Comparative analysis between effectiveness of the Jigsaw participatory model and traditional teaching methods in urban environment teaching

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی


Department of Environmental Education, Management and Planning, Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


Introduction: Participatory teaching as a teaching method is a form of inter-personal relationship (Hsiung, 2012). There is an obvious gap in using the participatory teaching method for conveying environmental principles and monitoring them and examining studies of this teaching method would significantly help environmental educators (Baker and Clark, 2010) and activists in selecting the most effective method for conveying the principles (Alton-Lee, 2012). Such training can be effective in developing interpersonal and mental skills and high-level critical thinking skills, bringing about more learning, efficient memorizing of information and classrooms enjoyment. This article aims to compare and monitor the effectiveness of inculcating urban environmental topics using the Jigsaw participatory and a traditional teaching method. The main questions outlined here are as follows: Which of aforementioned teaching methods is more effective in conveying urban environmental topics? How is the sustainability of environmental principles over time? Materials and methods: This is a quasi-experimental study with a pre-test/post-test design among two groups (participatory and traditional teaching methods). The statistical population consisted of male grade-three elementary students in Ahwaz, Iran. A total of 62 students (32 in the participatory teaching group and 30 in the traditional teaching group) were enrolled as the sample using random cluster sampling. Identical groups were verified using the pre-test and reliability was verified using Cronbach's alpha (0.84). The teaching methods were performed for three consecutive weeks and post-test was performed after one week and one month. Independent and dependent t-tests and effect size were employed to analyze the data using SPSS.Results and discussion: The results of the independent t-test of pre-test in participatory and traditional groups showed that the level of awareness concerning the urban environment is equal among the students and no significant difference was observed between two groups. The mean scores of participatory and traditional teaching methods were 18.68 and 18.66 in the pre-test concerning urban environmental topics, respectively. The results of post-test after a week showed that the mean scores were 26.28 and 23.10 in the participatory and traditional groups, respectively. They were 25.65 and 21.93 after a month, respectively. The mean scores were greater in the participatory group than in the traditional group at the post-test stage after one week and one month. The results of effect size showed that the effect size of the Jigsaw participatory method was 1.870 over a one-week interval and 2.137 over a one-month interval. According to the results of the dependent t-test, the level of awareness had a significant difference before the intervention and one week after the training programme. One month after the training course, the level of awareness decreased from 26.28 to 25.65 in the participatory group, and from 23.10 to 21.93 in the traditional teaching method group. A significant difference was found compared with the test prior to the training course. These results showed that students taught through the Jigsaw participatory method learn better than those taught through the traditional teaching method.Conclusions: The results of analyses showed that the level of awareness about the urban environment was significantly greater in students taught by the Jigsaw participatory teaching method than those in the traditional teaching group. The results of monitoring the effectiveness also showed that the Jigsaw participatory teaching method was superior to the traditional method.


