain between the Tradition- (statements 8 and 9) that received a mean
al classroom and the Jigsaw classroom. The rating of less than 2 (very low student engage-
mean knowledge gain in the experimental group ment). A statement (statement 5) had a mean
(4.40) is significantly lower than that of the con- rating greater than 3.00 (very high student en-
trol group (5.78). This implies that the use of gagement). In sum, the results suggest that for
Traditional method in teaching Cell Structure is Group 1, students appeared to have been mod-
more effective than the Jigsaw technique. In a erately engaged under the Jigsaw technique. If
practical sense and in the context of the topic compared with the Traditional technique (lec-
taught, ,i.e. Cell Structure, the results suggest ture), students appeared to have been slightly
that a formal lecture proves better at convey- more engaged using the Jigsaw technique.
ing the lessons and helping the students focus
compared with a method where the students For the second group of respondents, two state-
are asked to work on their own (Charlton, 2006). ments received a mean rating greater than 3.00
(very high student engagement). Six statements
were given a mean rating greater than 2.00
(moderately high student engagement) while

Issue No. 7 93
five statements had a mean rating greater than than those taught using the Traditional method.
1.00 (very low student engagement). The re- This overall finding joins other studies that at-
sults indicate that the students in Group 2 were test to the effectiveness of the Jigsaw method
also more engaged using the Jigsaw technique in keeping the students engaged in class (e.g.
albeit on a slightly lower level than in Group 1. Phillips and Fusco, 2015)

If the comparison is done between the teaching

methods used, it appears that students taught
using the Jigsaw method were more engaged

Table 3. Level of Student engagement.

Mean Ratings
Item Statement Group 1 Group 2
Jigsaw Lecture Jigsaw Lecture
Asked questions or contributed to 2.59 2.40 2.26 2.36
1 discussions in class
2 Sought advice from academic staff 2.09 2.22 2.21 1.86
3 Worked hard to master difficult content 2.93 2.78 2.77 3.02
4 Used library resources on campus or online 2.96 2.22 2.23 2.5
Came to class having completed readings or 3.07 2.73 2.88 2.95
5 assignments
Worked with other students outside class to 2.09 2.27 2.02 1.96
6 prepare assignments
Put together ideas or concepts from different 2.35 2.31 2.37 2.41
7 subjects during class discussions
8 Taught other students 2.46 1.93 2.33 1.50
Received prompt written or oral feedback 2.54 1.76 2.88 1.57
9 from teachers/tutors on your academic
performance
Worked harder than you thought you could 2.54 2.64 2.77 3.02
10 to meet a teacher’s/tutor’s standards or
expectations
Discussed ideas from your readings or 2.54 2.60 2.40 1.97
11 classes with others outside class (e.g.
students, family members, etc.)

Average 2.56 2.35 2.47 2.28

Range of Average Mean Adjective Rating

3.01-4.0 Very high student engagement

2.01-3.0 Moderately high student engagement
2.0 Low student engagement
1.0-1.99 Very low student engagement

94 January - December 2018

Emphasis on Intellectual Activities of Stu- dents’ intellectual activities were emphasized by
dents their coursework only to some extent. Students
in the Jigsaw group gave higher ratings than
For the second part of the evaluation, five state- their peers in the Traditional (lecture) group.
ments emphasizing intellectual activities, i.e. These results indicate that the students saw
memorization, analysis, synthesis, making judg- the Jigsaw method as better than the Tradition-
ment, and application during the discussionon al method in ensuring that intellectual activities
Cellular Structure were presented to the stu- are optimized during the course of discussing
dents (Table 4). The students were then asked the topic.
to rate the statements using a 4-point Likert
scale: 1 – Strongly disagree; 2 – Disagree; 3 – As regards Group 2, the same overall picture
Agree; and 4 – Strongly Agree. is seen with slight variation. Students rated that
the two methods moderately emphasized im-
For Group 1, all of the statements received a portant intellectual learning activities. The differ-
mean rating greater than 2.00, which implies ence between Groups 1 and 2 is that in Group
moderate emphasis of learning activities. One 2, overall, the students gave the Traditional
statement (statement 1) was given a mean rat- method higher rating than the Jigsaw method.
ing of 3.00. This means that most of the stu-

Table 4. Students’ ratings on the emphasis on their intellectual activities with respect to the
learning methods used.

