The jigsaw classroom is a cooperative learning method designed in the late 1970s to improve the academic performance of minority children by reducing intergroup conflict and increasing self-evaluations. Despite its high popularity, the available evidence for the effectiveness of this method seems scant and mixed, with neither meta-analysis nor systematic review. To fill this gap, the authors conducted a systematic review of studies conducted from 1978 through 2022 to assess the effects of jigsaw on both academic performance and psychosocial variables (e.g., intergroup relationships, self-evaluations). Sixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. This review revealed the research trends, research gaps, and issues of research integrity of the jigsaw literature. If the results indicate that the jigsaw classroom overall leads to positive effects, findings vary depending on the academic subjects and psychosocial variables measured. The authors discuss the challenges of jigsaw activities and the limitations of studies reviewed and conclude with practical recommendations in the context of digital education.
AlexanderP. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352
2.
AndrewsJ. J.RappD. N. (2015). Benefits, costs, and challenges of collaboration for learning and memory. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(2), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000025
3.
AronsonE.BlaneyN.StephanC.SikesJ.SnappM. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Sage.
4.
AronsonE.BridgemanD. (1979). Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom: In pursuit of common goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(4), 438–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727900500405
5.
AronsonE.PatnoeS. (2011). Cooperation in the classroom: The jigsaw method (3rd ed.). London: Pinter & Martin.
6.
*ArslanA. (2016). Effect of Jigsaw I technique on teaching Turkish grammar. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(8), 635–641. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2016.2709
7.
*ArtutP. D.TarimK. (2007). The effectiveness of Jigsaw II on prospective elementary school teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660701268551
8.
AshmanA. F.GilliesR. (2003). Cooperative learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups. Routledge.
9.
BastienC.Bastien-ToniazzoM. (2016). Apprendre sur les apprentissages. Bulletin de psychologie, 69(6), 457–462.
10.
*BasyahN. A.MuslemA.UsmanB. (2018). The effectiveness of using the jigsaw model to improve students’ economics teaching-learning achievement. New Educational Review, 51, 30–40. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2018.51.1.02
11.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
12.
*BlaneyN. T.StephanC.RosenfieldD.AronsonE.SikesJ. (1977). Interdependence in the classroom: A field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(2), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.69.2.121
13.
*BergerR.HänzeM. (2009). Comparison of two small-group learning methods in 12th-grade physics classes focusing on intrinsic motivation and academic performance. International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1511–1527. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802116289
14.
*BergerR.HänzeM. (2015). Impact of expert teaching quality on novice academic Performance in the jigsaw cooperative learning method. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.985757
15.
BjorkR. A.BjorkE. L. (2020). Desirable difficulties in theory and practice. Journal of Applied research in Memory and Cognition, 9(4), 475–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.09.003
16.
BlieseP. D.HangesP. J. (2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: The Perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7(4), 400–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104268542
17.
*BrattC. (2008). The jigsaw classroom under test: No effect on intergroup relations evident. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18(5), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.946
BressouxP. (2020). Using multilevel models is not just a matter of statistical adjustment. Illustrations in the educational field. L’Année Psychologique, 120(1), 5–38.
20.
*BridgemanD. L. (1981). Enhanced role taking through cooperative interdependence: A field study. Child Development, 52, 1231–1238. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129511
BuchsC.ButeraF. (2015). Cooperative learning and social skills development. In GilliesR. (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Developments in research and practice (pp. 201–217). Nova Science.
23.
BuchsC.ButeraF.MugnyG. (2004). Resource in(ter)dependence, student interactions and performance in cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, 24, 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000211661
24.
BuchsC.DumesnilA.ChanalJ.ButeraF. (2021). Dual effects of partner’s competence: Resource interdependence in cooperative learning at elementary school. Education Sciences, 11(5), 210. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050210
25.
BuchsC.GillesI.AntoniettiJ. P.ButeraF. (2016). Why students need to be prepared to cooperate: A cooperative nudge in statistics learning at university. Educational Psychology, 36(5), 956–974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1075963
26.
ButeraF.BatruchA.AutinF.MugnyG.QuiamzadeA.PulfreyC. (2021). Teaching as social influence: Empowering teachers to become agents of social change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 15(1), 323–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12072
27.
ButeraF.ŚwiątkowskiW.DompnierB. (2021). Competition in education. In GarciaS.TorA.ElliotA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on the psychology of competition. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190060800.013.24
28.
ButeraF.SommetN.DarnonC. (2019). Sociocognitive conflict regulation: How to make sense of diverging ideas. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(2), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418813986
29.
