Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The jigsaw model is a dynamic cooperative learning approach where students become experts on different segments of the material and teach their peers, thereby enhancing engagement accountability, team work, and ultimately improving academic achievement. This study investigated the effectiveness of a cooperative learning strategy on secondary school students’ biology achievement using the jigsaw learning model. A quasi-experimental, nonequivalent control group pretest-posttest design was employed, involving two secondary schools. One school (n = 40 students) was randomly assigned to the intervention group, while the other (n = 41 students) served as the control group. Data were collected through achievement tests, with a pretest administered to both groups before the intervention. Analysis of the pretest data revealed that no significant difference in biology scores between the two groups (mean difference = 4, ES = .02, p > .05). After a 16-week intervention, the cooperative learning strategy using the jigsaw model resulted in a statistically significant improvement in the experimental group’s post-test performance (mean difference = 19.2, ES = .33, p < .05). However, the intervention showed no notable impact on gender-based post-test achievement scores among experimental group participants (mean difference = 2.2, ES = .008, p > .05). Therefore, the study affirmed that cooperative learning strategy, specifically employing the jigsaw model, is a valid and effective approach for secondary school biology.

Keywords

achievement biology cooperative learning instructional approach jigsaw

Introduction

Education plays a pivotal role in maximizing individuals’ potential and is a prerequisite for meaningful and sustainable national economic growth (Gambari & Olumorin, 2013). Specifically, a deep understanding of biology contributes to scientific literacy, enhancing individuals’ comprehension of the natural world (da Silva, 2008). In the 21st century, schools are expected to equip students with essential skills such as communication, problem-solving, cooperation, and critical thinking to effectively address the complex challenges of a knowledge-based economy (Keramati & Gillies, 2022). One effective strategy for nurturing these skills is cooperative learning (hereafter referred to as CL), which promotes active engagement and teamwork in modern classrooms (Yaduvanshi & Singh, 2019).

Despite the recognized importance of these skills, recent years have witnessed poor learning performance and achievement in biology among students (Manishimwe et al., 2023; Talam, 2021). For example, in Ethiopia, the national mean achievement score for grade 10 biology was reported to be 40.3, below the average (Wodaj & Belay, 2021). Similarly, Geletu (2022) emphasized the low academic performance of students in Biology across Ethiopian secondary schools. This academic underperformance is attributed to various challenges in teaching, assessment, and implementation (Geletu, 2022; Tabulawa, 2013; T. Tadesse & Melese, 2016).

In response to these challenges, educators, researchers, and policymakers advocate for innovative approaches to teaching, that emphasize increased student engagement (Kahu & Nelson, 2018), and enhanced instructional productivity (Chiu & Cheng, 2017). One widely supported approach i CL, is known to improve academic performance and develop generic skills (Møgelvang & Nyléhn, 2023). CL fosters quality teaching and creates more engaging, supportive classroom environments (T. Tadesse & Gillies, 2015). Studies emphasize that active participation in cooperative learning is a key determinant of student academic performance in biology (Bizimana et al., 2022). This approach has received notable attention over the past few decades (Daniel & Desalegn, 2009).

CL is recognized globally as one of the most innovative and effective pedagogical approaches in today’s educational landscape (Ghaith, 2018). In biology education, CL fosters peer interaction and support, enabling students to grasp complex biological concepts more effectively (Kebede et al., 2024). It improves student achievement, motivation, fosters positive intergroup relationships, and cultivates critical, creative thinking and problem-solving skills (Liebech-Lien, 2020). Additionally, it promotes higher-order thinking, prosocial behavior, and acceptance among diverse groups, addressing the challenge of academic heterogeneity in classrooms (E. G. Cohen, 1994). By equipping students with the skills to tackle problems and resolve conflicts, CL contributes to a more socially just and equitable society (Sharan, 2010). The shift from traditional, lecture-based teaching to learner-centered approaches further underscores the growing importance of CL (Habte et al., 2021; T. Tadesse et al., 2020)

The effectiveness of group work and CL strategies in science has been widely reported over the years (Thurston et al., 2010). In Ethiopia, national and regional education authorities have advocated for these strategies through group-based agreements (Abdurohman Yimam, 2018). However, their implementation faces significant challenges. For instance, M. Tadesse (2015) reported that instructional practices in most Ethiopian secondary schools remain predominantly teacher-centered, with minimal student engagement in learning activities. Similarly, a study in Wolaita zone revealed below-average implementation of CL approaches (Habtewold & Bezabih, 2018). Melese et al. (2010) found that learner-centered methods in upper primary schools were below expectations due to factors related to students, teachers, school environment, policy, resources, and equipment.

CL includes techniques like think-pair-share, group investigations, Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), and jigsaw. In think-pair-share, students reflect on a question individually, discuss it with a partner, and share insights with the class. Group investigation involves researching a topic in groups and presenting findings. STAD places students in mixed-ability groups to study content collaboratively, where individual performance affects the group’s overall success (Slavin, 1995). The jigsaw classroom, developed in the late 1970s to improve academic performance and reduce intergroup conflict, remains a versatile cooperative learning strategy (Vives et al., 2024). It fosters interaction, planning, participation, leadership, and mutual encouragement, while also enhancing students’ socialization and learning (Cochon Drouet et al., 2023). Specifically, the jigsaw technique improves communication skills, critical thinking, interdependence, accountability, promotive interaction, and consensus-building, leading to enhanced achievement in students’ learning (Jeppu et al., 2023). This approach involves dividing academic material into subtopics, having students study these subtopics in expert teams, and then sharing their expertise with their original teams (Aronson, 2002). This encourages active listening, mutual support, and engagement with each other’s work (Doymus et al., 2010). Among CL methods, jigsaw is particularly favored by teachers due to its ease of implementation and its ability to integrate socialization with academic learning (Cochon Drouet et al., 2023). Furthermore, studies have emphasized the importance of adapting the jigsaw model to different cultural and classroom contexts, ensuring its effectiveness across diverse educational settings (Sharan, 2010). The integration of technology has also been noted to enhance the learning experience by facilitating collaboration and access to resources (Johnson et al., 2014). These findings affirm the Jigsaw model’s adaptability and effectiveness as a cooperative learning approach across various educational environments.

