Professional Documents
Culture Documents
View Article Online / Journal Homepage / Table of Contents for this issue
Dynamic Article Links
Research and Practice
Cite this: Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313
www.rsc.org/cerp
PAPER
Jigsaw cooperative learning: Acid–base theories
a b
Leman Tarhan* and Burcin Acar Sesen
Received 5th July 2011, Accepted 17th March 2012
DOI: 10.1039/c2rp90004a
This study focused on investigating the effectiveness of jigsaw cooperative learning instruction on first-
year undergraduates’ understanding of acid–base theories.Undergraduates’ opinions about jigsaw
Published on 16 April 2012. Downloaded on 7/9/2018 3:05:13 PM.
cooperative learning instruction were also investigated. The participants of this study were 38 first-year
undergraduates in chemistry education department in an education faculty in Izmir, Turkey. A
prerequisite knowledge test was applied to both experimental (N = 18) and control groups (N = 20)
before the treatment in order to identify undergraduates’ prerequisite knowledge about ‘acids and bases’.
Independent t-test was conducted to compare the prerequisite knowledge test scores for groups and no
significant difference was found in terms of mean scores (t = 0.42,
p 4 0.05). The subject of ‘‘Acid–Base Theories’’ (Arrhenius, Brønsted–Lowry and Lewis Theories) was
taught using jigsaw cooperative learning in the experimental group and with regular teacher-centered
approach in the control group. After the instruction, the acid–base theories concept test
was administrated to investigate undergraduates’ conceptual understanding. Independent t-test results
showed significant difference in terms of mean scores (t = 4.65, p o 0.05).The results also indicated that
undergraduates in the experimental group had fewer misconceptions and understood the concepts more
meaningfully than undergraduates in the control group. In addition, individual interviews reflected that
undergraduates had positive opinion about jigsaw, and they believed jigsaw is an e ffective cooperative
learning technique that promotes positive attitudes and interest, develop inter personal skills as well as
their learning achievements.
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313 307
View Article Online
308 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313 This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012
View Article Online
1997; Sheppard, 1997). For this reason, in this study, the prerequisite experimental group was taught using jigsaw cooperative learning
knowledge test consisting of 16 multiple-choice items was developed
and control group was taught using traditional course content
by the researchers to identify under-graduates’ understanding the
based on teacher-centred instruction during the same instructional
period. These two groups were instructed by the same competent
concepts that effects learning of acids and bases. The items of the test
chemistry instructor.
were constructed by considering students’ misconceptions
determined in the literature (Ebenezer and Gaskell, 1995; Gri ffiths Instruction in the experimental group
and Preston, 1992; Peterson et al., 1989; Sanger, 2000). Each item
had one correct answer and four incorrect answers (distracters). The Before the instruction, undergraduates in the experimental group
distracters are derived from actual student misconceptions gathered were informed about cooperative learning and jigsaw technique.
from the literature. For the content validity and error reduction, the Their and instructors’ responsibilities, utilization of resources
items were evaluated by seven chemistry educators. The prerequisite were also explained.
knowledge test was piloted with the sample of 152 under-graduates In an cooperative learning environment, group formation is
for the reliability. After the item analysis the reliability coe fficient very important for success. In this study, stratified random
(KR-20) of the test was found to be 0.77. sampling was used as a method of group formation. This method
of group formation involves creating small subgroups (strata) of
undergraduates stratified along a specific dimension and then
The acid–base theories concept test. A acid–base theories concept randomly choosing group members from each of these strata. By
test by 10 multiple choice items with an open-ended part, where design, stratified random sampling yields groups that are
students are required to explain the reasons for their answers, was balanced across the dimension used to form the strata (Fraenkel
developed to identify undergraduates’ understanding of ‘acid and and Wallen, 2005). In this study, the undergraduates in the
base theories’. Prior to the development of the tests items, the content experimental group, were stratified random to six home groups
boundaries were defined and instructional objectives were identified. considering their chemistry achievements. As presented in Fig. 2,
The test items were constructed by considering students’ learning there were three under-graduates in each home group. Each
difficulties and misconceptions determined in the literature (Bradley member of the groups was assigned a portion of acid–base
and theories and then they moved into three jigsaw groups including
¨
Mosimege, 1998; Demirciog˘lu, 2003; Ozmen, 2003; Ross and six members to be expert. Jigsaw group-1 studied Arrhenius
Munby, 1991; Schmidt, 1991; Toplis, 1998; Vidyapati and Acid–Base Theory, jigsaw group-2 investigated Brønsted–Lowry
Seetharamappa, 1995). Each item had one correct answer and Acid–Base Theory, and jigsaw group-3 searched Lewis Acid–
four distracters. The distracters are derived from actual student Base Theory. During this process, they were encouraged to
misconceptions gathered from the literature. The contents of the develop their hypothesis and to make task distributions in the
test were validated by seven chemistry educators for the fifteen minute period under the guidance of the instructor. Then,
appropriateness of the items to the instructional objectives. The they were directed to study their own subtopics outside the class.