Mean Ratings
Items Statement Group 1 Group 2
Jigsaw Lecture Jigsaw Lecture
Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods from 3.00 2.67 2.72 2.68
1 your subjects and readings
Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience or 2.83 2.67 2.51 3.07
2 theory such as examining a particular case or situation in
depth and considering its components
Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information or ex- 2.72 2.67 2.77 2.59
3 periences into new, more complex interpretations, and
relationships
Making judgements about the value of information, argu- 2.61 2.42 2.47 2.84
ments or methods such as examining how other students
4 gather and interpret data and assessing the soundness
of their conclusions
Applying theories or concepts to practical 2.76 2.51 2.74 2.57
5 problems or in new situations
Average 2.78 2.59 2.64 2.75

Range of Average Mean Adjective Rating

3.01-4.0 Excellent emphasis on intellectual activities

2.01-3.0 Moderate emphasis on intellectual activities
2.0 Low emphasis on intellectual activities
1.0-1.99 Very low emphasis on intellectual activities

Issue No. 7 95
Students’ Attitudes toward Using the Jigsaw The Jigsaw method helped me 2.98 2.91
Technique 9 develop the habit of coming to
school regularly.
The Jigsaw method reduced 2.93 3.19
The Jigsaw Attitude Questionnaire was divided 10 the fears I had about science
considerably
into three parts. The first part asked about some
basic information such as the student’s name, Average 3.01 3.08

section, and age. The second part asked the Range of Average Mean Adjective Rating
students to rate the statements describing their 3.01-4.0 Very positive attitude
experience during the discussion of the Cellu- 2.01-3.0 Positive attitude
2.0 Negative attitude
lar Structure using the Jigsaw technique. The 1.0-1.99 Very negative attitude
ratings used a 4-Point Likert Scale. The third
As regards the open-ended questions, the re-
part of the questionnaire asked four open-end-
sponses of the students were summarized. For
ed questions about the students’ overall experi-
the first question (Do you want to use the Jig-
ence in participating in a Jigsaw classroom.
saw technique in other topics or subjects? Yes,
or no? Why? Explain your answers.), in the first
The mean rating for each statement ranges
Jigsaw Group, 85% of the students agreed to
from 2.72 to 3.40 (Table 5). This implies that
use the Jigsaw technique in other topics or sub-
students had a positive to very positive attitude
jects. A slightly lower percentage of students in
towards learning Cellular Structure using the
the second Jigsaw Group (77%) agreed to us-
Jigsaw method. Based on the mean ratings, it
ing the Jigsaw technique in other subjects.
can be surmised that generally the two exper-
imental (Jigsaw) groups enjoyed working to-
Students who answered “Yes” reasoned that
gether in groups although the Jigsaw technique
they had fun during the discussion in their re-
appears to be not the best method for them to
spective groups. Those who answered ‘No”
learn about Cellular Structure (see Table 2)
reasoned that they either hardly understood the
topic or they could learn better on their own.
Table 5. Students’ attitude toward learning Cel-
lular Structure using Jigsaw.
For the second question (Which concepts about
the “Cellular Structure” were you able to fully un-
Jigsaw Group
derstand in the Jigsaw group?), most students
Item Statement Group Group
1 2
reported that they remember the functions of
the Cellular Structure. Some students indicated
The Jigsaw technique made 2.91 2.74
1 the understanding of Cellular that they remembered the concepts that were
Structure easy for me.
assigned to them while some noted that they
I enjoyed working together with 3.30 3.40
2 my classmates in groups. were able to pick up some new concepts from
I got along with other group 2.91 3.12
their respective Jigsaw groups. In addition, the
3 members. students in the first Jigsaw Group remembered
4 I felt the responsibility to con- 2.89 3.26 more concepts than those in the second Jigsaw
tribute to my group.
Group.
The Jigsaw technique gave me 3.13 3.09
5 a sense of belongingness.
For the responses for the third question (What
The Jigsaw technique is the 2.87 2.72
6 best way for me to learn about suggestions/ recommendations can you give in
Cellular Structure.
order to improve the Jigsaw technique so it can
I realized that I need other 3.04 3.28
7 people to succeed. improve learning?), most students highlighted
The Jigsaw technique helped 3.17 3.07
the importance of having cooperative and re-
8 me make new friends. sponsible groupmates. In this study, it is shown
that, indeed, the Jigsaw technique reflects co-