Policy documents, including the 1994 Education and Training Policy (Federal Democratic Republic Government of Ethiopia, 1994), the Teacher Education System Overhaul (TESO) (MoE, 2003), and the 2009 Secondary School Curriculum Framework (MoE, 2009), stress the significance of inquiry-based teaching in Ethiopian education. This could be effectively realized if appropriate learning methods are implemented properly. Regarding the implementation of CL, the findings of MoE (2018) and Geletu (2021) indicate a direct relationship between the use of CL approaches and improvements in students’ engagement and learning outcomes. The Ministry of Education has also highlighted the importance of these strategies in fostering problem-solving capacities (MoE, 2002), and student-centered teaching approaches have been introduced in schools (Geleto, 2019).

Despite these policy efforts, CL, particularly the jigsaw model, remains controversial and under-researched. Studies in various schools, such as Fitche preparatory and secondary school (Tesfamichael, 2024), rural secondary schools in Farta District, South Gondar Zone (Molla & Muche, 2018), and in Nekemte Administration Town secondary schools (Simesso et al., 2024) have shown positive effects of CL on student achievement. Geletu (2021) found that students in intervention schools outperformed those in control schools due to peer-tutoring. However, neither of these studies thoroughly tested the jigsaw model. This gap presents a critical opportunity to evaluate the model’s impact in a context facing challenges such as large class sizes (Molla & Muche, 2018), resource constraints (Demie et al., 2019), and the perception of CL as politically motivated (Mulisa & Kassahun, 2018). International research also shows that the jigsaw model positively impacts communication, critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and metacognitive awareness in various educational contexts, including biology (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020; Haviz, 2019; Soliman Abd El Aliem et al., 2019).

This study addresses the jigsaw model’s impact in the Gedeo Zone, a region with specific challenges. These factors create a compelling case for using the jigsaw model to enhance cooperative learning in diverse and resource-limited settings. The quasi-experimental design is justified by the need to assess the model’s effectiveness in a real-world context, providing insights that could potentially transform teaching practices in this region.

Despite the emphasis on CL in policy documents, educators predominantly follow individual learning approaches, such as teacher-centered lectures and personal activities, while CL, which focuses on group goals, remains an under-researched pedagogy (Adu-ManuSarpong et al., 2013). The reliance on these methods complicates the adoption of CL strategies and underscores the need for more research on effective group learning methodologies. Teachers often resist CL methods due to inadequate training, insufficient skills in managing group work, and concerns that the promotion of CL may be tied to hidden political agendas (Wondimu & Banteamlak, 2020). Teacher-centered, lecture-based methods continue to dominate, particularly in subjects like biology, where active learning is crucial (Bekele & Melesse, 2011; Beyessa, 2014; Dufera, 2006; Endawoke, 2004; Teshome, 2013). Even when group work is attempted, traditional collaborative methods that lack key CL elements, such as positive interdependence and individual accountability, are often used (Garcia, 2021). This limits the potential benefits of group learning and fosters a competitive mindset that undermines true cooperation. The researcher’s own experience as a biology teacher has also demonstrated this challenge as well.

In light of these challenges, it remains unclear how CL, specifically the Jigsaw model, influences the academic performance of secondary school students in Ethiopia. Addressing this gap is critical for advancing the national educational objectives and promoting more active, engaging learning environments (Biggas, 2002; Bryson & Hand, 2007).

The main aim of this study was to assess the impact of the jigsaw CL model on students’ academic achievement in secondary school biology in selected schools within Gedeo Zone, South Ethiopia. Accordingly, the following alternative directional and null hypotheses were established:

Ha1: Students exposed to the jigsaw CL model perform better in biology than those taught using the traditional lecture approach.

HO2: There is no statistically significant gender-wise difference in the average biology achievement scores for students exposed to jigsaw CL intervention in classrooms.

Theoretical Framework of the Study

The principal theoretical foundation for CL is the social interdependence theory, as highlighted by T. Tadesse et al. (2021). This theory serves as the basis for many commonly used CL approaches in education, as articulated by Johnson and Johnson (1999). Social interdependence theory suggests that CL involves various educational strategies designed to promote student learning through collaboration and the development of teamwork skills (Sharan, 2010). It posits that cooperation leads to stronger interpersonal relationships than competition or individual work (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Additionally, the theory emphasizes that students engaged in CL work interdependently to achieve shared group goals (Keramati & Gillies, 2022).

The practical applications of CL, both at the school and university levels, are rooted in the social interdependence theory (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). This interconnectedness between theory, research, and practice makes CL distinctive, encouraging many researchers to adopt this theory in their studies (Keramati & Gillies, 2022). Therefore, the present study is guided by the principles of social interdependence theory, which aligns with its focus on fostering collaboration and enhancing students’ academic achievement through CL.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of a study visually represents the relationships between the key variables, and guides the research activities (Tefera, 2014). In this study, we conceptualized learners’ academic achievement in grade nine biology lessons as the dependent variable, with teaching approaches considered as the independent variable. The study adopts five essential elements of the CL approach, as outlined by Liebech-Lien (2020), as the core framework for structuring the intervention. These elements, as identified by Johnson and Johnson (2017), serve as mediating variables that foster effective collaboration among students. By including these mediators, we aim to provide a more nuanced understanding of how the CL intervention influences academic outcomes (Leatherdale, 2019).

Thus, one section of grade 9 students participated in the intervention group, while another section served as the control group. The conceptualization of the Jigsaw CL model was adapted for implementation. The choice of the jigsaw model among various cooperative learning models was based on its reported effectiveness across different subjects and academic levels (Garcia, 2021). Additionally, Wang et al. (2015) emphasized that the jigsaw model prioritizes critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making, and questioning skills, which align well with the skills needed in the 21st century. The alignment of the jigsaw model with these essential skills enhances its significance in the study, making it a strategic option for improving academic performance and promoting effective teamwork.

