Student-Student and Student-Teacher Interactions through the Jigsaw II Method in the Teaching of the Economics Subject in Secondary Education

Year 2020, , 118 - 125, 01.03.2020

Mercedes Morera-fernandez Aram Morera-mesa Miguel Angel Morera-fumero Javier Hernandez-perez Armando Luis Morera-fumero

https://doi.org/10.24331/ijere.678716

Abstract

Peer interactions and teacher student interactions are essential components of learning upon which
cooperative learning (CL) is rooted. Empirical data about this type of interactions are scanty. The aim
of this research is to compare students’ opinions about the student-student and student-teacher
interactions in a CL method (Jigsaw II/puzzle) and the conventional teacher learning method after
learning an economics teaching unit in a secondary education school. The study was carried out in a
secondary education level institute in the island of Tenerife, Canary Islands (Spain) during the 20172018

academic year. Twenty-eight students took part in the study. Students were taught a unit
through the conventional teacher exposition method and later through a CL technique (Jigsaw
II/puzzle). Peer interactions and teacher-student interaction were evaluated through a 5-point Likertscale.

Students were evaluated twice, during the conventional instruction and approximately two
weeks later after receiving the CL instruction. The total score of interactions among peers was
significantly higher with the CL method than the conventional method (conventional method: 19.92
± 2.26 vs CL method: 21.54 ± 2.75, p < 0.009). There were no significant differences between the
methods of learning in the total score of the interaction with the teacher (conventional method:
17.17±1.61 vs CL method: 16.37±2.78, p < 0.098), but in item 9 (interchange of information with the
teacher) the score in conventional method was significantly higher than in the CL technique (4.50 ±
0.59 vs 4.21 ± 0.72, p < 0.016). In conclusion, the secondary education students consider that
puzzle/jigsaw II CL technique promotes relationships among peers more than conventional learning
while there is no difference between the puzzle/jigsaw II CL technique and the conventional learning
in the teacher-student relationships.

Keywords

Conventional learning, cooperative learning, jigsaw ii

References

• Artzt, A. F., & Newman, C. M. (1990). Cooperative learning. Mathematics Teacher, 83(September), 448–452. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. Furrer, C. J., Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2014). The influence of teacher and peer relationships on students’ classroom engagement and everyday motivational resilience. Teachers College Record, 116(13), 101–123. Göer, A. (2010). A comparative research on the effectivity of cooperative learning method and jigsaw technique on teaching literary genres. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(8), 439–445. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. P. (1998). Learning Together and Alone: Co-Operative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Liu, Y. (2003). Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(2), 207–216. Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1983). Mainstreaming Students with Mild Handicaps: Academic and Social Outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 519–569. McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 28–42. Morera-Fernandez, M., Morera-Mesa, A., & Morera-Fumero, A. L. (2020). Cooperative learning: A systematic review of the economy subject in the curriculum of secondary education. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 5(1), 83–86. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Pons, R. M., Prieto, M. D., Lomeli, C., Bermejo, M. R., & Bulut, S. (2014). Cooperative learning in mathematics: A study on the effects of the parameter of equality on academic performance. Anales de Psicologia, 30(3), 832–840. Rokhmah, N. F., & Subroto, W. T. (2019). Application of cooperative learning jigsaw type to ımprove learning outcomes of economic ıntroduction and business. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 4(2), 238–244. Serrano, J. M., & Pons, R. M. (2014). Introduction: Cooperative learning. Anales de Psicologia, 30(3), 781–784. Sharan, S., & Sharan, Y. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Slavin, R. E., & Cooper, R. (1999). Improving intergroup relations: Lessons learned from cooperative learning programs. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 647–663. Topping, K. J., Thurston, A., Tolmie, A., Christie, D., Murray, P., & Karagiannidoud, E. (2011). Cooperative learning in science: Intervention in the secondary school. Research in Science and Technological Education, 29(1), 91–106. Vallet-Bellmunt, T., Rivera-Torres, P., Vallet-Bellmunt, I., & Vallet-Bellmunt, A. (2016). Eficiencia del plan de marketing como técnica de aprendizaje cooperativo. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 22(1), 17–24