Effectiveness of computer supported jigsaw ii cooperative learning strategy

Global Media Journal, vi(ii),1-13 Spring 2013
http://www.aiou.edu.pk/gmj/CurrentIssue.asp[Type text] Page 1
Effectiveness of Computer-supported Jigsaw II Cooperative
Learning Strategy on the Performance of Senior
Secondary School Students in Physics
Isiaka Amosa GAMBARI (Ph.D),
Charles Olubode OLUMORIN (PhD) and Mudasiru
Olalere YUSUF (Ph.D)
Abstract
This study investigated the effectiveness of computer-supported jigsaw II cooperative
learning strategies on the performance of senior secondary students in physics. The study
also determined how moderating variables of gender and attitude to physics when Jigsaw II
cooperative learning is used as an instructional strategy. Purposive sampling technique was
used to select two senior secondary school class II physics students from four intact classes
in Minna, Niger State, Nigeria. 80 students from two intact classes were assigned into Jigsaw
II and Individualized Computer Instruction (ICI) groups. Computer-Assisted Learning
Package (CALP) on physics and Physics Achievement Test (PAT) were used as treatment and
test instruments. Analysis of Covariance and Scheffe’s test were used for data analysis.
Findings indicated that students taught physics using computer-supported Jigsaw II
performed better than those taught using individualized computer instruction. In addition,
students exposed to Jigsaw II cooperative learning strategy had positive attitude to physics
than those taught with ICI. However, students’ gender had no influence on their
performance. Based on the findings, it was recommended among other physics teachers
should be encouraged to use computer-supported cooperative instructional strategy to
improve students’ cognitive and affective outcomes.
Key words: Jigsaw II, Computer, Cooperative Learning, Performance, Physics, Attitude
Introduction
Physics is one of the core science subjects in Nigeria educational system offered at senior
secondary school level. Its importance in modern technological development of any nation
made it imperative for its inclusion in the curriculum for science oriented students (FRN,
2004). In spite of the importance of physics as a requirement for many specialized science
and engineering courses at the tertiary educational institutions, students’ performance at the
Senior Secondary Certificate Examinations (SSCE) in Nigeria has been poor. The percentage
of students that passed physics at credit level has consistently being less than 50% for the past
ten years (West African Examination Council [WAEC] Report, 2012).
Adegoke (2011) reported that students are not actively involved in developing
knowledge; they receive information passively and are less motivated. The instructional
method employed by the teacher plays an important role in the acquisition of skills and
meaningful learning. However, the lecture method uses by teachers have been criticized
because only hardworking students can benefit from it. The poor performance of students in
physics can be improved with innovative teaching and learning methods integrated with
technology and elements of problem solving (Gambari, 2010).
Computer has been found to be effective device for classroom instruction using
different software (Gambari & Mogbo, 2006; Tekos & Solomonidou, 2009; Yusuf & Afolabi,
2010). Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) is designed normally for individual learning, but
it has been found to be more effective with cooperative learning than individualized
instruction (Johnson & Johnson, 2008). The use of computer as a medium for cooperative

learning is referred to as computer-supported cooperative learning and it has been embraced
in developed nations (Johnson & Johnson, 2008, Johnson, Johnson & Stanne, 1996; &
Schmidt, 2002).
Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy whereby students are encouraged to
work together on learning tasks (Slavin, 1995). In cooperative learning, students work face to
face to complete a given task collectively. Cooperative learning setting encourages students
to work together to attain group goals, instead of working individually or competitively
(Zakaria & Iksan, 2007). Students discuss subject matter, help each other learn, and provide
encouragement for members of the group. Positive interdependence where each student must
believe that they have a key role to play in the group; individual accountability where each
student within a group must be accountable for mastery of the instructional content presented;
group rewards that entails sufficient incentives for the group to work together; and group
training that entails social skills for effective collaboration among others the key elements of
cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Slavin, 1995). Therefore, to enhance the
understanding of physics concepts, students must be more active in the classroom and must
creatively acquire knowledge, especially in understanding and solving physics problems.
