PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1308 - 9501

International Journal of Educational Researchers 2013, Vol. 4(2) 30-37

The Effect Of Jigsaw-I Cooperative Learning Technique On Students’ Understanding About Basic Organic Chemistry Concepts

Gülşen ÇAĞATAY & Gökhan DEMİRCİOĞLU

pp. 30 - 37   |  Manu. Number: ijers.2013.008

Published online: July 01, 2013  |   Number of Views: 872  |  Number of Download: 859


Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate effect of Jigsaw-1 Cooperative Learning technique on students’ understanding and alternative conceptions concerning basic organic chemistry concepts. The study was conducted with a total of 52 9th grade students in a high school in Trabzon. The study used quasi-experimental design (an experimental group and a control group). While experimental group students performed activities based on Jigsaw 1 technique, control group students were taught with traditional approach. The treatment lasted for three lesson hours in both groups. An Organic Chemistry Achievement Test involving 5 open-ended questions was used to collect data. The data obtained from pre- and post-tests of both groups was compared with the independent t-test. The post-test results showed that there was a significant difference between groups in favor of the experimental group. In other words, the experimental group students taught with Jigsaw I technique performed better in the post-test than the control group.

Keywords: -


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
CAGATAY, G. & DEMIRCIOGLU, G. (2013). The Effect Of Jigsaw-I Cooperative Learning Technique On Students’ Understanding About Basic Organic Chemistry Concepts. International Journal of Educational Researchers , 4(2), 30-37.

Harvard
CAGATAY, G. and DEMIRCIOGLU, G. (2013). The Effect Of Jigsaw-I Cooperative Learning Technique On Students’ Understanding About Basic Organic Chemistry Concepts. International Journal of Educational Researchers , 4(2), pp. 30-37.

Chicago 16th edition
CAGATAY, Gulsen and Gokhan DEMIRCIOGLU (2013). " The Effect Of Jigsaw-I Cooperative Learning Technique On Students’ Understanding About Basic Organic Chemistry Concepts". International Journal of Educational Researchers 4 (2):30-37.

References
  1. Aydın, S. (2011). Effect of cooperative learning and traditional methods on students’ achievements and identifications of laboratory equipments in science-technology laboratory course, Educational Research and Reviews, 6(9), 636-644. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowen, C. W. (2000). A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievement. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 116-119. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:awrence Earlbaum Associates [Google Scholar]
  4. Çalık, M., Ayas, A. & Coll, R.K. (2007). Enhancing pre-service primaryteachers’ conceptual understanding of solution chemistry with conceptual change text. International Journal of Science Mathematics Education, 5(1), 1-28. [Google Scholar]
  5. Demircioğlu, G.. Özmen, H. and Ayas,A.(2004).Eğitim Bilimleri / Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice . 73-80 [Google Scholar]
  6. Doymuş, K., (2008). Teaching Chemical Equilibrium with the Jigsaw Technique. Research in Science Education, 38: 249-260 [Google Scholar]
  7. Doymuş, K., Karaçöp, A., and Şimşek, Ü.(2010).Effects of jigsaw and animation techniques on students’understanding of concepts and subjects in electrochemistry, Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 671-691 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ebenezer, J.V. & Erickson, L.G. (1996). Chemistry students’ conception of solubility: A phenomenograpy. Science Education, 80(2), 181-201. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ghaith,G. And A.R. Bouzeineddine(2003).Relationship between reading attitudes, achievement and learners’ [Google Scholar]
  10. perceptions of their Jigsaw II Cooperative learning experiences,Reading Psychool,24(1):105-12 [Google Scholar]
  11. Haidar, A.H., & Abraham, M.R. (1991). A comparison of applied and theoretical knowledge of concepts based on the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 919-938 [Google Scholar]
  12. Haller, R.C ., Gallagher, V.J ., Weldon,T.L., Felder, R.M., 2000. Dynamics of peer interactions in cooperative learning. Journal Engineering Education, 89(3), 285-293 [Google Scholar]
  13. Johnson.,B.&Christensen,L.(2004) Educational Research,Quantitative,Qualitative and mixed Approaches, second edition,Pearson,U.S.A [Google Scholar]
  14. Johnson, David W., Johnson, Roger T., and Smith, Karl A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kozma, R.B., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry instruction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105 ± 143. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mattingly,R.M and R.L,Van Sickle (1991).Cooperative Learning and achievement in social studies:Jigsaw II.Social Psychol.,128(1):345-352 [Google Scholar]
  17. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1991). Students’ alternative frameworks and science education ,Bibliography. Kiel, Germany : Institute for Science Education [Google Scholar]
  18. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering c Education, 93(3), 223-231. [Google Scholar]
  19. Robson, C.(1998) Real Word Research, Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Oxford, UK [Google Scholar]
  20. Sharan, S. (2002). Differentiating methods of cooperative learning in research and practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(1), 106 - 116. [Google Scholar]
  21. Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315-342. [Google Scholar]
  22. Staver, J.R. & Lumpe, A.T. (1995). Two investigations of students understanding of the mole concept and its use in problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(2),177-193. [Google Scholar]
  23. Şahin, A. (2010). Effects of jigsaw II technique on academic achievement and attitudes to written expression course, Educational Research and Reviews, 5(12), 777-787 [Google Scholar]