*Cerón-GarcíaM. C.López-RosalesL.Gallardo-RodríguezJ. J.Navarro-LópezE.Sánchez-MirónA.García-CamachoF. (2022). Jigsaw cooperative learning of multistage counter-current liquid-liquid extraction using Mathcad®. Education for Chemical Engineers, 38, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2021.10.002
30.
ChenJ.WangM.KirschnerP. A.TsaiC.-C. (2018). The role of collaboration, computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), 799–843. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318791584
31.
ClarkD. B.Tanner-SmithE. E.KillingsworthS. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79-122. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065
32.
CongletonA. R.RajaramS. (2011). The influence of learning methods on collaboration: Prior repeated retrieval enhances retrieval organization, abolishes collaborative inhibition, and promotes post-collaborative memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 535–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024308
33.
CowanN. (2014). Working memory underpins cognitive development, learning, and education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 197–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y
34.
*CroneT. S.PortilloM. C. (2013). Jigsaw variations and attitudes about learning and the self in cognitive psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3), 246–251. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0098628313487451
35.
*DarnonC.BuchsC.DesbarD. (2012). The jigsaw technique and self-efficacy of vocational training students: A practice report. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(3), 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0091-4
36.
*DeiglmayrA.SchalkL. (2015). Weak versus strong knowledge interdependence: A comparison of two rationales for distributing information among learners in collaborative learning settings. Learning and Instruction, 40, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.08.003
37.
DemirK. (2012). An evaluation of the combined use of creative drama and Jigsaw II techniques according to the student views: Case of a measurement and evaluation course. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 455–459.
38.
*DesforgesD. M.LordC. G.RamseyS. L.MasonJ. A.Van LeeuwenM. D.WestS. C.LepperM. R. (1991). Effects of structured cooperative contact on changing negative attitudes toward stigmatized social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.531
39.
DillenbourgP. (2021). Classroom analytics: Zooming out from a pupil to a classroom. In OECD digital education outlook 2021. Pushing the frontiers with AI, blockchains and robots (pp. 105–119). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
40.
DoiseW.MugnyG. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Pergamon.
41.
*DoymusK. (2007). Effects of a cooperative learning strategy on teaching and learning phases of matter and one-component phase diagrams. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(11), 1857–1860. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed084p1857
*DoymusK.KaracopA.SimsekU. (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
*EvcimH.İpekÖ. F. (2013). Effects of Jigsaw II on academic achievement in English prep classes. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1651–1659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.236
46.
GambariI. A.YusufM. O. (2016). Effects of computer-assisted Jigsaw II cooperative learning strategy on physics achievement and retention. Contemporary Educational Technology, 7(4), 352–367.
47.
*GhaithG.El-MalakM. A. (2004). Effect of Jigsaw II on literal and higher order EFL reading comprehension. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(2), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1076/edre.10.2.105.27906
48.
*GöçerA. (2010). A comparative research on the effectivity of cooperative learning method and jigsaw technique on teaching literary genres. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(8), 439–445.
49.
*GömleksizM. N. (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning (Jigsaw II) method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students (Case of Firat University, Turkey). European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 613–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790701433343
50.
GoudasM.MagotsiouE. (2009). The effects of a cooperative physical education program on students’ social skills. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(3), 356–364.
51.
GullF.ShehzadS. (2015). Effects of cooperative learning on students’ academic achievement. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(3), 246–255.
52.
*HänzeM.BergerR. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.004
53.
HarackiewiczJ. M.PriniskiS. J. (2018). Improving student outcomes in higher education: The science of targeted intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 409. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011725
54.
HedeenT. (2003). The reverse jigsaw: A process of cooperative learning and discussion. Teaching Sociology, 31(3), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.2307/3211330
HollidayD. C. (2000). The development of Jigsaw IV in a secondary social studies classroom. Paper presented at the 2000 annual conference of the Midwest Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
57.
HollidayD. C. (2002). Jigsaw IV: Using student/teacher concerns to improve jigsaw III.
58.
*HornbyG. (2009). The effectiveness of cooperative learning with trainee teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(2), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470902771045
59.
*HuangT. C.HuangY. M.YuF. Y. (2011). Cooperative weblog learning in higher education: Its facilitating effects on social interaction, time lag, and cognitive load. Educational Technology and Society, 14(1), 95–106.
60.
*HuangY.-M.LiaoY.-W.HuangS.-H.ChenH.-C. (2014). A jigsaw-based cooperative learning approach to improve learning outcomes for mobile situated learning. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 128–140.