test was piloted with the sample of 153 undergraduates for the Undergraduates benefited from library, textbooks and internet,
reliability. The reliability coefficient (KR-20) of the test was and they worked under the supervision of the instructor to
found to be 0.86. achieve the learning objectives. Undergraduates then returned
Each answer was evaluated by researchers and two expert their home groups and taught their own expertise subtopics to the
chemistry instructors. The scores were compared and discussed rest of their group.
until an agreement was reached.
Jigsaw group studies
Semi-structured interviews. 15-minute period semi-structured Jigsaw group-1. First jigsaw group was responsible to study
individual interviews were carried out with all the experimental Arrhenius Acid and Base Theory. After their research about the
group students to determine their opinions about the treatment subtopic outside the class, they discussed their findings and made
based on jigsaw cooperative learning. The interviews were a presentation in their group under the guidance of the instructor.
conducted around the following questions; In this way, undergraduates would able to explain;
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313
309
View Article Online
310 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313 This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012
View Article Online
as the experimental group to achieve the same learning Table 3 Independent sample t-test results of the acid–base theories
objectives that detailed instruction in the experimental group concept test
section. During this process instructor used blackboard and Group N Mean SD t p
asked some questions related to the subject. Undergraduates
also used regular textbook. While the instructor explained Experimental 18 24 4.1 4.6 0.002
Control 20 16 6.7
the subject, the undergraduates listened to her and took notes.
They solved the problems related to Acid–Base Theories. In
addition, the some problems were assigned as homework in cooperative learning significantly had higher scores than those
order to ensure time equation in the experimental group. taught by teacher-centred approach in terms of acid–base theories
concept test mean scores (t = 4.6, p o 0.05, Table 3).
Results and discussion Undergraduates’ responses to each item in the acid–base
theories concept test reflected that undergraduates in the
As indicated before, researchers have asserted the reason of experimental group had significantly fewer misconception
students’ misconceptions in acids and bases are related their prior and understood ‘Acids and Bases Theories’ more meaningfully
knowledge and learning difficulties about some chemistry subjects than undergraduates in the control group (Table 4). While two
such as particulate nature of matter, solubility, chemical reactions, of the misconceptions in Table 4 were first identified in this
Published on 16 April 2012. Downloaded on 7/9/2018 3:05:13 PM.
stoichiometry, ionic dissociation of substances, chemical bonding study, six of them had been previously documented in the
and chemical equilibrium (Furio-Ma´s et al., 2007; Nakhleh and literature.
Krajcik, 1993; Nakhleh, 1994; Ross and Munby, 1991; Sheppard, Results reflected that undergraduates in the control group
2006; Smith and Metz, 1996). For this reason, undergraduates’ commonly had difficulties about Lewis Theory, and they
prior knowledge and possible misconceptions were identified via a confused Arrhenius and Brønsted–Lowry Theories. For
prerequisite knowledge test. The independent sample t-test was example, one of the item, it is asked to undergraduates to
used to compare the mean scores. As shown in Table 1, the mean identify the acids and bases in the reaction of HS + CH 3Cl -
scores of the experimental and control groups were 21 and 22 CH3SH + Cl according to ‘Acid–Base Theories’. It was
respectively, and there were no significant differences in terms of required undergraduates to answer this item as HS is Lewis
prerequisite knowledge test (t = 0.4, p 4 0.05). base, because it is an electron pair donor. While undergraduates
Undergraduates’ responses to the prerequisite knowledge in the experimental group correctly answered this item, 85% of
test indicated that they had misconceptions related to identification the undergraduates in the control group gave the wrong answer.