  1. Aini, M. S., and Laily, P, 2010. Preparedness of Malaysian pre-school educators for environmental education. Editorial Board. p. 271.
  2. Alton-Lee, A., 2012. Cooperative Learning in Physical Education: A Research-Based Approach edited by Ben Dyson & Ashley Casey. Qualitative Research in Education, 1(2), pp.228-232.
  3. Aronson, E., 1978. The jigsaw classroom. Sage.
  4. Asadin, S. Piri, M. Hasan Reihani, L, 2015. A Comparison of the effectiveness of cooperative and individual teaching methods on educational achievement of English in grade one of high school, Journal of Technology Education 1. no.10, 37-44 (In Persian with English abstract).
  5. Aziz, Z. and Hossain, M.A., 2010. A comparison of cooperative learning and conventional teaching on students’ achievement in secondary mathematics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, pp.53-62.
  6. Çelik, S., Aytin, K. and Bayram, E., 2013. Implementing cooperative Learning in the Language Classroom: opinions of Turkish teachers of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, pp.1852-1859.
  7. Baker, T., and Clark, J, 2010. Cooperative learning–a double-edged sword: a cooperative learning model for use with diverse student groups. Intercultural Education 21, no. 3, pp. 257-268.
  8. Behrangi, M.R. Aghayari, T. "The changes resulting of cooperative Jigsaw training in the traditional teaching fifth grade students", Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovations 4, no. 3, 2004. p. 35-53 (In Persian with English abstract).
  9. Fischer, G. and Sugimoto, M., 2006. Supporting self-directed learners and learning communities with sociotechnical environments. Research and practice in technology enhanced learning, 1(01), pp.31-64.
  10. Gholtash, A, 2004. Investigation the effectiveness of cooperative learning on students' social skills growth in five grades [Master thesis]. Tehran: University of Tarbiat Moallem
  11. Gillies, R.M., 2004. The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and instruction, 14(2), pp.197-213.
  12. Glass, G.V., 1982. Meta-analysis: An approach to the synthesis of research results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(2), pp.93-112.
  13. Hsiung, C.M., 2012. The effectiveness of cooperative learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), p.119.
  14. Isik, D. and Tarim, K., 2009. The effects of the cooperative learning method supported by multiple intelligence theory on Turkish elementary students’ mathematics achievement. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(4), pp.465-474.
  15. Majdodin, A. Nili, M.R. and Veisi, H, 2012. An assessment of the training needs of women primary teachers of environment in the 17th district of the city of Tehran, Environmental Sciences 9, no. 4, 81-92 (In Persian with English abstract).
  16. Meiboudi, H., Shobeiri, S. M, Arjmandi, R, and Babaei Semiromi, F. A, 2015. new approuch to environmental education for kids in Mashhad. Journal of Technology of Education. 9, no. 1. 77-87 (In Persian with English abstract).
  17. Mizuno, M., 2011. Cooperative Learning for Fostering Knowledge Construction in Japanese High School. Online Submission.
  18. Niroo, M, and Haji Hossein Nejhad, Gh, 2013. The effect of Gardner theory of multiple intelligences (MI) in the education, based on understanding and improving students' attitude. Agricultural Extension and Education Research. 1, no. 2, 1-12 (In Persian with English abstract).
  19. Petrescu, A.M., Gorghiu, G. and Lupu, R.A., 2015. Non-formal Education-Frame for Responsible Research and Innovation Demarches. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, pp.682-687.
  20. Sajadi, F. and Sha’bani, E.A, 2014. New Patterns and Methods of History Teaching. no. 193 (In Persian with English abstract).
  21. Shachar, H. and Fischer, S., 2004. Cooperative learning and the achievement of motivation and perceptions of students in 11th grade chemistry classes. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), pp.69-87.
  22. Shekarey, A. 2012. Effects of cooperative learning on the development of students’ social skills. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 5, no. 1, 31-37 (In Persian with English abstract).
  23. Shobeiri, S. M, and Shamsi , S.Z, 2015. An analysis of the interdisciplinary curriculum of the rnvironmental education in higher education. Interdiciplinary Studies in the Humanities (Iranian Journal of Cultural Research). 7, no. 3 (27), 127-145 (In Persian with English abstract).
  24. Slavin, R.E., 1990. Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,.
  25. Soykan, A. and Atasoy, E., 2012. Historical development of non-formal environmental education in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, p.736-743.
  26. Soykan, A., Atasoy, E. and Kostova, Z., 2012. Historical development of environmental education in Bulgaria.
  27. Thurston, A., Topping, K.J., Tolmie, A., Christie, D., Karagiannidou, E. and Murray, P., 2010. Cooperative Learning in Science: Follow-up from primary to high school. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), pp.501-522.
  28. UNESCO, P., 1978. Final Report, Intergovernmental conference on environmental education, Tbilissi (USRR), 14-16 oct., 1977.
  29. Vaughan, W., 2002. Effects of cooperative learning on achievement and attitude among students of color. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), pp.359-364.
  30. Yang, S.C. and Liu, S.F., 2005. The study of interactions and attitudes of third-grade students' learning information technology via a cooperative approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(1), pp.45-72.
  31. Yazdanipour, N. Yousefi, A. and Haghani, F, 2009. The Effect of Teaching in Project-Cooperative Method on Academic Achievement of Senior Girl Students in Foolad Shahr High Schools, in Terms of Statistics and Modeling, Research in curriculum planning. 1 (22) :85-98 (In Persian with English abstract).