61.
JansoonN.SomsookE.CollR. K. (2008). Thai undergraduate chemistry practical learning experiences using the Jigsaw II method. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 31(2), 178–200.
62.
JanssenJ.KirschnerF.ErkensG.KirschnerP. A.PaasF. (2010). Making the black box of collaborative learning transparent: Combining process-oriented and cognitive load approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9131-x
63.
JeongH.Hmelo-SilverC. E.JoK. (2019). Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014. Educational Research Review, 28, 100284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100284
64.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
65.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (1999). What makes cooperative learning work. In KlugeD.McGuireS.JohnsonD.JohnsonR. (Eds), JALT applied materials: Cooperative learning (pp. 23–36). Japan Association for Language Teaching.
66.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T.StanneM. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Cooperative Learning Center.
67.
JohnsonD. W.MaruyamaG.JohnsonR.NelsonD.SkonL. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.47
68.
JonesT. N.GrahamK. J.SchallerC. P. (2012). A jigsaw classroom activity for learning IR analysis in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(10), 1293–1294.
69.
*KaracopA.DoymusK. (2013). Effects of jigsaw cooperative learning and animation techniques on students’ understanding of chemical bonding and their conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(2), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9385-9
70.
KardaleskaL. (2013). The impact of jigsaw approach on reading comprehension in the ESP classroom. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 1(1), 53–58.
71.
*KilicD. (2008). The effect of the jigsaw technique on learning the concepts of the principles and methods of teaching. World Applied Sciences Journal, 4(1), 109–114.
72.
KirschnerF.PaasF.KirschnerP. A. (2009). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.008
73.
KirschnerF.PaasF.KirschnerP. A. (2011). Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: The collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1730
74.
*KoçY.DoymuşK.KaraçöpA.ŞimşekÜ. (2010). The effects of two cooperative learning strategies on the teaching and learning of the topics of chemical kinetics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(2), 52–65.
75.
*KritprachaC.Sae-SiaW.NukaewO.JittanoonP.ChunuanS.KaosaiyapornO. (2018). The development of cooperative learning using jigsaw activities for learning achievement and self-directed learning behaviors of nursing students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 8(12), 913–917. http://dx.doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2018.8.12.1162
*LawY. K. (2011). The effects of cooperative learning on enhancing Hong Kong fifth graders’ achievement goals, autonomous motivation and reading proficiency. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(4), 402–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01445.x
78.
*LazarowitzR.Hertz-LazarowitzR.BairdJ. H. (1994). Learning science in a cooperative setting: Academic achievement and affective outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1121–1131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660311006
79.
LeeY. K.RosethC. J. (2022). A 2 × 2 model of sociocognitive conflict regulation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 99, 104269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104269
80.
LerouxG.MonteilJ. M.HuguetP. (2017). Apprentissages scolaires et technologies numériques: Une revue critique des méta-analyses. L’Année Psychologique, 117(4), 433–465. https://doi.org/10.3917/anpsy.174.0433
81.
Linnenbrink-GarciaL.WormingtonS. V.SnyderK. E.RiggsbeeJ.PerezT.Ben-EliyahuA.HillN. E. (2018). Multiple pathways to success: An examination of integrative motivational profiles among upper elementary and college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(7), 1026–1048. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/edu0000245
82.
LymanF. T. (1992). Think-pair-share, Thinktrix, Thinklinks, and Weird Facts, and interactive system for cooperative thinking. In DavidD.WorshamT. (Eds.), Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning (pp. 169–181). New York: Teachers College Press.
83.
*LuckerG. W.RosenfieldD.SikesJ.AronsonE. (1976). Performance in the interdependent classroom: A field study. American Educational Research Journal, 13(2), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312013002115
84.
*MattinglyR.M.Van SickleR.L. (1991). Cooperative learning and achievement in social studies: Jigsaw II. Social Education, 55, 392–395.
85.
MidgleyC.MaehrM. L.HrudaL. Z.AndermanE.AndermanL.FreemanK. E.UrdanT. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). University of Michigan.
86.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD., &, the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, 264–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
87.
*MorenoR. (2009). Constructing knowledge with an agent-based instructional program: A comparison of cooperative and individual meaning making. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.018
88.
*MoskowitzJ. M.MalvinJ. H.SchaefferG. A.SchapsE. (1983). Evaluation of a cooperative learning strategy. American Educational Research Journal, 20(4), 687–696. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312020004687
89.
