EFFECT OF THE JIGSAW COOPERATIVE LEARNING APPROACH ON BIOLOGY STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND CONCEPTUAL CHANGE Odagboyi Isaiah Amedu College of Education, Akwanga Prof. Otuka, J.O.E. Department of Sscience, Technology and Mathematics Education Nasarawa State University, Keffi & Prof. Uzoechi B.C. Department of Science, Technology and Mathematics Education Nasarawa State University, Keffi Abstract This study investigated the efficacy of the jigsaw cooperative learning approach in enhancing Biology students’ achievement and conceptual change. A quasi- experimental design was adopted for the study. The sample was made of 419 SS1 students drawn from three secondary schools in Nasarawa State. Two intact classes were used in each of the schools. Two instruments were developed by the researcher for the study, namely; Micro Organism Achievement Test (MOAT and Microorganism Diagnostic Test (MODT). The Micro Organism Achievement Test (MOAT) has a reliability coefficient of internal consistency of 0.98 determined using the split half method. The Microorganism Diagnostic Test (MODT) was developed by the researcher with a coefficient of stability of 0.76. Two research questions guided the study and two hypotheses were also postulated and tested at 0.05 level of significance using ANOVA statistics. Results showed that the experimental groups taught using the jigsaw method performed significantly better than their counterparts in the control groups taught using the conventional method of teaching. The jigsaw group had a higher level of conceptual change than the control group. The jigsaw cooperative learning approach is therefore highly recommended for use as an effective teaching-learning method in secondary schools. It is also recommended that curriculum developers especially at the tertiary levels where teachers are trained should incorporate the jigsaw cooperative learning as an effective strategy for meaningful learning. Workshops and conferences were recommended to help science teachers acquire the skills embedded in the jigsaw cooperative learning approach. Key words: Jigsaw, Conceptual change, Attitude and Cooperative learning. Introduction In our schools today, many Biology teachers have consistently employed the conventional approach in their classrooms instruction. Conventional school science teaching approach according to Darmofal, Soderholm and Brodeur, (2002:2) "...uses a transmittal approach in which students are assumed to gain knowledge while passively listening to lectures." This method of teaching assigns a passive status to the learner as the receiver of information (Roth, 1994). The dominant modes of teaching include lecturing and whole class interactive activity. Often the teacher can only address one student at a time in a question - answer - evaluation mode. Student - student interactions are rare and students occupy themselves for most of the time with listening and watching demonstrations from the teacher most of the time (Roth, 1994). An important goal for science teachers is to empower students to be independent learners. (De Baz, 2001). For many years, research on cognition and instruction maintained a strict focus on knowledge structures presumed to be in the mind of individual learners (Hickey, 1997). According to (Otuka and Uzoechi 2009), knowledge cannot be transferred into students’ minds, instead students construct their own meanings from the words or visual images they are exposed or come in contact with. This is the thesis of the constructivists' theory of learning.