Method

Research Design

In the realm of educational research, executing a true experiment proves to be challenging due to the inherent difficulty in achieving full control over variables, and the feasibility of randomization is not always guaranteed (Wodaj & Belay, 2021). Consequently, a quantitative method with quasi-experimental nonequivalent control group pre-test post-test design was used in this study. This research design proves indispensable for delving into the relationships between factors that the researcher can reasonably control (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2012). Rowe and Oltmann (2016) provide guidance on the application of this approach in educational research, and adopting such a design aligns with Hodges et al.’s (2020) recommendation, allowing the researcher to seamlessly integrate the intervention into the school calendar while minimizing disruptions to the academic program.

Participants

The sample for this study consisted of grade nine students from two government secondary schools (Dilla Secondary School serving as the intervention school and Kofe Secondary School serving as the control school) in the Gedeo Zone, South Ethiopia. The choice of this grade level was driven by the recognition, as highlighted in the problem statement, of the subpar national performance in biology. The decision to focus on this particular grade level is based on the researcher’s view that fostering a culture of cooperation at this stage can help develop teamwork skills and may significantly contribute to improving performance in national exams.

There are 27 secondary schools in the Gedeo Zone (Gedeo Zone Education Department, 2023). To ensure accurate data collection and control, two schools were selected using a simple random sampling technique, as recommended by Namusoke and Rukundo (2022). Consequently, Dilla Comprehensive Secondary School, with 40 students, was chosen as the intervention school, while Kofe Secondary School, with 41 students, was served as the control school. The schools were randomly allocated to the intervention and control groups, ensuring an equitable and unbiased distribution. This strategic approach aimed to enhance the reliability of the study’s findings and contribute to a robust understanding of the impact of jigsaw CL model in selected schools.

Experimental Interventions

This study utilized a jigsaw CL model, incorporating five key elements identified by T. Tadesse et al. (2021): (1) focusing on students’ learning and achievement of various outcomes; (2) fostering relationships; (3) enhancing students’ capacities; (4) maintaining persistence through various learning activities; and (5) providing consistent support for the successful implementation of the new strategy throughout the intervention. Additionally, the learning process during the intervention was organized around CL frameworks that defined both student cooperation and the intended learning outcomes (Železnik Mežan et al., 2023).

In line with these principles, the jigsaw model was implemented over 16 weeks, from September 7, 2023, to January 7, 2024. The grade 9 biology curriculum consisted of a 40-minute lesson held three times per week. To promote diversity within the Jigsaw groups, students’ previous recorded average results and gender were taken into account while assigning group members. The teacher divided the class into diverse groups of 5 to 6 students, referred to as “home groups.”

Each lesson was divided into segments and assigned to home groups, enabling students to cooperate and become “experts” in their specific segments. After this, the groups were restructured so that each member joined a new group, called the “expert group,” where they presented their segments and learned from their peers. Once the expert group session concluded, students returned to their original home groups to discuss all the segments they had learned. Finally, the teacher conducted evaluations at the end of each lesson to assess the students’ understanding of the concepts (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Jigsaw model as a cooperative learning approach.

Prior to Intervention

Before the intervention began, the participating biology teachers attended a three-day training workshop focused on various techniques of the Jigsaw CL strategy. During this workshop, the teachers were trained on how to effectively group students, assign tasks, and evaluate students throughout the intervention period.

Instruments

Throughout the intervention period, grade nine biology covered topics of introduction to biology, characteristics and classification of organisms, and cell biology. To assess learners’ academic performance, a biology test was developed and administered both as a pre-test and post-test. The test consisted of 40 multiple-choice questions. To ensure content validity, two biology professors and one PhD candidate reviewed the tests to confirm whether the questions adequately represented the targeted content. After this review, the final test, now comprising 35 multiple choice items, underwent a pilot phase involving 20 students to assess its reliability. The Kuder–Richardson 20 method was used for this purpose, resulting in a reliability coefficient of .93, indicating excellent reliability (Kuder & Richardson, 1937). Consequently, the biology achievement test was chosen as the primary instrument for data collection.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23. An independent sample t-test was employed to compare the mean scores of pre-test and post-test achievements between the experimental and control groups, aiming to assess the differences in mean among participants in the two groups. Additionally, a paired sample t-test was utilized to evaluate the impact of the intervention within the experimental group, comparing the performance before and after the intervention. Eta squared statistics were used to determine the magnitude of the effect. The hypotheses were tested by comparing the p-value with the critical significance level set at .05.

Result

This study aimed to explore the effect of the jigsaw cooperative learning model on secondary school students’ biology achievement, using a quasi-experimental design. A 16-week intervention was implemented to assess the effect. The first step involved describing the demographic characteristics of the participants.

Table 1 shows that the majority of students were male, with 59 students (72.8%) identifying as male, while 22 students (27.2%) identified as female. In terms of age, the largest group consisted of 48 students (59.3%) who were 16 years old, followed by 25 students (30.9%) who were 15, 7 students (8.6%) who were 17, and 1 student (1.2%) who was 14. The overall average age of the participants was 15.75 years.

Table 1.

Demographic Distribution of Participants by Gender and Age

	Frequency	Percentage	Cumulative percentage
Gender distribution
Male	59	72.8	72.8
Female	22	27.2	100
Total	81	100
Age distribution
14	1	1.2	1.2
15	25	30.9	32.1
16	48	59.3	91.4
17	7	8.6	100
Total	81	100

Before employing t-test statistics, normality assumptions were thoroughly assessed. The normality of the distribution of the dependent variable, encompassing pre-test and post-test achievement scores for both the experimental and control groups, was confirmed, and no outliers were detected. Histograms were utilized to visually assess the distribution shape, revealing reasonably normal distributions for the scores. Additionally, the examination of normal Q-Q plots and box plots supported the normality findings. Furthermore, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests were conducted, indicating no significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis of normality, (p > .05). Following the fulfillment of the aforementioned assumptions, the researchers proceeded to conduct both independent sample t-tests and paired sample t-tests (Table 2).

Table 2.

Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk Tests for Data Normality.

	Kolmogorov–Smirnov^a			Shapiro–Wilk
	Statistic	df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
Pre achievements	.095	81	.068	.974	81	.100
Post achievements	.085	81	.200*	.980	81	.240

Note. ^aLilliefors significance correction.

This is a lower bound of true significance.