*MoskowitzJ. M.MalvinJ. H.SchaefferG. A.SchapsE. (1985). Evaluation of jigsaw, a cooperative learning technique. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(2), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(85)90011-6
90.
*MutluA. (2018). Comparison of two different techniques of cooperative learning approach: Undergraduates’ conceptual understanding in the context of hormone biochemistry. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 46(2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21097
91.
NallsA. J.WickerdG. (2023). The jigsaw method: Reviving a powerful positive intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 39(3), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2022.2124570
92.
*NebelS.SchneiderS.BeegeM.KoldaF.MackiewiczV.ReyG. D. (2017). You cannot do this alone! Increasing task interdependence in cooperative educational videogames to encourage collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 993–1014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9511-8
93.
NoetelM.GriffithS.DelaneyO.HarrisN. R.SandersT.ParkerP.del Pozo CruzB.LonsdaleC. (2022). Multimedia design for learning: An overview of reviews with meta-meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 92(3), 413–454.
94.
*NolanJ. M.HanleyB. G.DiVietriT. P.HarveyN. A. (2018). She who teaches learns: Performance benefits of a jigsaw activity in a college classroom. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000110
95.
OtisN.GrouzetF.M.E.PelletierL. G. (2005). Latent motivational change in an academic setting: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.170
96.
PajaresF.MillerM. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 193–203. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.193
97.
*ParsazadehN.AliR.RezaeiM. (2018). A framework for cooperative and interactive mobile learning to improve online information evaluation skills. Computers & Education, 120, 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.010
98.
*PerkinsD. V.SarisR. N. (2001). A jigsaw classroom technique for undergraduate statistics courses. Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 111–113. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2802_09
99.
RajaramS.Pereira-PasarinL. P. (2007). Collaboration can improve individual recognition memory: Evidence from immediate and delayed tests. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194034
100.
*Rimani NikouF.AlaviniaP.KarimzadehN. (2013). The effect of using jigsaw to enhance female Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ oral proficiency. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(9), 315–326.
101.
RosethC. J.JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223
102.
*RosethC. J.LeeY.-K.SaltarelliW. A. (2019). Reconsidering jigsaw social psychology: Longitudinal effects on social interdependence, sociocognitive conflict regulation, motivation, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 149–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000257
103.
*SagsozO.KaratasO.TurelV.YildizM.KayaE. (2017). Effectiveness of jigsaw learning compared to lecture-based learning in dental education. European Journal of Dental Education, 21(1), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12174
104.
*ŞahinA. (2010). Effects of Jigsaw II technique on academic achievement and attitudes to written expression course. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(12), 777–787.
105.
*ŞahinA. (2011). Effects of Jigsaw III technique on achievement in written expression. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 12(3), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9135-8
106.
*SanaieN.VasliP.SedighiL.SadeghiB. (2019). Comparing the effect of lecture and jigsaw teaching strategies on the nursing students’ self-regulated learning and academic motivation: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education Today, 79, 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.05.022
107.
*Santos RegoM. A.MoledoM.D.M.L. (2005). Promoting interculturality in Spain: Assessing the use of the jigsaw classroom method. Intercultural Education, 16(3), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980500212020
108.
*ŞengülS.KatranciY. (2014). Effects of jigsaw technique on seventh grade primary school students’ attitude towards mathematics. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.218
109.
*ShaabanK. (2006). An initial study of the effects of cooperative learning on reading comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and motivation to read. Reading Psychology, 27(5), 377–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710600846613
110.
SharanS. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 241–271. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543050002241
111.
SiddawayA. P.WoodA. M.HedgesL. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
112.
SlavinR. E. (1980). Using student team learning (Rev. ed.). Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools, The Johns Hopkins University.
113.
SlavinR. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. Longman.
114.
SlavinR. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Allyn & Bacon.
115.
SlavinR. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0004
116.
SlavinR. E. (2012). Classroom applications of cooperative learning. In HarrisK. R.GrahamS.UrdanT.BusA. G.MajorS.SwansonH. L. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 3: Application to learning and teaching (pp. 359–378). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13275-014
117.
SlavinR. E.HurleyE. A.ChamberlainA. (2003). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and research. In ReynoldsW. M.MillerG. E. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, p. 177 –197). John Wiley.
118.
SlavinR. E.KarweitN. L. (1981). Cognitive and affective outcomes of an intensive student team learning experience. Journal of Experimental Education, 50(1), 29–35.
119.