Constructivists hold the view that humans actively construct their knowledge from birth. The implication is that individuals interpret phenomena based on how they perceive it. Suping (2003) citing Vosniadou (2002) remarked that children begin the knowledge acquisition process by organizing their sensory experiences under the influence of everyday cultural interaction and activities. Learners come into formal education with a large range of knowledge, skills, experiences and beliefs that influence how they perceive the natural world and how they categorize and interpret it (National Research Council, 2000). These ideas may not have scientifically accepted explanation. This type of knowledge is referred to as "naive knowledge" or "prior conceptions" (Suping, 2003). This "naive knowledge' or "prior conceptions" may be misconceptions of scientific facts and principles which may affect students’ abilities to remember, reason and acquire new knowledge. A number of researchers have suggested that students’ alternative conceptions can be as important to conceptual understanding as pedagogy (National Research Council, 2000), in view of the fact that new knowledge is built from existing knowledge (Piaget, 1978; Vygostsky, 1978 & National Research council, 2000). Many researchers are of the view that alternative conceptions must be addressed in order for them to be changed to scientific conceptions (Minstrele, 1989; Driver & Odham, 1986). Students hold alternative conceptions about biological concepts that fit their experiences but do not fit scientific accounts of the natural world. These personal understandings of biological concepts can impact the way in which they understand and retain the formal biology instructions they are exposed to. Particularly, for a core course like biology that deals with issues bordering on daily living which enjoys great patronage from students and a key requirement for many professional science courses, the need to ensure clear understanding of concepts by students has become very necessary in view of the unhealthy interpretations given to some biological concepts as well as the persistent under- achievement of students in the subject which may not be unconnected with this incomplete understanding of concepts. (Uzoechi and Adejoh, 2014) One of the reasons why performance of students are poor in science, may not be the absence of "teaching" but the ineffectiveness of the way science is taught and learned (Ezenwa 1993). The conventional method of teaching that relies heavily on the lecture method has been identified as one of the reasons for the failure of school science. Zakaria and Iksan (2007) pointed out that the conventional method of teaching is not for conceptual understanding, but rather for memorization and recalling of facts. This approach to teaching and learning seem not to enhance meaningful learning. Knowledge construction is also influenced by the attitudinal disposition of the learner. According to Gungor, Eryhmaz and Fakioglu (2007) affective factors and achievement are inextricably linked, and as such the person interested in students’ achievement in cognitive domain must also be concerned with affective factors. Omotayo (2002), citing Ebel (1972), stated that feeling is real and as important as what is known. Gungor, Eryhmaz, and Fakioglu (2007) are of the opinion that controlling affective factors is as important as cognitive factors in the learning process. Affective factors influence learners not only in school, but also equip them for a balanced life in the society. There are many teaching and learning approaches which Biology teachers use in their day to day activities in addition to the conventional approaches. One of these approaches is the cooperative learning approach. In cooperative learning, peers assist each other’s learning and effectively communicate among themselves. There are many teaching strategies in the cooperative learning approach. One of the strategies is the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach. This cooperative learning approach was first developed by Aronson (Gocer,2010; Karacop and Doymus 2013). In Aronson’s jigsaw cooperative learning approach, each student in a five- member group is given information that comprises only one part of the lesson that makes the student the group expert in that topic. ( Karacop and Doymus 2013). In the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach, students in a class are grouped into groups, the ‘home groups’ and the ‘expert groups’, each group made up of 4-6 members. The lesson content or task is broken into sections to be worked upon by

the various groups. Each student from every ‘home group’ is assigned a portion of the material. Then the ‘home groups’ members will disengage from the group and join other teams and form ‘expert groups’. While in the expert groups the students study intensively their particular material to ensure that they understand it well and prepare it for peer tutoring. Later, each student returns to his/her group and learns the other sub – topics from his/her peers in the group. After the completion of the assigned learning tasks over a number of class periods the whole class is tested each student working independently. The situation is specifically structured so that the only access any member has to the other segments is by listening closely to the report of the person presenting. One wonders whether this approach will enhance Biology students’ achievement, conceptual change and attitude better than the conventional approach. The problem of identifying and using effective teaching and learning methods, strategies, techniques and approaches in science classrooms has become worrisome and requires urgent attention. This problem has been identified as a major cause of student poor performance in science subjects in both internal and public examinations. Learning of science requires clear perception and understanding of concept as misconceptions s a result of prior knowledge contribute to poor achievement, skills and attitude development towards science. There is therefore the need to find appropriate teaching strategies, approaches, techniques and methods that can enhance students’ conceptual change, achievement and attitude in science. This study therefore investigated the effects of the jigsaw cooperative learning approach on Biology students’ achievement, conceptual change and attitude. Purpose of the study The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of the jigsaw cooperative learning approach on biology students’ achievement, conceptual change and attitude. Specifically, the objectives of this study are as follows: 1. To determine the effect of the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach on the achievement of students in biology 2. To determine the effectiveness of the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach on students’ conceptual change in biology Research Questions The following research questions will guide the study. 1. What is the effect of the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach on the achievement of students in Biology? 2. What is the effect of the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach on students’ conceptual change in Biology? Statement of hypotheses The following null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance. H01 There is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of students taught with the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach and those taught with the conventional method H02 There is no significant difference between the mean score on conceptual change of students taught with the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach and those taught with the conventional method. Research design A quasi – experimental pretest – posttest control group design was adopted in this study. Intact classes were used since sampling and treatment were not based on individual subjects.