Table 3 illustrates the results of an independent sample t-test conducted to compare the mean pretest scores of the control and experimental group participants. The findings revealed no significant difference in mean pretest scores between the two groups of participants, t(79) = 1.34, p > .05 (two-tailed), with the experimental group (M = 56.9, SD = 17.02) and the control group (M = 52.9, SD = 8.03). The observed mean difference was 4, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from −1.98 to 9.92. The eta squared statistic (ES = .01) indicated a small effect size. This suggests that the academic status of learners in both groups was highly comparable before exposure to different teaching methods.

Table 3.

Output of Independent Sample t-Test of Participants Before Treatment (N = 81).

Groups	N	Mean	SD	F	Sig	t	df	Mean difference	Eta squared	Sig two tailed
Control	41	52.9	8.03	16.57	.00	1.34	79	4	.02	.187
Experimental	40	56.9	17.02	16.57	.00	1.34	79	4	.02	.187

Table 4 illustrates the outcomes of an independent sample t-test conducted to compare the mean post-test scores of the control and experimental group participants. The results revealed a significant difference in mean test scores after the intervention between the two groups of participants, t(79) = 6.19, p < .05 (two-tailed). The experimental group (M = 74.9, SD = 12.1) outperformed better than the control group (M = 55.7, SD = 15.5). The observed mean difference was 19.2, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 13.01 to 25.37. The eta squared statistic (.33) indicated relatively large effect size (J. Cohen, 1988). These results suggest that the experimental group, which participated in jigsaw CL, demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in biology post-test scores compared to the control group.

Table 4.

Output of Independent Sample t-Test of Participants After Treatment (N = 81).

Groups	N	Mean	SD	F	Sig	t	df	Mean difference	Eta squared	Sig two tailed
Control	41	55.7	15.5	1.95	.167	6.19	79	19.2	.33	.000
Experimental	40	74.9	12.1	1.95	.167	6.19	79	19.2	.33	.000

Table 5 presents the results of a paired sample t-test conducted to compare the mean test scores of the experimental group participants before and after treatment. The findings indicate a significant increase in the mean test score for the experimental group from time 1 (before exposure to the intervention; M = 56.85, SD = 17.02) to time 2 (after exposure to the intervention) (M = 74.85, SD = 12.12), t(39) = 5.45, p < .05 (two-tailed). The mean increase in the test score was 18, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 11.32 to 24.68. The eta squared statistic (.43) indicated meaningful and practical effect size. This suggests that engaging in CL has a substantial impact on the academic achievement of test scores in biology.

Table 5.

Output of Paired Sample t-Test of Experimental Group Participants Before and After Treatment (N = 40).

Groups	N	Achievement score	Mean	SD	t	df	Mean increase	Eta squared	Sig two tailed
Experimental	40	Pre-test	56.85	17.02	5.45	39	18	.43	.000
Experimental	40	Post-test	74.85	12.12	5.45	39	18	.43	.000

Table 6 displays the results of a paired sample t-test conducted to compare the mean pre-test and post-test scores of the control group participants. The findings reveal no significant difference in mean test scores from time 1 (pre-test) (M = 52.9, SD = 8.04) to time 2 (post-test) (M = 55.7, SD = 15.54), t(40) = 1.01, p > .05 (two-tailed). The eta squared statistic (.02) indicated a small effect size. This suggests that the traditional learning approach did not result in a significant increase in biology achievement among control group participants.

Table 6.

Output of Paired Sample t-Test of Control Group Participants Before and After Treatment (N = 41).

Groups	N	Achievement score	Mean	SD	t	df	Mean increase	Eta squared	Sig two tailed
Control	41	Pre-test	52.9	8.04	1.01	40	2.8	.02	.318
Control	41	Post-test	55.7	15.54	1.01	40	2.8	.02	.318

Table 7 shows the results of an independent sample t-test conducted to compare the gender-wise mean post-test scores of participants in the experimental group. The findings revealed no significant difference in gender-wise mean post-achievement scores, t(38) = 0.53, p > .05 (two-tailed), with males (M = 75.6, SD = 11.9) and females (M = 73.4, SD = 12.7). The observed mean difference was 2.2, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from −6.02 to 10.39. The eta-squared statistic (ES = .008) indicated a small effect size. This suggests that gender plays no role in mean achievement scores in biology tests learned by the Jigsaw CL model.

Table 7.

Output of Gender wise Mean Posttest Achievement Score of Experimental Group Participants.

Groups	N	N	Mean	SD	t	df	Mean difference	Eta squared	Sig two tailed
Experimental	Male	26	75.6	11.9	0.53	38	2.2	.008	.593
Experimental	Female	14	73.4	12.7	0.53	38	2.2	.008	.593

Discussion

A substantial body of research highlights CL strategies as among the most effective teaching approaches for enhancing student achievement (Gillies, 2016; Johnson et al., 2014; Tran, 2019). The findings of this experimental study align with this perspective, showing that students taught using CL strategies achieved significantly higher mean post-test scores compared to those taught via traditional lecture methods. Similarly, Yaduvanshi and Singh (2019) reported superior performance on the Biology Achievement Test (BAT) among students instructed with CL, particularly across cognitive domains such as knowledge, understanding, and application, compared to their peers taught through conventional methods. In an introductory biology course, Premo et al. (2018) further revealed that CL, structured through interdependence-based tasks, increased collaborative engagement at both individual and whole-class levels. However, Premo et al. (2018) also noted that while collaborative engagement improved, it did not directly lead to higher achievement without additional supportive factors. This suggests that cooperative learning, when designed to encourage interdependence, provides students with more opportunities to engage in discussions, solve problems, generate solutions, contribute ideas, and support each other, leading to a positive treatment effect on student outcomes in biology (Geletu, 2022).