SonciniA.VisintinE. P.MatteucciM. C.TomasettoC.ButeraF. (2022). Positive error climate promotes learning outcomes through students’ adaptive reactions towards errors. Learning and Instruction, 80, 101627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101627
120.
SpringerL.StanneM. E.DonovanS. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021
121.
StahlR. (Ed.). (1994). Cooperative learning in social studies: A handbook for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.
122.
*StanczakA.DarnonC.RobertA.DemolliensM.SanreyC.BressouxP.HuguetP.BuchsC.ButeraF., & PROFAN Consortium. (2022). Do jigsaw classrooms improve learning outcomes? Five experiments and an internal meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(6), 1461. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000730
123.
SteuerG.Rosentritt-BrunnG.DreselM. (2013). Dealing with errors in mathematics classrooms: Structure and relevance of perceived error climate. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.002
124.
*SlishD. F. (2005). Assessment of the use of the jigsaw method and active learning in non-majors, introductory biology. Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching, 31(4), 4–10.
125.
*SouvignierE.KronenbergerJ. (2007). Cooperative learning in third graders’ jigsaw groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning training. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 755–771. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X173297
126.
*Suárez-CunqueiroM. M.Gándara-LorenzoD.Mariño-PérezR.Piñeiro-AbaloS.Pérez-LópezD.TomásI. (2017). Cooperative learning in “special needs in dentistry” for undergraduate students using the jigsaw approach. European Journal of Dental Education, 21(4), e64–e71. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12221
127.
*TarhanL.Acar SesenB. (2012). Jigsaw cooperative learning: Acid-base theories. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP90004A
128.
*TarhanL.AyyıldızY.OguncA.Acar SesenB. (2013). A jigsaw cooperative learning application in elementary science and technology lessons: Physical and chemical changes. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(2), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.811404
129.
*TheobaldE. J.EddyS. L.GrunspanD. Z.WigginsB. L.CroweA. J. (2017). Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: Comfort and equity matter. PLoS One, 12(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181336
130.
TomchoT. J.FoelsR. (2012). Meta-analysis of group learning activities: Empirically based teaching recommendations. Teaching of Psychology, 39(3), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312450414
131.
*TranV. D.LewisR. R. (2012). Effects of cooperative learning on students at An Giang University in Vietnam. International Education Studies, 5(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n1p86
132.
*UralE.ErcanO.GençoğlanD. M. (2017). The effect of jigsaw technique on 6th graders’ learning of force and motion unit and their science attitudes and motivation. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 18(1), 1–21.
133.
*van DijkA. M.EysinkT.H.S.de JongT. (2020). Supporting cooperative dialogue in heterogeneous groups in elementary education. Small Group Research, 51(4), 464–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419879978
134.
VivesE.BressanM.PolettiC.CarotiD.ButeraF.HuguetP.RégnerI. (2024). Uncovering the relationship between working memory and performance in the cooperative jigsaw classroom [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Marseille, France: Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, CRPN.
135.
*WalkerI.CroganM. (1998). Academic performance, prejudice, and the jigsaw classroom: new pieces to the puzzle. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 8(6), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(199811/12)8:6%3C381::AID-CASP457%3E3.0.CO;2-6
136.
*WilsonJ. A.PegramA. H.BattiseD. M.RobinsonA. M. (2017). Traditional lecture versus jigsaw learning method for teaching medication therapy management (MTM) core elements. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 9(6), 1151–1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2017.07.028
137.
WijsmanL.A.WarrensM.J.SaabN.van DrielJ. H.WestenbergP. M. (2016). Declining trends in student performance in lower secondary education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31, 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0277-2
138.
*YapiciH. (2016). Use of jigsaw technique to teach the unit “science within time” in secondary 7th grade social sciences course | students’ views on this technique. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(8), 773–780. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2016.2728
139.
*ZachariaZ. C.XenofontosN. A.ManoliC. C. (2011). The effect of two different cooperative approaches on students’ learning and practices within the context of a WebQuest science investigation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9181-2
140.
Zambrano RJ.KirschnerF.SwellerJ.KirschnerP. A. (2023). Effect of task-based group experience on collaborative learning: Exploring the transaction activities. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 879–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12603
141.
*ZieglerS. (1981). The effectiveness of cooperative learning teams for increasing cross-ethnic friendship: Additional evidence. Human Organization, 40(3), 264–268. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.40.3.0m0q1143l43r4x44
142.
ZhouJ.CaoY. (2020). Does retest effect impact test performance of repeaters in different subgroups?ETS Research Report Series, 2020(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12300
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
