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 and hold 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 setting for 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. 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, the technique 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 selfesteem 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 and examples 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 not conceptually 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 195

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 teacherfocused and competitive learning environment. In the typical classroom, students learn that the teacher is the only expert and that few, if any, academic benefits 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

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 should have group assignments planned in advance, although attendance uncertainties may require some flexibility. In larger classrooms random assignment to groups may 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 to become 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 were assigned 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 dynamics of 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 the details until every student understands each segment. To ensure that students take the jigsaw work seriously, 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). 196

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 other classmates 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) and later 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 student research conferences.

Conceptual Basis for Jigsaw Effects

Despite limited empirical support for using jigsaw techniques in college classrooms, there are compelling conceptual reasons to believe that modifying 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 organized program (i.e., a sequence of interdependent actions

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. Frequent social interaction and more cohesive relationships also characterize an underpopulated setting, along with a greater likelihood that members will learn from 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 the jigsaw 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 technique engages 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.

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 such students 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 challenging learning 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 cooperation and 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 from http://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 laboratory and 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.

Limitations
Given the sparse literature on college classrooms, a number of empirical questions about the jigsaw technique remain unanswered. For example, with the increasing prevalence of online teaching and learning, how much real-time, face-toface interaction within a jigsaw experience is necessary to obtain the desired effects on engagement and learning? How frequently should the jigsaw

197