The findings are consistent with previous research. For example, Molla and Muche (2018) reported that students instructed using CL strategies performed better on biology post-tests compared to those taught conventionally. Similarly, Denbel (2018) found that CL led to improved secondary school mathematics achievement. Geletu (2022) showed that CL method has a positive impact on learners’ academic achievement in natural science at knowledge, comprehension, and application levels, when compared to the traditional lecture method. This effect has been confirmed in broader meta-analyses, which demonstrate that CL benefits extend across age groups and educational contexts (Kyndt et al., 2013). Additionally, Namusoke and Rukundo (2022) reported that CL (group work) methods had a statistically significant effect on pupils’ academic performance in English language lessons in universal primary education schools. Simesso et al. (2024) found that CL positively impacts achievement and retention in secondary school chemistry. Bećirović (2023) observed that CL improves cultural intelligence and EFL motivation, leading to higher EFL achievement among high school students in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Al-Malki et al. (2022) also found that CL improves EFL learners’ social skills, inter-group relations, course content mastery, and academic achievement among Saudi female EFL students at the undergraduate level. Furthermore, Chen and Lin (2020) reported significant improvements in college students’ learning outcomes in microeconomics in Taiwan.

Regarding the jigsaw method, Yoruk (2016) found that it enhances students’ academic achievement in elementary school chemistry lessons. Blajvaz et al. (2022) found that the jigsaw technique led to notable improvements in students’ physics achievement, metacognitive awareness, and motivation. A meta-analysis by Vives et al. (2024) reported that, out of 32 studies conducted on STEM achievement using the jigsaw CL model, 19 studies demonstrated a positive effect. Among these, three studies focused on biology, seven on chemistry, five on physics, and four on mathematics. Suendarti and Virgana (2022) discovered that the jigsaw CL method improved natural science learning achievement among junior high school students in Indonesia, while Rahmawati et al. (2022) demonstrated that the jigsaw CL model can enhance student performance in secondary school chemistry. Ibrahim et al. (2023) also reported improvements in critical thinking skills in secondary school biology through the Jigsaw model. Doymus (2008) found that the jigsaw model is particularly effective in enhancing understanding and retention in science subjects by breaking down complex tasks into manageable segments. Moreover, Baken et al. (2022) found that the jigsaw CL model improves learning and retention in observation-based undergraduate biology laboratory activities. Together, these findings affirm the jigsaw model’s potential to positively impact learner performance across various educational levels.

Consequently, this study stands out as the first to conceptually and methodologically examine the effectiveness of jigsaw CL model in its specific context. While the findings align and differ from those of other national and international studies, the unique contribution of this research lies in its application to Ethiopian secondary schools, where large class sizes, limited resources, and perceptions of cooperative learning as politically driven present significant challenges. Prior studies such as Slavin (2015) emphasize that CL models need adaptations to local educational challenges to maximize effectiveness. By adapting the jigsaw model to these circumstances, the study demonstrates the model’s versatility and effectiveness in addressing educational barriers. These insights provide valuable guidance for educators and policymakers in other developing nations, showing how CL can be successfully implemented in resource-constrained environments.

Furthermore, the absence of significant gender-based differences in post-achievement scores among the experimental group suggested that the Jigsaw method benefited all students equally, regardless of gender. This finding contradicts previous research indicating gender differences in response to specific instructional methods (Hyde, 2005). However, it aligns with Geletu (2022), who reported no statistically significant gender-wise differences in natural science achievement test mean gains after students were taught using the CL approach for 20 weeks, and Simesso et al. (2024), who found no gender differences in secondary school chemistry achievement and retention after an 8 months intervention. Research synthesis and recommendations by Kuchynka et al. (2022) similarly suggest that CL can reduce gender disparities in STEM fields by promoting equal participation and mitigating stereotype threats. Fasasi and Istifanus (2022) also reported that the jigsaw CL strategy had no statistically significant effect on gender in secondary school algebra lessons in Nigeria. Bećirović et al. (2022) also found no significant differences in CL and motivation based on gender and grade level, which influenced EFL achievement among high school students in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The small effect size (eta squared = .008) further supports the idea that the jigsaw CL model used in the study is inclusive and effective across gender lines.

Theoretical Implications

This study is rooted in social interdependence theory, which stresses the significance of positive interdependence in promoting effective learning and improving academic outcomes (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). The jigsaw model exemplifies these principles by fostering a structured interdependence where each student’s contribution is critical to the success of the group (Aronson, 2002). The findings of this study enhance our understanding of how interdependence can drive both academic achievement and social development, particularly within the context of Ethiopian secondary schools. This reinforces the relevance and applicability of social interdependence theory across diverse educational settings, supporting its role in shaping instructional strategies that can lead to better student outcomes (Kagan, 1994).

Practical Implications

This study has important practical implications for Ethiopia’s educational system. The successful implementation of the jigsaw CL model, along with other CL strategies, provides a promising solution to enhance academic challenges in biology education. By promoting interdependence among students, CL can enhance student engagement, foster cooperative problem-solving, and ultimately improve academic performance (Gillies, 2016). The study’s findings, which are supported by both local and international studies, suggest that CL strategies can improve student achievement and classroom dynamics.

Overall, this study not only validates the effectiveness of the Jigsaw CL model but also provided new insights into its application in a challenging educational context. The findings contribute to the global discourse on the jigsaw CL model by demonstrating its potential to improve student achievement in various settings and supporting a shift toward CL strategies to enhance educational outcomes. This aligns with calls for context-based CL applications tailored to meet specific regional needs (Slavin, 2015).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the jigsaw CL model improved students’ biology achievement in secondary school. Through a quasi-experimental design, it was observed that students exposed to this CL approach consistently outperformed those taught using traditional lecture methods. The jigsaw CL model, with its emphasis on peer cooperation and active participation, effectively supported students in achieving higher scores in biology assessments. Furthermore, the study found no statistically significant differences in biology achievement based on gender, indicating that the jigsaw CL model was equally effective for all students, regardless of gender. From these findings, the researchers concluded that CL strategies, particularly the jigsaw model, are more effective in improving academic achievement than conventional teaching methods. This instructional approach not only facilitated a deeper understanding of biological concepts but also fostered an environment in which students could achieve greater academic success.

This study also provides evidence-based recommendations for educational improvement in Ethiopian secondary schools, particularly in Gedeo Zone, and aligns with the national emphasis on learner-centered teaching. By offering insights into potential solutions for enhancing biology achievement, the study has the potential to influence curriculum development, inform teacher professional development programs, and address research gaps regarding CL strategies in Ethiopian schools. Ultimately, the jigsaw CL model proves to be an effective instructional strategy for enhancing students’ biology achievement in secondary schools, offering a viable alternative to traditional lecture-based teaching methods in the Gedeo Zone.