According to Zakaria, Solfitri, Daud & Abidin (2013) students should be given the
opportunities to develop, interact, and share with friends through cooperative learning
activity, so that the cognitive and affective development of students in science can be
improved.
There are many cooperative learning strategies that are designed to achieve different
objectives. This study focused on Jigsaw II cooperative learning strategy. There are four
types of Jigsaw strategies currently in use but Jigsaw II had received attention and widely
used for effective classroom instruction (Zakaria, Solfitri, Daud & Abidin, 2013). Jigsaw II
requires students to work in group of five to six members. Each student in a group is given
information to which no one else in the group has access, thus making each student an
“expert” on his or her section of the subject matter. Members of different teams who have
studied the same sections meet in “expert groups” to discuss their sections and learn how to
teach their colleagues in home group. Then the students return to their original teams and take
turn to teach their teammates what they have learnt. All students in a group are expected to
learn all the subject matter assigned to each member of their group. After instruction in
Jigsaw II, teachers test students individually and produce team scores based on each student’s
test performance.
Several studies revealed that Jigsaw II enhanced better performance among students
in physics (Gambari, 2010; Berger & Hanze, 2009; Hanze & Berger, 2007; Keramati, 2010;
Yusuf, Gambari and Olumorin, 2012), in biology (Altiparmak & Nakiboglu-Tezer, 2009), in
chemistry (Mattinly, VanSickle & Ronald, 2009), in geography (Doymus, 2008; Jansoon,
Somsook & Coll, 2008), in biology (Moreno, 2009), in mathematics Zakaria, Solfitri, Daud
& Abidin, 2013) reported that Jigsaw II is considerably more effective than individualistic
instructional strategy and conventional classroom instruction respectively. However, Shaaban
(2006), Seaborn and Wilson (2002) and Thompson and Pledger (1998) found no significant
difference in the achievement of students taught using Jigsaw II and those taught using
conventional classroom and discussion methods respectively. The findings on the use of
Jigsaw cooperative learning are inconclusive; therefore, this study examined the effects of
computer-supported Jigsaw II on students’ performance in physics.
Attitudes and values provide the framework for guiding our actions outside the
classroom. In helping learners acquire from the basic cooperative attitudes and values they
need to think independently inside and outside of the classroom (Ajaja & Eravwoke, 2010).
Studies have proven that cooperative learning setting has been very effective in encouraging
students’ interaction and developing positive attitudes towards learning (Artut & Tarim,

2007; Gomleksiz, 2007; Lai & Wu, 2006; Moreno, 2009). Zakaria, Solfitri, Daud & Abidin
(2013) revealed that percentage of students who prefer cooperative learning is higher than the
percentage of students who do not like cooperative learning. However, Arra, D’Antonio, &
D’Antonio, (2011) reported that some students preferred not to work in group, meaning that
cooperative learning is not for everyone.
Gender has been identified as one of the factors influencing students’ performance in
sciences at senior secondary school level. However, Olson (2002) reported females
performed better than males students when taught mathematics using cooperative learning.
Contrarily, Khairulanuar, Nazre, Sairabanu, and Norasikin (2010) found gender differences in
favour of male students. On the other hand, Annetta, Mangrum, Holmes, Collazo and
Cheng (2009), Kost, Pollock and Finkelstein (2009), Adeyemi (2008) and Ajaja &
Eravwoke (2010) reported that gender had no effect on academic performance of students in
cooperative learning. These contradictory findings have caused for inclusion of gender as one
of the moderating variable for this study.
The reviewed show the inconclusiveness of the findings on cooperative learning on
gender and attitude of the learners. Furthermore, previous studies focused on comparative
effects cooperative learning strategy and conventional classroom instruction without
examining the effectiveness computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative learning setting in
physics. Based on these facts the present study examined the effects of computer-supported
Jigsaw II cooperative learning strategy on secondary school students’ performance in physics.