Sample and sampling procedure The sample for this study was drawn from SS1 Biology students from public secondary schools in Akwanga Education Zone of Nasarawa State. Three schools were randomly drawn from the senior secondary schools in the zone. From each of these schools two intact SS 1 classes were randomly sampled for the study. Treatment conditions were assigned to the sampled intact classes at random. The total sample of 419 participants was used for the study. Instrumentation Three instruments were used for data collection for the study, namely; 1. Micro Organisms Diagnostic Test (MODT) 2. Micro Organism Achievement Test (MOAT) 1. Micro Organisms Diagnostic Test (MODT) The researcher developed a Micro Organisms Diagnostic Test (MODT). The content of this instrument was determined from the specified topics in the school curriculum. The study utilized the MODT to identify students’ misconception about microbes and their behaviours. The MODT had 10 items on it. The construction of the instrument was based on students’ free response to questions about micro organisms. (Trumper, 2006; Tan, Goh, Chia, &Treagust. 2006). The results of free response test were used to construct a two tier diagnostic test. (Tan et al. 2006). The MODT was developed by the researcher. The process of developing the MODT involved two steps. i. A free response test on micro organisms was produced and administered to 200 SS1 students drawn from two secondary schools who are not participating in the study. ii. The second step involved collation of misconceptions from students’ responses to the free response test. The alternative conceptions collated from the free response test were used to construct the two tier diagnostic test. The two – tier diagnostic test was made of two parts. The first part required a student to choose from three alternatives a- c, and the second part was made of four alternatives, i – iv. The students were instructed to choose from three alternatives, which best explained the reason for the choice in the first part. A student was adjudged correct if he got both the first and second parts correctly. 2. Micro Organism Achievement Test (MOAT) The MOAT is a 20 item multiple choice instrument constructed for assessing students knowledge of micro organisms drawn from the SS1 Biology curriculum. Each question in this part contained one correct answer, and three distracters. This instrument was used to measure achievement. Validation of Instruments Content validity of the instruments MODT and MOAT were established by the development of test blueprints to ensure adequate coverage of the content area of study. The items were derived from past NECO and WAEC past question papers and current Biology textbooks. The instruments were face validated by experts in measurement and evaluation, Biology education and experienced secondary school Biology teachers. Their task was to ensure that the instrument was properly constructed, covering the required curriculum content area for micro organism. Their suggestions led to the modifications, inclusions and elimination of some of the items, leading to the production of the final version of the instruments which were pilot tested on SS2 students from schools that were not part of the sample for the study. The result of the pilot test were used for the determination of the coefficients of internal consistency of the MOAT and the coefficient of stability of the MODT which gave O.98 and 0.76 resprctively.

Administration Regular biology teachers in the selected schools were trained as research assistance in the study using the prepared lesson plans on the jigsaw cooperative learning approach by the researcher. The control groups were taught using the conventional method which involved teacher dominated instruction. On the other hand the experimental groups were taught using the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach. In the experimental group, students were assigned to groups of 5 members. This is called the home group. Each sub – unit of the curriculum content was divided into 5 parts, corresponding to the number of students per group. Efforts were made to ensure that all the groups had equal number of members. Each student was allowed to read his/her portion of the work, and did not have access to what other groups were doing. The home group would disengage, and form their expert groups. The expert groups are made of students who have the same portion of the material to be studied. At the expert group level, their common concept was discussed, and rehearsed in preparation for presentation to their home groups. When this had been done, the students returned to their home groups for peer tutoring. The teacher moved from group to group to intervene in any group that had any problem. The teacher served as a guide to the students in various ways. The teacher always made sure that difficult terms were adequately explained to their understanding. This was in contrast with the control group who solly depended on the teachers’ expository approach where the students are passive listeners. Treatment lasted for 4 weeks. At the end of the 4 weeks of treatment, MOAT and MODT were administered as the posttest. Results for each class were collated, and the mean scores determined. Data Analysis Data collected were analyzed using means and standard deviation to answer the research questions and Analysis of Variance to test the hypotheses since it was earlier established that the groups are equivalent. Results Research Question 1: What is the effect of the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach on the achievement of students in Biology? The mean and standard deviation of the students taught micro-organisms using the jigsaw cooperative and conventional method are presented in Table 1. Table 1: Mean and standard deviation of achievement scores of MOAT Groups E1 E2 E3 C1 C2 C3