Recommendations

To maximize the positive impact of CL method through jigsaw model on academic achievement, it should be incorporated into ongoing educational reforms in secondary schools, with a focus on teachers, students, and school leadership. Teacher training programs should include extensive CL modules, as well as regular workshops and seminars to keep educators up to date on best practices. To foster a collaborative culture, students should be engaged in orientation programs and peer mentoring initiatives. School leaders, including principals, could prioritize CL approach as part of the school’s strategic goals, ensuring that the necessary resources and instructional support are available. This method should also be expanded across multiple subjects, such as languages, social sciences, and the arts, to reinforce its value in a variety of educational settings. By incorporating these practices into educational strategies, schools can foster team based learning, resulting in better academic outcomes.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

While this study sheds light on the impact of jigsaw CL model on student achievement, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. The scope was limited due to the significant demands on human, material, financial and time resources necessary for larger interventions. With only 81 participants from two secondary schools, the findings may not accurately reflect the larger educational context. Future studies should aim to expand the sample size and involve additional schools to provide a more thorough assessment and strengthen the evidence supporting the effectiveness of CL strategies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to participants in the study and the administrative bodies of Dilla Comprehensive Secondary School and Kofe Secondary School for their cooperation during the study.

Authors’ Contributions

The primary author has designed this experimental study, conducted the analysis and interpretation of the data, and write up the report. Three co-authors, serving as supervisors, have contributed significantly to the paper’s writing by providing constructive comments and scientific reviews.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of College of Natural and computational sciences, Hawassa University with the reference number CNCS-REC012/24.

ORCID iD

Yidnekachew Awraris Kebede

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Abdurohman Yimam. (2018). Assessment of cooperative learning in North Shewa Ethiopia, in the case of Debre Birhan College of Teacher Education. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 7(8), 1–17.

Adu-ManuSarpong

Kingsley Arthur

Yaw Owusu Amoako

(2013). Causes of failure of students in computer programming courses: The teacher learner perspective. International Journal of Computer Applications, 77(12), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.5120/13448-1311

Al-Malki

E. A. A. R.

Gulnaz

Zahid Javid

Chaudhry

M. Z.

(2022). An empirical investigation of the EFL learners attitudes toward the effectiveness of cooperative learning. SAGE Open, 12(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221141699

Aronson

(2002). Building empathy, compassion, and achievement in the jigsaw classroom. In Aronson

(Ed.), Improving academic achievement (pp. 209–225). Elsevier.

Baken

E. K.

Adams

D. C.

Rentz

M. S.

(2022). Jigsaw method improves learning and retention for observation-based undergraduate biology laboratory activities. Journal of Biological Education, 56(3), 317–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1796757

Bećirović

(2023). The relationship between cooperative learning, cultural intelligence, EFL motivation and students’ performance: A structural equation modeling approach. SAGE Open, 13(4), 1–16.

Bećirović

Dubravac

Brdarević-Čeljo

(2022). Cooperative learning as a pathway to strengthening motivation and improving achievement in an EFL classroom. SAGE Open, 12(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221078016

Bekele

Melesse

(2011). Enactment of student-centered approach in teaching Mathematics and Natural Sciences: The case of selected general secondary schools in Jimma zone, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences, 5(2), 65367. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejesc.v5i2.65367

Beyessa

(2014). Major factors that affect grade 10 students’ academic achievement in science education at Ilu Ababora General Secondary of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 32, 118–134. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ilshs.32.118

10.

Biggas

(2002). The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1023/A

11.

Bizimana

Mutangana

Mwesigye

(2022). Students’ perceptions of the classroom learning environment and engagement in cooperative mastery learning-based biology classroom instruction. Education Research International, 2022(1), 5793394. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5793394

12.

Blajvaz

B. K.

Bogdanović

I. Z.

Jovanović

T. S.

Stanisavljević

J. D.

Pavkov-Hrvojević

M. V.

(2022). The jigsaw technique in lower secondary physics education: Students’ achievement, metacognition and motivation. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(4), 545–557. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.545

13.

Bryson

Hand

(2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290701602748

14.

Chen

Lin

T. F.

(2020). Do cooperative-based learning groups help students learn microeconomics? SAGE Open, 10(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020938699

15.

Chiu

P. H. P.

Cheng

S. H.

(2017). Effects of active learning classrooms on student learning: A two-year empirical investigation on student perceptions and academic performance. Higher Education Research and Development, 36(2), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1196475

16.

Cochon Drouet

Lentillon-Kaestner

Margas

. (2023). Effects of the jigsaw method on student educational outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analyses. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1216437. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1216437

17.

Cohen

E. G.

(1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001

18.

Cohen

(1988). Set correlation and contingency tables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12(4), 425–434.

19.

Daniel

Desalegn

(2009). Student motivation in co-operative groups: Social independence theory. In Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(Eds.), Cooperative learning (pp. 1–44). Routledge.

20.

Darling-Hammond

Flook

Cook-Harvey

Barron

Osher

(2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

21.

da Silva

K. B

. (2008). Biology and society: A new way to teach tertiary science to non-science students. Bioscience Education, 12(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.12.c4

22.

Demie

Seyoum

Tsehayu

(2019). Cooperative learning as a window of opportunity to transact mathematics instruction in Alamata and Korem secondary schools of Tigray, Ethiopia. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 7(4), 136. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.7n.4p.136

23.

Denbel

D. G.

(2018). Cooperative learning instructional approach for students’ mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics: A case study on probability and statistics lesson at a governmental secondary school in Ethiopia. Journal of Educational and Management Studies, 8(3), 56–63.

24.

Doymus

(2008). Teaching chemical equilibrium with the jigsaw technique. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9047-8

25.

Doymus

Karacop

Simsek

(2010). Effects of jigsaw and animation techniques on students’ understanding of concepts and subjects in electrochemistry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 671–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9157-2

26.

Dufera

(2006). Prospects and challenges of achieving the millennium development educational goals in Ethiopia: Where does Ethiopia stand on EFA goals? The Ethiopian Journal of Education, XXVI(2), 25–55.

27.