Research Questions
The study addressed the following research questions.
(i). Is there any difference in the performance of secondary school students taught physics
using computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative settings and those taught using
Individualized Computer Instruction (ICI)?
(ii). Is there any difference in the performance of male and female students taught physics
using computer-assisted Jigsaw II cooperative setting?
(iii). Is there any difference in the attitude of secondary school students taught physics
using computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative setting and those taught using
Individualized Computer Instruction (ICI)?
Research Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were tested in the study.
(i). There is no significant difference in the performance of secondary school students
taught physics using computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative settings and those
taught using Individualized Computer Instruction (ICI).
(ii). There is no significant difference in the performance of male and female students
taught physics using computer-assisted Jigsaw II cooperative setting.
(iii). There is no significant difference in the attitude of secondary school students taught
physics using computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative setting and those taught
Individualized Computer Instruction (ICI).
Methodology
The design of this study is a quasi-experiment consisting of treatment group and a
control group, since the classes existed as intact groups. Pre-tests were used to determine the
equality of the two groups.
A three-stage sampling technique was adopted. First, purposive random sampling was
used to select two secondary schools in Minna, Niger State, Nigeria. These schools were
selected based on the following criteria: equivalence (laboratories, facilities and manpower),

school ownership (public schools), gender composition (mixed schools), ICT facilities
(computer laboratories under the SchoolNet programme), and candidates’ enrolment (Senior
Secondary School Certificate in Education in physics for a minimum of ten years). Second,
intact class in each of the two schools were selected and randomly assigned to experimental
(Jigsaw II) and control (ICI) groups using simple random sampling technique. Third, the
researcher arranged the participants into different strata based on gender (male & female).
This study consisted of 80 students from two groups consisting of 42 students in the
control group and 38 students in the treatment group. Treatment groups were exposed to
computer-supported jigsaw II cooperative learning (CSJCL), while the control group was
taught with individualized computer instruction (ICI). The students in the experimental
groups were heterogeneously divided into groups with three members each, composed of
students of different gender. To avoid bias in grouping, team portrait, team vision statement,
classmate scavenger hunt, and card sort team building structure were used in each school
respectively.
The teacher who implemented the computer-supported jigsaw II cooperative learning
strategy underwent training on the use of computer-assisted package and cooperative learning
in order to ensure that it was implemented as planned. The teacher in the control group was
trained on how to coordinate individualised computer instruction using the CALP package.
The students were also extensively trained for two on the principles and practice of
cooperative learning strategy.
Computer Assisted Learning Package (CALP) was used for test instrument. It was
self developed package for senior secondary physics used at two different instructional
settings (cooperative and individualised). It was validated by computer programmers and
educational technology experts; subject content (physics) specialists; and finally field tested
on sample representative similar to the students used for the final study. The package
contained of two topics which were subdivided into sixteen lessons. The main menu of the
package consisted of introduction, students’ registration, list of lessons as in lesson 1, 2, 3, 4,
… 16 and exit. It adopted the drill and practice modes of CAI.
Upon completion of instruction, post-tests were conducted to determine the difference
between the groups. Physics Achievement Test (PAT) was used in collecting the data. The
PAT consisted of 100 multiple choice objective items adopted from past examination of West
African Examination Council (WAEC, May/June, 1988-2008) and National Examination
Council (NECO, June/July, 2000-2007). The Test (PAT) was based on the contents of the
CALP package. Each of the stems of the PAT had five options (A - E) as possible answers to
the question. Students were required to indicate their correct answers by ticking one of the
letters (A - E) that corresponds to the correct option in each item. PAT was administered to
the experimental and control groups as pre-test and again for the post-test after it had been
reshuffled. The items were validated and tested for reliability using 40 randomly selected
SSII students. A reliability coefficient of 0.90 was obtained using the Kudar Richardson (KR-
21).
