THE EFFECTIVENESS OF JIGSAW LEARNING METHOD COMPARED TO LECTURE-BASED LEARNING IN ANATOMY LECTURES

Saharnauli J. Verawaty Simorangkir

doi:10.22146/jpki.39102

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF JIGSAW LEARNING METHOD COMPARED TO LECTURE-BASED LEARNING IN ANATOMY LECTURES

https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.39102

Saharnauli J. Verawaty Simorangkir^(1*)

(1) Departemen Anatomi, Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas HKBP Nommensen, Medan - INDONESIA
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

Background: Jigsaw is a cooperative learning method in which students work together in small groups, helping one another towards a common goal. The aim of this research were to find out the different effect of Jigsaw cooperative learning method with conventional method in terms of anatomy learning achievement and retention.

Method: Forty-nine students were randomly assigned into two groups, control group (n=24) and experimental group (n=25). A pretest was administered to all students before classes. The Jigsaw learning method was applied to the experimental group for one session. At the same day, control group was taking classes using the lecture-based learning method. At the end of session, all students were retested (post test) on subject. A retention test was administered 3 weeks after the post test. Mean scores were
calculated for each test for the experimental and control groups, and the data obtained were analysed using the independent samples t-test.

Results: No significant difference was determined between the Jigsaw and lecture based methods at pretest or post-test. The highest mean test score was observed in the post-test with the Jigsaw method. In the retention test, no significant difference between the Jigsaw and lecture-based methods. The highest mean retention test score was observed in the lecture-based method.

Conclusion: The Jigsaw method is less effective than lecture-based method.

Keywords

Jigsaw, lecture-based method, anatomy.

Full Text:

PDF

References

1. Moreno R. Constructing knowledge with an agent-based instructional program : A comparison of cooperative and individual meaning making. Learn Instr [Internet]. Elsevier Ltd; 2009 [cited 2017 Oktober 4];19(5):433–44. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.018

2. Slavin RE. Cooperative Learning and Academic Achievement : Why does groupwork work ? Four major theoretical perspectives on co- operative learning and achievement. 2014;30:785–91.

3. Koprowski JL, Perigo N, Koprowski JL, Perigo N. Cooperative learning as a tool to teach vertebrate anatomy. Am Biol Teach. 2000;62(4):282–4.

4. Susilo F, Sunarno W, Suparni. Pembelajaran Fisika menggunakan model Jigsaw dan GI (Group Investigation) ditinjau dari kreativitas dan sikap ilmiah belajar siswa. J Inkuiri. 2016;5(3):40–8.

5. Marhamah. Jigsaw cooperative learning : a viable teaching-learning strategy ? J Educ Soc Res. 2013;3(7):710–5.

6. Parker P. Factors affecting concept retention. American Society for Engineering Education. 2013.

7. Costa ML, Van Rensburg L, Rushton N. Does teaching style matter? A randomised trial of group discussion versus lectures in orthopaedic undergraduate teaching. Med Educ. 2007;41(2):214–7.

8. Slavin R. Instruction Based on Cooperative Learning. In: Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2011. p. 344–60.

9. Sagsoz O, Karatas O, Turel V, Yildiz M, Kaya E. Effectiveness of Jigsaw learning compared to lecture-based learning in dental education. Eur J Dent Educ. 2015;21(7):28–32.

10. Dahlan M. Statistik untuk Kedokteran dan Kesehatan. Jakarta: Salemba Medika; 2009.

11. Berger R, Hänze M. The jigsaw method in 12th-grade physics classes – impact of the group’s ability composition on academic performance. 2016;3(5):28–36.

12. Shaaban K. An initial study of the effects of cooperative learning on reading comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and motivation to read. Read Psychol [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2017 Oktober 6];27(5):377–403. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02702710600846613

13. Arthur W, Bennett W, Stanush PL, McNelly TL. Factors that influence skill decay and retention: a quantitative review and analysis. human performance. 1998. p. 57–101.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.39102