Endawoke

(2004). Teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and practice of learner-centered approach in schools of Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Journal of Education, XXIV(2), 17.

28.

Fasasi

K. M.

Istifanus

(2022). Effect of jigsaw II cooperative learning strategy on senior secondary school students’ academic achievement in algebra in Gombe State, Nigeria. AJSTME, 8(2), 169–175.

29.

Federal Democratic Republic Government of Ethiopia. (1994). Education and training policy. Federal Democratic Republic Government of Ethiopia.

30.

Fraenkel

J. R.

Wallen

N. E.

(2012). Data definition (Vol. 7, p. 429). McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7993-3_80736-1

31.

Gambari

I. A.

Olumorin

C. O.

(2013). Effectiveness of video-based cooperative learning strategy on high, medium and low academic achievers. The African Symposium: An Online Journal of the African Educational Research Network, 13(1), 63–68.

32.

Garcia

M. B.

(2021). Cooperative learning in computer programming: A quasi-experimental evaluation of Jigsaw teaching strategy with novice programmers. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4839–4856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10502-6

33.

Gedeo Zone Education Department. (2023). Gedeo Zone Education department annual report. Gedeo Zone Education Department.

34.

Geleto

(2019). Instructional goal structure, gender and second language motivation affecting English language achievement. Global Journal of Foreign Instructional Goal Structure, Gender and Second Language, 9(1), 69–81.

35.

Geletu

G. M.

(2021). The curriculum implementation using equitable pedagogical practices in primary schools: Its efficacy in promoting the 21st century classrooms. TCI (Transnational Curriculum Inquiry), 18(2), 39–55.

36.

Geletu

G. M.

(2022). The effects of teachers’ professional and pedagogical competencies on implementing cooperative learning and enhancing students’ learning engagement and outcomes in science: Practices and changes. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2153434. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2153434

37.

Ghaith

G. M.

(2018). Teacher perceptions of the challenges of implementing concrete and conceptual cooperative learning. Issues in Educational Research, 28(2), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32014.66888

38.

Gillies

R. M.

(2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3

39.

Habte

Bishaw

Lechissa

(2021). Beyond policy narratives: Exploring the role of pedagogical beliefs in classroom practices of secondary school Civics and Ethical Education teachers. Smart Learning Environments, 8(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00171-w

40.

Habtewold

Bezabih

(2018). Challenges of cooperative learning scheme at secondary schools of Wolaita Zone. IJSR: International Journal of Science and Research, 8(10), 1443–1446.

41.

Haviz

(2019). Implementing of subject jigsaw learning model and its impact on students’ achievement in Embryology course. Jurna! Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia, 5(3), 435–442.

42.

Hodges

G. W.

Flanagan

Lee

Cohen

Krishnan

Ward

(2020). A quasi-experimental study comparing learning gains associated with serious educational gameplay and hands-on science in elementary classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(9), 1460–1489. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21661

43.

Hyde

J. S.

(2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581

44.

Ibrahim

Marwan

Firmansyah

(2023). Enhancing critical thinking skills in biology subject with the legendary model of cooperative learning. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(5), 2368–2373. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i5.2323

45.

Jeppu

A. K.

Kumar

K. A.

Sethi

(2023). ‘We work together as a group’: Implications of jigsaw cooperative learning. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04734-y

46.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(1999). Making cooperative learning groups work. Middle School Journal, 26(4), 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.1995.11496127

47.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057

48.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(2017). The use of cooperative procedures in teacher education and professional development. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(3), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1328023

49.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

Smith

K. A.

(2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in University Teaching, 25(4), 1–26.

50.

Kagan

(1994). Cooperative learning. Kagan.

51.

Kahu

E. R.

Nelson

(2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197

52.

Kebede

Y. A.

Zema

F. K.

Geletu

G. M.

Zinabu

S. A.

(2024). Unlocking the power of togetherness: Exploring the impact of cooperative learning on peer relationships, academic support, and gains in secondary school biology in Gedeo Zone South Ethiopia. Science Education International, 35(3), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v35.i3.6

53.

Keramati

M. R.

Gillies

R. M.

(2022). Teaching cooperative learning through cooperative learning environment: A qualitative follow-up of an experimental study. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2100429

54.

Kuchynka

S. L.

Eaton

Rivera

L. M.

(2022). Understanding and addressing gender-based inequities in STEM: Research synthesis and recommendations for U.S. K-12 education. Social issues and Policy Review, 16(1), 252–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12087

55.

Kuder

G. F.

Richardson

M. W.

(1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Test, 2(3), 151–160.

56.

Kyndt

Raes

Lismont

Timmers

Cascallar

Dochy

(2013). A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educational Research Review, 10, 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002

57.

Leatherdale

S. T.

(2019). Natural experiment methodology for research: A review of how different methods can support real-world research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1488449

58.

Liebech-Lien

(2020). The bumpy road to implementing cooperative learning: Towards sustained practice through collaborative action. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1780056. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1780056

59.

Manishimwe

Shivoga

W. A.

Nsengimana

(2023). Enhancing students’ achievement in biology using inquiry-based learning in Rwanda. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 12(2), 809–817. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i2.23375

60.

Melese

Tadesse

Asefa

(2010). The practice of learner-centered method in upper primary schools of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences, 4(2), 51672. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejesc.v4i2.51672

61.

MoE. (2002). The education and training policy and its implementation. In MoE (Ed.), Coastal engineering manual—Chapter 5—Fundamentals of design. Ministry of Education.

62.

MoE. (2003). Teacher education system overhaul. Ministry of Education. https://moe.gov.et/PoliciesStrategies

63.

MoE. (2009). Curriculum framework for Ethiopian education (KG–Grade 12) (pp. 1–46). Ministry of Education.

64.

MoE. (2018). Ethiopian education development roadmap (2018–30) (pp. 1–101). Ministry of Education. https://5y1.org/download/f80344e9046fa0346fc402c29dd76288.pdf

65.

Møgelvang

Nyléhn

(2023). Co-operative learning in undergraduate mathematics and science education: A scoping review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(6), 1935–1959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10331-0

66.

Molla

Muche

(2018). Impact of cooperative learning approaches on students’ academic achievement and laboratory proficiency in biology subject in selected rural schools, Ethiopia. Education Research International, 2018(1), 6202484. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6202484

67.