N 38 41 74 52 88 122

Sum 308 270 628 310 351 687

Mean 8.10 6.58 8.48 5.96 3.98 5.63

S.D 2.46 2.46 3.07 2.03 1.96 2.84

The result presented in Table 1 shows that the mean scores of the experimental groups are 8.10, 6.58, and 8.48 with standard deviation of 2.46, 2.46 and 3.07 while the control group has mean scores of 5.96, 5.96 and 5.63 and standard deviation of 2.03, 1.96 and 2.84. The mean scores of the experimental group seem to be higher than that of the control group. This result is further analyzed based on hypothesis 1 Ho1 There is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of students taught with the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach and those taught with the conventional method Table 2 presents the summary of the analysis of variance of posttest MOAT scores

Table 2: Summary of the analysis of variance of posttest MOAT scores Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total Significant at 0.05 level.

SS 1002.8 2687.33 3690.13

Df 5 409 414

MS 200.56 6.57

F 30.52

F cri 2.23

Table 2 shows that the posttest scores of MOAT had a calculated F value of 30.52 which is greater than F critical value of 2.23. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. This implies that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of students taught with the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach and those taught with the conventional method in favour of the jigsaw cooperative group. Research Question 2: What is the effect of the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach on students’ conceptual change in Biology? The post-test mean and standard deviation of the scores of the MODT are presented in Table 3 Table 3: Post-test mean scores and standard deviations of MODT Groups E1 E2 E3 C1 C2 C3

N 38 41 74 53 89 124

Sum 76 88 143 58 87 148

Mean 2.00 2.14 1.93 1.09 0.97 1.19

S.D 1.41 1.49 1.24 1.00 0.92 1.12

In table 3 is presented the mean and standard deviation of scores on the conceptual change of students taught using jigsaw cooperative approach and those taught using the conventional method. The experimental group had mean scores of 2.00, 2.14 and 1.93 with a standard deviation of 1.41, 1.49 and 1.24 while the control group had mean scores of 1.09, 0.97, and 1.19 and standard deviation of 1.00, 0.92 and 1.12. This result was further analyzed based on the testing of Hypothesis 2 Ho2 There is no significant difference between the mean score on conceptual change of students taught with the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach and those taught with the conventional method. Table 4 presents the summary of the analysis of variance of posttest MODT scores Table4: Summary of Analysis of variance of posttest scores of MODT. Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total Significant at 0.05 level.

SS 83.18 559.62 642.81

Df 5 413 418

MS 16.63 1.35

F 12.27

F. cri 2.23

Table 4 shows that for posttest scores of MODT, the calculated F value 12.27 is greater than F critical value of 2.23. Therefore, the null hypothesis is hereby rejected. This implies that there is a significant difference in the level of conceptual change in students taught with the Jigsaw cooperative learning