A questionnaire was used to measure the students’ attitude towards physics. Physics
Attitude Scale (PAS) was developed by the researchers to measure the students’ attitude
towards physics before and after exposed to computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative
learning strategy. PAS contained two sections. Section A included four questions and it
focused on demographic information of physics student while Section B focused on students’
attitude towards physics subject. The section contained 20-item four point response mode of
Strongly Agree (coded 4), Agree (coded 3), Disagree (coded 2) and Strongly Disagree (coded
1) were used. To test the instrument’s validity and reliability, the initial draft of 30-item of
PAS was validated by experts. Also, it was administered on students drawn from a school
outside the sampled schools. The feedback obtained from this first administration was used to

modify the final instrument. The final instrument of 20-item questionnaire was tested for
reliability using test-retest method of three weeks interval. The reliability coefficients
obtained for the instruments was 0.86 using Kuder Richardson (KR 21).
The study covered twelve weeks but the treatment period for all groups lasted six
weeks. During the study, the experimental groups were exposed CSJCL as treatment, while
the control group students were individually exposed to the computer assisted instructional
package. PAT and PAS were administered as pretest and posttest respectively. The data
collected during the study were analysed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) and
Scheffe’s test using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11 at 0.05 alpha
level.
Results
The results are presented based on the research hypotheses:
Hypothesis One: There is no significant difference in the performance of secondary school
students taught physics using computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative setting and those
taught using Individualized Computer Instruction (ICI).
To determine whether there was significant difference in the post-test mean scores of
the computer supported Jigsaw II and the control group (individualised computer instruction),
data were analyzed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Table 1 contains the result
of the analysis.
Table 1: ANCOVA post-test on experimental (Jigsaw II) and control (ICI) groups
Source of
Variation
Sum of
Square
df Mean Square F
Significance
of F
Covariate
(Pre-test)
587.599 1 587.599 12.003 0.001
Main Effect
(Treatment)
933.609 1 933.609 19.072 0.000
Model 1561.303 2 780.652 15.947 0.000
Residual 3769.384 77 48.953
Total 343981.000 80
Table 1 shows the main effect of treatment group (computer-supported Jigsaw II) on
students performance produced an F (1, 77) = 19.072, p = 0.000) for the main effect
(treatment) was significant, this indicates that the method of instruction produced a
significant effect on the post-test achievement scores of students when covariate effect (pre-
test) was controlled. The result indicated that the treatment, using Jigsaw II and ICI
accounted for the difference in the post-test achievement scores of the students. Hence,
Hypothesis one was rejected. Therefore, there was significant difference between students
taught using computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative strategy and ICI. The performance of
students in the two groups were further compared using the mean gain scores between the
pre-test and posttest for each group, the results are shown in Table 2 and graphically
illustrated in Figure 1.
Table 3: Mean gain scores of students taught physics using Jigsaw II and ICI
Group Pretest Posttest Mean Gain Score
Jigsaw 20.07 68.38 48.31
ICI 19.82 61.39 41.57

From Table 2 showed that all the groups had improved performance in post-test. For
instance, Jigsaw II had highest mean gain scores of 48.31 while the (ICI) had the mean gain
scores of 41.57. This indicates that the two groups benefited from the treatment, with Jigsaw
II having better performance.
Figure 1: Graphical illustration of students’ performance in Jigsaw II and ICI
Hypothesis Two: There is no significant difference in the performance of male and female
students taught physics using computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative setting.
To determine whether there was significant difference in the post-test mean scores of
the computer-supported Jigsaw II and the control group (ICI), data were analyzed using the
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Table 3 contains the result of the analysis. The results on
this hypothesis are as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: ANCOVA results of male and female students in Jigsaw II group
Source of
Variation
Sum of
Square
df
Mean
Square
F
Significance
of F
Covariate
(Pretest)
225.022 1 225.022 5.567 0.023
Main Effect
(Gender)
76.051 1 76.051 1.882 0.178
Model 323.606 2 161.803 4.003 0.026
Residual 1576.299 39 40.418
Total 198290.000 42
Table 3 indicates that the main effect of treatment (Computer-Supported Jigsaw II) on
gender produced an F (1, 39) = 1.882, p = 0.178 which was not significant at 0.05 alpha level.