Mulisa

Kassahun

(2018). The roles of a peer-led collaborative learning approach in Ethiopian secondary schools. Bahir Dar Journal of Education, 18(2), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1965/bje.v18i2.102

68.

Namusoke

Rukundo

(2022). Group work: Effect of cooperative learning method on academic performance in English language among pupils in Universal Primary Education schools in Kashari, Uganda. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2147774. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2147774

69.

Premo

Cavagnetto

Davis

W. B.

(2018). Promoting collaborative classrooms: The impacts of interdependent cooperative learning on undergraduate interactions and achievement. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(2), 176. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0176

70.

Rahmawati

Poba

Magfirah

Burase

(2022). Application of cooperative learning jigsaw model to improve student’s learning achievement in chemistry learning. Jurnal Akademika Kimia, 11(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.22487/j24775185.2022.v11.i1.pp39-45

71.

Rowe

Oltmann

(2016). Randomised controlled trials in educational research: Ontological and epistemological limitations. African Journal of Health Professions Education, 8(1), 683. https://doi.org/10.7196/ajhpe.2016.v8i1.683

72.

Sharan

(2010). Cooperative learning for academic and social gains: Valued pedagogy, problematic practice. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2010.01430.x

73.

Simesso

M. D.

Gutu

T. S.

Tarekegn

W. M.

(2024). The contribution of using cooperative learning methods on students’ achievement and retention in secondary schools during chemistry lesson. Education Research International, 2024(1), 1830124.

74.

Slavin

R. E.

(1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Allyn and Bacon. https://books.google.com.et/books?id=GWnuAAAAMAAJ

75.

Slavin

R. E.

(2015). Cooperative learning in elementary schools. Education 3–13, 43(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.963370

76.

Soliman Abd El Aliem

Said Sabry

Fathy MohyEl-Deen

. (2019). Utilization of jigsaw cooperative learning strategy on maternity nursing students’ attitude and achievement. American Journal of Nursing Science, 8(6), 361. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajns.20190806.22

77.

Suendarti

Virgana

(2022). Elevating natural science learning achievement: Cooperative learning and learning interest. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 16(1), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v16i1.20419

78.

Tabulawa

(2013). Teaching and learning in context: Why pedagogical reforms fail in Sub-Saharan Africa. African Books Collective.

79.

Tadesse

(2015). The utilization of instructional processes in higher education institutions. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, 4(4), 182–193.

80.

Tadesse

Gillies

R. M.

(2015). Nurturing cooperative learning pedagogies in higher education classrooms: Evidence of instructional reform and potential challenges. Current Issues in Education, 18(2), 1–18.

81.

Tadesse

Melese

(2016). The prevailing practices and challenges of curriculum reform in Ethiopian higher education: Views and responses from within. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(10), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n10.6

82.

Tadesse

Gillies

R. M.

Manathunga

(2020). Shifting the instructional paradigm in higher education classrooms in Ethiopia: What happens when we use cooperative learning pedagogies more seriously? International Journal of Educational Research, 99, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101509

83.

Tadesse

Gillies

R. M.

Manathunga

(2021). The effects of informal cooperative learning pedagogy on teaching effectiveness, task orientation, and learning satisfaction in undergraduate classrooms in Ethiopia. Higher Education Research and Development, 40(3), 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1765320

84.

Talam

C. R.

(2021). Challenges facing the performance in biology in public secondary schools in Kilungu Sub-County, Makueni County, Kenya. Journal of Popular Education in Africa, 5(1), 28–47.

85.

Tefera

(2014). Improving quality in higher education through cooperative learning pedagogies: An Ethiopian example Tefera Tadesse Jimma (pp. 1–238). PhD thesis. School of Education, The University of Queensland.

86.

Tesfamichael

(2024). Effects of cooperative learning on grade eleven students’ paragraph contents: Fitche preparatory school in focus. Journal of Indigenous Knowledge and Development Studies, 6(1), 51–69.

87.

Teshome

(2013). Teachers’ perceptions and practices of active learning in Haramaya University, Eastern Ethiopia: The case of faculty of education. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, 1(4), 74. https://doi.org/10.4314/star.v1i4.98828

88.

Thurston

Topping

K. J.

Tolmie

Christie

Karagiannidou

Murray

(2010). Cooperative learning in science: Follow-up from primary to high school. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 501–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902721673

89.

Tran

V. D.

(2019). Does cooperative learning increase students’ motivation in learning? International Journal of Higher Education, 8(5), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n5p12

90.

Vives

Poletti

Robert

Butera

Huguet

(2024). Learning with jigsaw: A systematic review gathering all the pieces of the puzzle more than 40 years later. Review of Educational Research, 8, 913–917. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241230064

91.

Wang

Guo

Jou

(2015). A study on the effects of model-based inquiry pedagogy on students’ inquiry skills in a virtual physics lab. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 658–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.043

92.

Wodaj

Belay

(2021). Effects of 7E instructional model with metacognitive scaffolding on students’ conceptual understanding in biology. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 7(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.770794

93.

Wondimu

Banteamlak

(2020). Increasing students’ participation through cooperative learning method: A case of Bonga University first year biology students. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(13), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.7176/jep/11-13-05

94.

Yaduvanshi

Singh

(2019). Fostering achievement of low-, average-, and high-achievers students in biology through structured cooperative learning (STAD method). Education Research International, 1, 1462179. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1462179

95.

Yoruk

(2016). Effect of jigsaw method on students’ chemistry laboratory achievement. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(3), 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2016.11890547

96.

Železnik Mežan

Škof

Leskošek

Cecić Erpič

. (2023). Effects of cooperative learning in youth athletics’ motivational climate, peer relationships and self-concept. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2023(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2023.2232814

Cooperative Learning Instructional Approach and Student’s Biology Achievement: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Model in Secondary Schools in Gedeo Zone,South Ethiopia

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Framework of the Study

Conceptual Framework

Method

Research Design

Participants

Experimental Interventions

Prior to Intervention

Instruments

Data Analysis

Result

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

Practical Implications

Conclusions

Recommendations

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Authors’ Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Approval

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References