approach and those taught with the conventional method. Major findings a. There was significant difference between the mean achievement scores of students in experimental groups taught with Jigsaw cooperative learning approach and control groups taught with the traditional method in favour of the Jigsaw groups. b. There was significant difference between the levels of conceptual change in experimental groups taught with Jigsaw cooperative learning approach and the control groups taught by the conventional lecture method Discussion The findings of this study established that there is a significant difference in the mean achievement scores of students taught using the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach and those taught with the conventional method in favour of those taught using the Jigsaw cooperative approach. This agrees with the findings of Depaz and Moni (2008), Doymus (2008), Gocer (2010), Adams (2013), Pitoyo, Waluyo, Suwandi and Andayani (2014). However, the findings did not agree with those of Slish, (2005) and Carpenter (2006) who found no significant difference in the achievement of Jigsaw and the non Jigsaw groups. The results showing no significant difference may have occurred as a result of ineffective control of some intervening variables which the present study may have effectively controlled. Thus students who were taught using the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach performed better than those taught with the conventional method dominated by the teacher. The effectiveness of the jigsaw approach can be explained by the usefulness of sharing ideas and peer tutoring in small groups. These findings attests to the efficacy of the social constructivists view of learning in bringing about meaningful learning as it avails students the opportunity to construct their own meaning, thus making them active processors of knowledge rather than the passive nature of students in the conventional lecture method class. This could have made learning more exciting, interactive and sustain the students’ interest and keep them focused on the lesson. The analyses of the data collected also show that there is a significant difference in the levels of conceptual change of the Jigsaw groups and those taught using the conventional method in favour of the Jigsaw groups. This is consistent with the findings of Tarhan and Acar (2012). Alternative conceptions can only change if one puts the learner in the center of the learning activities. The direct involvement of students in small groups enhanced peer tutoring and negotiation of meaning. Often students run into conflicts based on what they already know, as they discuss among themselves. The resolution of these conflicts leads them to have conceptual change. Supping (2003) was of the opinion that teachers should identify students’ preconceptions before introducing them to concepts. This was achieved in this study by the administration of MODT, which must have guided the teachers to address areas of misconceptions. Recommendations and Conclusion This study attempted to investigate the effect of the jigsaw cooperative teaching approach on SSI students’ achievement and conceptual change in Biology. The result showed that; 1. Biology students who were taught micro-organisms using the jigsaw cooperative teaching approach achieved better than those taught using the conventional teaching method. 2. Biology students who were taught micro-organisms using the jigsaw cooperative teaching approach had better conceptual change than those taught using the conventional teaching method. Based on these findings it is recommended that Biology teachers should incorporate the jigsaw cooperative teaching and learning approach in their daily classroom activities. Teachers should strive to improve the social environment of their classrooms to enhance better student-student interaction. The teacher should

always act as a guide and a facilitator in the teaching-learning environment ensuring that learners are active participants in their learning activities. Teachers should have a mechanism of identifying students’ misconceptions even before the beginning of every lesson. Probing students’ entry behavior or previous knowledge should be taken seriously by every science teacher as many learners come into the learning environment with preconceptions, alternative conceptions and misconceptions as a result of their experiences as the interact with people and things in their communities. Teachers should be encouraged through training and re-training to use teaching approaches that can enhance learners’ conceptual change.

References Adams, F. H. (2013). Using Jigsaw Technique as an Effective Way of Promoting Co-Operative Learning Among Primary Six Pupils in Fijai. International Journal of Education and Practice, 1(6), 64-74. Anene, G.U. (1999) Development and validation of a biology interest inventory of senior secondary school students. In C.V. Nnaka, N.P.M. Esomonu & M.C. Anaekwe (eds) Evaluation studies in Nigerian educational system, Onitsha, summer Educational Publishers Ltd. pp196-210 Blosser, P.E (1992).Using Cooperative Learning in Science Education. Science, Mathematics, Technology, and Environmental Education. Retrieved from // E:\CS MEE Bulletin 92 – 1.htm retrieved on 13/10/2008. Carpenter, J.M. (2006).Effective Teaching Methods for Large Classes. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education. 24, 13-23. Darmofal, D.L., Soderholm, D.H., & Brodeur, D.R. (2002).Using Concept Maps and Concept Questions to Enhance Conceptual Understanding. Retrieved on 12/02/08 from http: //www.org/papers/concept-maps - fie.pdf. De- - Baz, T. (2001).The Effectiveness of the Jigsaw Cooperative Learning on Students' Achievement and Attitudes towards Science. Science Education international. 12 (4) 6 – 11. Depaz, I. & Moni, R. W. (2008).Using Peer Teaching to Support Co-operative Learning in Undergraduate Pharmacology. Bioscience Education 11. Doymus, K. (2008). Teaching Chemical Equilibrium with the Jigsaw Technique. Research in Science Education 38, 249Ezenwa, V. I.(1993). A Comparable Study of the Effectiveness of Concept Mapping and Guided Discovery Teaching Strategies on Students’ Understanding of Selected Chemistry Concepts. Unpublished doctoral thesis, ABU Zaria. Driver, R. and Odham (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in Science. Studies in Science Education. 13, p.105-132