chemical bonds and inter molecular forces, confusion ionic 45% of them identified HS as Lewis acid because of having
and covalent bonds, confusion London and dipol-dipol forces, hydrogen. 40% of them thought that HS is Brønsted–Lowry
solubility, and chemical equilibrium (Table 2). Because these acids, because of giving proton.
concepts were important for learning ‘Acid and Base Theories’, In the other item, undergraduates were required to explain
undergraduates in both group were taught these concept before some sample reactions according to Lewis Theory. 45% of the
and during the instruction. undergraduates in the control group classified the reaction
Instruction of Arrhenius, Brønsted–Lowry, and Lewis between NH3 and BF3 molecules as Lewis Theory, because
Acid–Base Theories was conducted with jigsaw cooperative they believed that new complex products as BF3NH3 should
learning in the experimental group and with teacher-centered be formed according to Lewis theory. Those undergraduates
approach in the control group. Immediately after the instructions also could not explain the reaction between CN and H2O
the acid–base theories concept test was administrated to determine molecules deped on Lewis Theory. In the other hand, 40% of
undergraduates’ understanding. The independent sample t-test undergraduates in the control group could not explain this
results showed that the undergraduates who trained with jigsaw reaction according to Lewis theory and they indicated that
there is no electron transfer between NH3 and BF3 molecules.
Table 1 Independent sample t-test results of the prerequisite knowledge Those misconceptions underlined that over 35% of the
test undergraduates in the control group did not understand
Group N Mean SD t p electron transfer between acids and bases depend on Lewis
theory, could not explain the basic characteristics of some
Experimental 18 21 7.4 0.4 0.68 samples do not include OH ions, confused H+ ion and
Control 20 22 5.4 proton. This situation indicate that undergraduates commonly
Table 2 The percentage of undergraduates misconceptions determined in the prerequisite knowledge test
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313
311
View Article Online
Table 4 The percentage of undergraduates’ misconceptions about ‘‘Acid and Base Theories’’
Using jigsaw cooperative learning in all the chemistry lessons may increase my chemistry achievement. 67
Because we shared our ideas and knowledge, I learned better. 50
I learned chemistry is not memorization. 61
I wish jigsaw cooperative learning is used in all the lessons. 44
I learned the research techniques in the library and internet. 72
I began to like chemistry after jigsaw cooperative learning instruction. 56
Working with friends increased my interest to chemistry. 44
Instructor’s monitoring helped us to plan our research. 78
I would rather educated by instructor than studying in the group. 22
The feedback given by the instructor helped us to reduce errors in our study. 83
I feel my confidence level in investigating has improved after the group study. 61
I enjoyed while working in my group. 78
I liked to study with my friends in the groups. 44
Working in groups developed the relations between friends. 50
Published on 16 April
prefer to define acid and base according to Brønsted–Lowry undergratuates are not accustomed to this type pf learning.
Theory, and had difficulties in explaining Lewis acid–base Threfore, application of jigsaw or the other cooperative learning
theories and confused acid and base theories with each other as techniques should be used most widely in chemistry and science
mentioned by the other researches (Bradley and Mosimege, classes. Additionally, undergarduates generally have positive
1998; Demerouti et al., 2004; Zoller, 1990). This can be caused attitudes and interest towards jigsaw techniqe. These findings are
because the regular chemistry curriculum generally highlights in agreement with previous research findings which revealed that
Arrhenius and Brønsted–Lowry Theory, and the differences the jigsaw method increased students’ attitudes and interest (Dori
between these theories do not give apprehensible as indicated in 1995; Doymus et al., 2004).
the previous studies by Carr (1984), Schmidt (1995), Vidyapati
and Seetharamappa (1995).
