2013
DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2013.811404
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A jigsaw cooperative learning application in elementary science and technology lessons: physical and chemical changes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

5
32
0
3

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
5
32
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The results underlined that both Team‐Game Tournament and Jigsaw promoted students' conceptual understanding in the context of the Hormone Biochemistry course. Cooperative learning techniques were beneficial to enhance students' understanding and remedy misconceptions as mentioned by the literature and the results of these researches are consistent with the results of the present study. It was also found that Jigsaw was more effective than Team‐Game Tournament in enhancing students' understanding, different from the results of However, the result is consistent with the results of , in which Jigsaw promoted more achievement than the other techniques.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The results underlined that both Team‐Game Tournament and Jigsaw promoted students' conceptual understanding in the context of the Hormone Biochemistry course. Cooperative learning techniques were beneficial to enhance students' understanding and remedy misconceptions as mentioned by the literature and the results of these researches are consistent with the results of the present study. It was also found that Jigsaw was more effective than Team‐Game Tournament in enhancing students' understanding, different from the results of However, the result is consistent with the results of , in which Jigsaw promoted more achievement than the other techniques.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…An outlier screening identified one study that is three SD s higher from the mean: Tarhan and Acar‐Sesen (). There are four more studies, Tarhan, Ayyıldız, Ogunc, and Sesen (), Acar and Tarhan (), Acar and Tarhan, Ayar‐Kayali, Urek, and Acar () and Eymur and Geban (), that are two SD s higher from the average. The analyses that follow have these five studies omitted except where noted.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The constructivist approach and social-interaction paradigms, which have become prominent in learning-and-teaching processes in recent years, have expanded the methods of peer-supported learning (Shunk, 2011). For example, the 5E and 7E models (Ersoy, Sarıkoç, & Berber, 2013;Kanlı & Yağbasan, 2008), jigsaw (Roland & Martin, 2015;Tarhan, Ayyıldız, Ogunc, & Sesen, 2013), peer tutoring (Crouch & Mazur, 2001;Mazur, 1997), argumentation (Aslan, 2012(Aslan, , 2014aCavagnetto, Hand, & Norton-Meier, 2010;Erduran & Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2007), six thinking hats (Bono, 1997), station technique (Alacapınar, 2009;Kılıç, 2014) and concept cartoons (Aslan, 2014b;Keogh & Naylor, 1996;Naylor & Keogh, 2013) are all styles that have developed methods and techniques based on the constructivist paradigm (Köseoğlu &Tümay, 2013). The difference with learning by teaching from other models, methods, and techniques is evident in the role of students.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%