96 January - December 2018

operation and collaboration among students. Table 6 gives a summary of the students’ re-
Additionally, students from the first Jigsaw sponses to the fourth question (If you could de-
group gave more comments and suggestions scribe the Jigsaw technique, what would these
than those in the second Jigsaw group. When three words be?). Their responses are analyzed
the students were asked for feedback, the stu- thematically. Hence, there are six themes gen-
dents in the first Jigsaw Group wrote theirs erated: collaboration/cooperation, enjoyment,
lengthily and willingly while those in the second helpfulness, difficulty, conduciveness, and time-
Jigsaw Group showed signs of reluctance such liness. From these responses, it can therefore
as asking if the area for comments could be left be surmised that in general the students had a
blank. Hence, this could also be an indication of positive attitude toward the use of Jigsaw tech-
disinterest in the part of the students belonging nique in teaching about Cellular Structure. Ad-
to the second Jigsaw Group on improving the ditionally, students in the second Jigsaw group
Jigsaw technique. gave the same responses albeit just a few of
them responded to the fourth question.

Table 6. Summary of the students’ description of the Jigsaw technique and their experiences in
participating in a Jigsaw classroom.

Jigsaw Group 1 Jigsaw Group 2 Examples

Theme Responses
Positive Negative Positive Negative
“I feel like I am a bit
closer to my
classmates now
even to those whom
I have not been
talking to a lot on a
regular basis.”
Happy Enjoyable “It’s fun to teach my
Enthusiastic Fun fellow classmates
Amazing about a certain
Adorable concept.”
Enjoyable
Exciting “To share
Joyful something that I
Fun know is both fun
Enjoyment Active and mood-uplifting.”
I love it “I forgot about being
Interesting shy as I enjoyed
Cool sharing with my
classmates the
concepts that I
learned about the
topic that was
assigned to me.”
Good “We did not study all
Better learning of the concepts
technique ourselves; our
Helpful classmates helped
Useful us understand some
Helpfulness Time-saving of them.”
Worth it
An effective “In just one meeting,
technique we learned a lot
from one another.”

Issue No. 7 97
 Challenging Confusing Challenging “It was both a
Understandable Hard pressure and a
challenge because
we had to ensure
Difficulty that [our
classmates]
understand the
topic assigned to
us.”
Noisy Noisy “Some of our
Annoying Annoying classmates were not
Conduciveness paying attention/not
listening.”
Modern “It is not like the old
Timeliness style – lecture of the
teacher.”

CONCLUSION AND Structure. This is supported by the results of the

RECOMMENDATIONS thematic analysis which show positive feedback in
terms of cooperation and collaboration, enjoyment,
In terms of knowledge gain, for the first group, helpfulness, and timeliness.
findings revealed that the Traditional technique
and the Jigsaw technique are just the same in Given that the Jigsaw technique is effective in
terms of effectiveness in teaching Cell Structure. teaching Cellular Structure, it is suggested that
The reverse, however, was observed in the sec- teachers explore other collaborative or coopera-
ond group. This means that there is a significant tive teaching methods to optimize learning. This is
difference in terms of the mean knowledge gain also in recognition of the fact that no single method
between the Traditional classroom and the Jig- can meet the learning preferences of all students.
saw classroom. Hence, for the second group, it Training is also necessary prior to using the Jigsaw
appears that the use of Traditional technique in technique. It is important because the technique
teaching Cell Structure is more effective than the requires mastery of the steps/methods (e.g. giv-
Jigsaw technique. For the combined results of both ing the proper instructions to students) to ensure
groups, it can be concluded that there is a signif- smooth transitions. It pays to ensure that teachers
icant difference in terms of the mean knowledge are using different teaching methods, not just the
gain between the Traditional method and the Jig- teacher-centered ones.
saw method. The use of the Traditional method in
teaching Cell Structure is more effective than the Methodological issues must likewise be attended
Jigsaw technique. Findings of the study thus reject to. It should be ensured that the students are given
the null hypothesis. enough time to prepare for their respective topics.
Excellent planning is key to ensure that the imple-
Reflecting further on the results of this study, it mentation will go as smoothly as possible. This
can also be concluded that the Jigsaw technique means that the outline, materials, and activities
is more effective among high-performing students must be properly planned before the start of the
than among average-performing ones. Aver- implementation.
age-performing students need more guidance and
supervision than high-performing students. For further studies, researchers could look into the
effectiveness of the Jigsaw technique in teaching
As for level of engagement, there is evidence to other science lessons. Meanwhile, given the evi-
show that students in the Jigsaw classroom are dence that Jigsaw technique seems more effective
more engaged than those in the Traditional class- among high-performing students, studies could be
room. Lastly, the students generally showed a conducted to determine strategies that could be
positive attitude toward the use of the Jigsaw tech- incorporated to also make the Jigsaw technique
nique in teaching Cellular effective among lowperforming students.