Fini, A. A. S., Zainalipour, H., & Jamri, M. (2011).An Investigation into the Effect of Cooperative Learning with Focus on Jigsaw Technique on the Academic Achievement of 2nd-Grade Middle School Students. Retrieved from: jlsb.science-line.com on 21/6/2015. Göçer, A. (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. Gungor, A.A. Eryhmaz, A. & Fakioglu, T. (2007).The Relationship of Freshmen’s Physics Achievement and Their Related Affective Characteristics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 44, 10562007. Hickey, D.T. (1997).Motivation and Contemporary Socio – Constructivist Instructional Perspective. Educational psychology. 32 Karacop, A. & Doymus, K. (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. Koprowski, J.L. & Perigo, N. (2000).Cooperative Learning as Tool to Teach Vertebrate Anatomy. The American Biology Teacher. 62, 282 – 284. Maloof, J. (2004). Using the Jigsaw Method to Teach Science Learning and Teaching from Primary Sources. Invention: creative thinking about learning and teaching. 6, (1). National Research Council (2000) . How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC. National Academic Press. Omotayo, K. H. (2002). Correlates of Attitude Towards Science and Academic Achievement of Secondary School Students in Science Subjects. The Nigerian Teacher Today. 10, 119 – 125. Otuka, J.O.E. & Uzoechi, B.C. (2009).History and Philosophy of Science. Keffi. Onavi Printing & Publishing Co. Nigeria Ltd. Pitoyo, A., Waluyo, J. H., Suwandi, S. and Andayani (2014). The Effect of Group Investigation Model, Accelerated Learning Team and Role Playing on Elementary School Students’ Writing Skills Viewed from Cognitive Style. Journal of Education and Practice. Vol. 5 no.1.21-29. Roth, W-M.(1994). Students’ Views of Collaborative Concept Mapping. An Emancipatory Research Project. science education. 78, 1 – 34. Slish, D. (2005).Assessment of the use of the Jigsaw Method and Active Learning in Non- Majors, Introductory Biology. Bioscience 31, 4-10. Supping, S. (2003). Conceptual Change Among Students in Science. Eric clearing house for science, mathematics and environmental educatiion. Tan, K.C.D., Goh, N.K., Chia, L.S., & Treagust, D.F. (2002).Development and application of a Two – Tier Mulptile Choice Diagnostic Instrument to Assess High School Students' Understanding of Inorganic Chemistry Qualitative Analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (4) 283 – 301.

Trumper, R. (2006).Teaching future teachers Basic Astronomy Concepts – Seasonal Changes – at a time of reform in Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 43 (9) 879 – 906. Tarhan, L. & Acar, S. B. (2012). Jigsaw cooperative learning: Acid-base [10.1039/C2RP90004A].Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 307-313.

theories.

Uzoechi, B.C. and Adejoh, M.J. (2014) Teachers’ perception and strategies of tackling the problem of alternative conception of biology concepts among students in Benue state of Nigeria. Journal of the Science Teachers Association of Nigeria. 49 (1) 136 - 150 Zakaria, E. & 1ksan, Z. (2007).Promoting Cooperative Learning in Science and Education. A Malaysian Perspective. Eurasia journal of Mathematics, Technology. 3, 35-39.

Mathematics Science and