Cooperative Learning Model with Jigsaw Type Improves Students’ Sciences Process Skills and Learning Outcomes
Keywords:Process skills, Learning Outcomes, Jigsaw
This study aims to improve science process skills and learning outcomes with Classroom Action Research using a jigsaw-type cooperative learning model. This research is a classroom action research conducted in two cycles. Learning outcomes before the results of the study using a jigsaw cooperative model is 33%. The results showed that an increase in student learning outcomes in the initial research, cycle I, and cycle II. The average value, in the initial study the average value of the class test was 57.33 in the first cycle, the average grade was 82.66, and in the second cycle, the average grade was 86.66. In addition, the number of students who graduated also increased, in the initial study the number of students who graduated was only 10 people (33%), and 20 other people (67%) did not graduate. In the first cycle the number of students who graduated increased to 26 people (87%) students who did not pass 4 people (13%). An increase in the number of students who graduated was also seen in cycle II the number of students who passed 30 people (100%) or thus learning with the Jigsaw Cooperative model was more appropriate to be carried out so that all students graduated.
Alavi, M., Marakas, G. M., & Yoo, Y. (2002). A comparative study of distributed learning environments on learning outcomes. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 404-415. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.4.404.72.
Arends, R. (1997). Classroom injstruction and managemen. New York : Mc Graw Hill Companies.
Arikunto, S. (2010). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Rineka Cipta
Beaumont-Walters, Y., & Soyibo, K. (2001). An analysis of high school students' performance on five integrated science process skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(2), 133-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140120087687.
Berger, R., & Hänze, M. (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.
Brotherton, P. N., & Preece, P. F. (1995). Science process skills: Their nature and interrelationships. Research in Science & Technological Education, 13(1), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140120087687.
Cahyani, N. W. T., Ardana, I. K., & Ganing, N. N. (2016). Penerapan Pendekatan Saintifik Berbantuan Project Based Learning Untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar IPA Siswa Kelas V. Mimbar PGSD Undiksha, 4(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.23887/jjpgsd.v4i1.7124.
Cooper, J. (1990). Cooperative learning and college instruction: Effective use of student learning teams. Calivornia State University Institute for Teaching and Learning
Doymus, K. (2008). Teaching chemical bonding through jigsaw cooperative learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(1), 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140701847470.
Gürses, A., Çetinkaya, S., Doğar, Ç., & Şahin, E. (2015). Determination of levels of use of basic process skills of high school students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 644-650. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2015.04.243.
Harden, R. M. (2002). Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: is there a difference?. Medical teacher, 24(2), 151-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159022020687.
Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 6(1), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695949993044.
Hedeen, T. (2003). The reverse jigsaw: A process of cooperative learning and discussion. Teaching sociology, 31(3), 325-332. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3211330?seq=1.
Huang, Y. M., Huang, T. C., & Hsieh, M. Y. (2008). Using annotation services in a ubiquitous Jigsaw cooperative learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 3-15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.11.2.3.
Huang, Y. M., Liao, Y. W., Huang, S. H., & Chen, H. C. (2014). Jigsaw-based cooperative learning approach to improve learning outcomes for mobile situated learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 128-140. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.17.1.128.pdf.
Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2008). Learning outcomes: a conceptual analysis. Teaching in higher education, 13(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701794159.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9385-9.
Krisno, B. A. (2016). SINTAKS 45 Model Pembelajaran Dalam Student Centered Learning (SCL). Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang.
Lai, C. Y., & Wu, C. C. (2006). Using handhelds in a Jigsaw cooperative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(4), 284-297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00176.x.
Mengduo, Q., & Xiaoling, J. (2010). Jigsaw Strategy as a Cooperative Learning Technique: Focusing on the Language Learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press), 33(4).
Moskowitz, J. M., Malvin, J. H., Schaeffer, G. A., & Schaps, E. (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.
Novianto, A. & Mustadi, A. (2015). The analysis of integrative thematic content, scientific approach, and authentic assessment in elementary school textbooks. Yogyakarta: Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. JurnalKependidik¬an,45 (1) Mei 2015. Dari http://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/jk/article/view/7181/6192.
Ongowo, R. O., & Indoshi, F. C. (2013). Science process skills in the Kenya certificate of secondary education biology practical examinations. Creative Education, 04(11), 713–717. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.411101.
Özgelen, S. (2012). Students’ science process skills within a cognitive domain framework. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(4), 283-292. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.846a.
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300203.
Souvignier, E., & Kronenberger, J. (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.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher education, 22(3), 251-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132290.
Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A Case Study of Cooperative Learning and Communication Pedagogy: Does Working in Teams Make a Difference? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78-89. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ890724.
Authors who publish with the Jurnal Pendidikan Indnesia agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. (See The Effect of Open Access)