98 January - December 2018

REFERENCES
Lin, E. (2006). Cooperative learning in the science
classroom. Retrieved 24 August 2017
Ansari, U. and Malik, S.K. (2013). Image of an from http://www.nsta.org/publications/
effective teacher in 21st century class- news/story.aspx?id=52116.
room. Journal of Educational and In-
structional Studies in the World. Re- McCarthy, J. (2015). Student-centered learning:
trieved 5 September 2017 from http:// It starts with the teacher. Retrieved 24
www.wjeis.org/FileUpload/ds217232 / August 2017 from https://www.eduto-
File/08.ansari.pdf. pia.org/blog/student-centered-learn-
ing-starts-with-teacherjohn-mccarthy.
Aronson, E. (2014). The Jigsaw classroom. Re-
trieved 24 August 2017 from https:// Nagaraju, C., Madhavaiah, G, and Peter, S. (2013).
www.jigsaw.org/#overview. Teacher-centered learning and student-
centred learning in English classroom:
Charlton, B.G. (2006). Lectures are an effective The teaching methods realizing the
teaching method because they exploit dreams of language learners. Interna-
human evolved human psychology to tional Journal of Scientific Research
improve learning 2006. Medical Hypoth- and Reviews, 2(3), 125-131. Retrieved
esis, 67 (6): 1261-1265. 5 September 2017 from http://www.ijsrr.
org/down_222.php.
Churches, A. (2008). Eight habits of highly ef-
fective 21st century teachers. Re- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and De-
trieved 30 November 2017 from https:// velopment [OECD]. (2016). Low-per-
www.masternewmedia.org/teach- forming students: Why they fall behind
ing-skills-what-21st-centuryeduca- and how to help them succeed. Paris:
tors-need-to-learn-to-survive/#ixzz59e- PISA OECD Publishing. Retrieved 5
4wgcCo. September 2017 from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/978926 4250246-en.
Crockett, L. W. (2016). The critical 21st centu-
ry skills every student needs and why. Phillips, J. and Fusco, J. (2015). Using the Jigsaw
Retrieved 24 August 2017 from https:// technique to teach clinical controver-
globaldigitalcitizen.org/21st-centu- sy in a clinical skills course. American
ry-skills-every-studentneeds. Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,
79(6): 90. Retrieved 24 August 2017
Gravino, M.T.M. and Limjuco, R.P. (2012). Jigsaw from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
approach in cooperative learning: Its articles/PMC4584382/.
effect in problem solving skills for phys-
ics. Retrieved 10 November 2017 from Zacharia, Z.C., Xenofontos, N.A., and Manoli, C.C.
http://research.uic.edu.ph/ojs/index. (2011). The effect of two different coop-
php/uicpj/article/viewFile/222/57 erative approaches on students’ learn-
ing and practices within the context of
International Education Advisory Board. (2008). a WebQuest science investigation. Ed-
Learning in the 21st century: Teaching ucational Technology Research and De-
today’s student on their terms. Retrieved velopment, 59(3), 399-424. Retrieved
24 August 2017 from https://www.certi- 10 November 2017 from https://www.
port.com/Portal/Common/DocumentLi- learntechlib.org/p/50878/.
brary/IEAB_White paper040808.pdf.

Issue No. 7 99