This shows that there was no significant difference between the posttest means scores of male
and female students. Male students’ scores did not differ significantly from their female
counterparts when both were taught using computer-supported Jigsaw II. Therefore,
hypothesis two was not rejected. The mean gain scores between the pretest and posttest for
the male and female students were further compared graphically as illustrated in Table 4 and
Figure 2.

Table 4: Mean gain scores of male and female students in Jigsaw II group
Male 20.36 69.46 58.72
Female 19.50 66.21 58.24
Table 4 showed that both the male and female students exposed to computer-
supported Jigsaw II setting benefited from the treatment. The mean gain scores of male
students were 58.72 while the mean gain scores of the female students were 58.24. The mean
gain scores of female students were different from the mean gain scores of the male students
by 0.48. This indicates that computer-supported Jigsaw II improved both male and female,
with male students having better posttest performance and mean gain scores than female
students. Furthermore, the comparison in the mean gain scores between their pretest and
posttest is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Graphical illustration of male and female students in Jigsaw II group
Hypothesis Three: There is no significant difference in the attitude of secondary school
students taught physics using computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative strategy and those
taught Individualized Computer Instruction (ICI).
To determine whether there was significant difference in the pretest and postttest
attitude mean values of students exposed to computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative
strategy, data were analyzed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Table 5 contains
the result of the analysis. The results on this hypothesis are as shown in Table 5.
Table 5: ANCOVA results of attitude mean values of students in Jigsaw II and ICI
groups
Source of
Variation
Sum of
Square
df
Mean
Square
F
Significance
of F
Covariate
(Pretest)
2119.880 1 211.880 33.386 0.000
Main Effect
(Attitude)
2741.531 1 2741.531 43.177 0.000
Model 4259.096 2 2129.548 33.593 0.000
Residual 4889.159 77 63.496
Total 9148.258 80
From Table 5, the main effect of treatment group (computer-supported Jigsaw II

cooperative strategy) on attitude produced an F (1, 77) = 43.167, p = 0.000. This result was
significant at the 0.05 alpha level. This indicates that there was significant difference in the
attitude of physics students taught using Jigsaw II computer-supported cooperative strategy
and ICI. The hypothesis three is therefore rejected. This indicates that students’ attitude
towards physics before the treatment (pretest) differ significantly from attitude after the
treatment (posttest) when exposed to computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative strategy and
ICI.
The mean gain values between the pretest and posttest of students’ attitude using
computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative strategy and ICI were tabulated and graphically
illustrated as shown in Table 6 and Figure 3 respectively.
Table 6: Mean gain values of students’ attitude towards physics using Jigsaw II
ICI 32.524 60.176 27.632
Jigsaw II 35.205 49.821 14.616
From Table 6, it was observed that attitude of students’ towards physics was increased
after taught using computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative learning. The students’ pretest
attitudes mean gain values of 1.63 while the posttest attitudes mean gain value of 3.01. This
indicated that the students benefited from the treatment and like Jigsaw II computer-
supported cooperative setting. Furthermore, the comparison in the mean values between
students pretest and posttest is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Graphical illustration of students’ attitude towards physics using Jigsaw II
and ICI
Discussion of Findings
The results of the analyses related to the hypothesis one indicated a significant
difference in students’ performance of in favour of those in the experimental group (Jigsaw
II). Findings indicated significant difference between the performances of students exposed to
Jigsaw II and ICI. The findings as regards better performance of students in the Jigsaw II as
compared to the ICI agree with earlier findings of Keramati (2010), Yusuf, Gambari and
Olumorin (2012) in physics and Yusuf and Afolabi (2010) in biology which reported that
students taught using computer-supported CAI performed better than those taught using
computer assisted instruction in individualised settings. Furthermore, this finding is supported
by the findings of Lai and Wu (2006) in nursing education, Hanze and Berger (2007) and
Berger and Hanze (2009), (Gambari, 2010) in physics, Altiparmak & Nakiboglu-Tezer

(2009) in chemistry, Mattinly, VanSickle and Ronald (2009) in geography, Moreno (2009),
Doymus, (2008) and Jansoon, Somsook and Coll (2008) in biology, Zakaria, Solfitri, Daud &
Abidin (2013) in mathematics reported that Jigsaw II is considerably more effective than
individualistic instructional strategy and conventional classroom instruction respectively.