Conclusions
In the light of the results of this study, it can be said that jigsaw
cooperative learning instruction is successful in improving The present study was conducted to investigate the e ffectiveness
students’ conceptual understandings and preventing misconcep- of jigsaw cooperative learning instruction over teacher-centered
tions. The findings are consistent with earlier studies as those of approach on first-year undergraduates’ understanding of ‘Acid
Doymus (2008a, 2008b), Eilks (2005) which revealed that the and Base Theories’. The results reflected that jigsaw is an
jigsaw method leads to higher achievement. effective cooperative learning technique that promotes positive
In order to identify undergraduates’ opinions about jigsaw attitudes and interest, develop inter personal skills, and increase
cooperative learning application, 15-minute period semi-structured conceptual understanding. Additionally, there are limited studies
individual interviews were conducted with all the undergraduates in on students’ understanding of chemistry concepts via jigsaw
the experimental group after the instruction. As shown in Table 5, cooperative learning. Therefore, it is believed that this study will
undergraduates indicated that this instruction positively e ffected their contribute to the chemistry education literature. In the light of the
attitudes towards chemistry, learning achievements, responsibilities, results, it is suggested that jigsaw cooperative learning should be
and social skills. 67% of the undergraduates indicated that jigsaw used widely in chemistry instruction.
cooperative learning increased their chemistry achievements, and
61% of them began to think that chemistry is not memorization. In
the other hand only 44% of them required using jigsaw cooperative References
learning in all the lessons. This result underlined that although Acar Sesen B. and Tarhan L., (2011), Active-learning versus teacher-
undergraduates recognize the power of jigsaw cooperative learning, centered instruction for learning acids and bases, Research in Science
more than half of them do not want to be taught via jigsaw. They also & Technological Education, 29, 205–226.
Acar B. and Tarhan L., (2007), Effect of cooperative learning strategies on
do not want to study in group. This results underlined that students’ understanding of concepts in electrochemistry, International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 349–373.
312 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313 This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012
View Article Online
Acar B. and Tarhan L., (2008). Effects of cooperative learning on Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (1994), Joining together: Group
students’ understanding of metallic bonding, Research in Science theory and group skills, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Education, 38, 401–420. Kaya O. N., (2007), A student-centred approach: Assessing the
Aronson E., Blaney N., Stephan C., Sikes J. and Snapp M., (1978), changes in prospective science teachers’ conceptual understanding
The Jigsaw Classroom, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Pub. by concept mapping in a general chemistry laboratory, Research in
Banerjee A. C., (1991), Misconception of students and teachers in Science Education, 38, 91–110.
chemical equilibrium, International Journal of Science Education, Lazarowitz R., Baird J. H., Hertz-Lazarowitz R. and Jenkins J.,
13, 487–494. (1985), The effect of modified jigsaw on achievement, classroom
Bodner G., (1986), Constructivism: A theory of knowledge, Journal of social climate and self-esteem in high school science classes, in:
Chemical Education, 63, 873–878. Slavin, R. et al. (ed.) Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn,
Bradley J. D. and Mosimege M. D., (1998), Misconceptions in acids New York & London: Plenum Press, pp. 231–253.
and bases: a comparative study of student teachers with different McKeachie, W. J., (1986), Teaching Tips, (8th edn) Lexington, Mass.:
chemistry backgrounds, South African Journal of Chemistry, 51, Heath.
137–145. Nakhleh M.B. and Krajcik J. S., (1993). A proctocol analysis of the
Carr M., (1984), Model confusion in chemistry, Research in Science influence of technology on students’ actions, verbal commentary, and
Education, 14, 97–103. thought processes during the performance of acid–base titrations,
Colosi J. C. and Zales C.R., (1998), Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1149–1168.
Improves Biology Lab Course, Bioscience, 48, 118–124. Nakhleh M. B., (1994), Students’ models of matter in the context of
Cooper J. L. and Mueck R., (1990), Student involvement in learning acid–base chemistry, Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 495–499.
Cooperative learning and college instruction, Journal on Excellence Nakhleh M. B., (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry,
Published on 16 April 2012. Downloaded on 7/9/2018 3:05:13 PM.
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313
313