However, the finding disagree with the findings of Shaaban (2006), Ross, Seaborn and
Wilson (2002) and Thompson and Pledger (1998) who found no significant difference in the
achievement of students taught using Jigsaw and those taught using conventional classroom
and discussion methods respectively.
The superiority of Jigsaw II strategy stems from the fact that it was a task structured
(task specialization) and incentive structured (group rewards for individual learning, group
reward for group product, and individual rewards) cooperative strategy in such a way that if
well implemented will produce a positive outcome. It was observed that Jigsaw II
instructional strategies provides no room for free rider, in which some group members do all
or most of the work while others go along for the ride (Slavin, 1995). Every member of the
team must have learned the whole lesson in the home group, learn a portion in the Jigsaw
group, then, takes turn to teach the portion to his teammates, complete individual and group
tasks (Moreno, 2009).
The results of the analyses related to the hypothesis two indicated no significant
difference in the performance of male and female students taught physics using computer-
supported Jigsaw II cooperative learning. The findings as regards the performance of male
and female students in the Jigsaw II group differ from the earlier findings of Olson (2002)
which reported that females performed better than males students when taught mathematics
using cooperative learning. Also disagree with Khairulanuar, Nazre, Sairabanu, and
Norasikin (2010) which found gender differences in favour of male students. Furthermore, it
agree with the findings of Annetta, Mangrum, Holmes, Collazo and Cheng (2009), Kost,
Pollock and Finkelstein (2009), Adeyemi (2008) and Ajaja & Eravwoke (2010) which
reported that gender had no influence on academic performance of students in cooperative
learning.
The results of the analyses related to the hypothesis four indicated significant
difference in the attitude of students taught physics using computer-supported Jigsaw II
cooperative learning before and after the treatment. The findings agree with the earlier
findings of Ajaja and Eravwoke (2010), Artut and Tarim (2007), Gomleksiz (2007), Lai and
Wu, (2006) Moreno (2009) and Zakaria, Solfitri, Daud and Abidin (2013) which revealed
that cooperative learning setting increased students’ positive attitudes towards learning.
However, it disagree with the findings of Arra, D’Antonio and D’Antonio (2011) which
revealed that some students did not prefer to work in group, meaning that cooperative
learning is not for everyone. The better attitude exhibited by students in the cooperative
learning classroom may have been achieved because feedback, reinforcement, and support
come from students’ peers in the group. Again, students in cooperative learning performing
better in test of attitude towards studies may perhaps be because of imbibing of role
expectations and responsibility, which are two very important features of cooperative
learning (Ajaja & Eravwoke, 2010).
On the interaction effect, there is non-significant interaction effects on performance
were found between treatment (method) and gender; and gender and achievement levels.
However, significant interaction effect on performance was found between treatment
(method) and achievement level. It is believed that the higher thought processes as required
for higher achievement, are induced by the interaction with one another more than with the
traditional treatment from books and classroom teachers. This, again, may have contributed
to the noticed significant difference in achievement scores between students taught physics

using Jigsaw II cooperative learning strategy and those in the individualized computer
instruction (ICI).
These findings have strong implications for teaching and learning of physics in
secondary schools in Nigeria using computer supported cooperative learning strategies.
Major implication of these findings is that computer assisted instruction is better in
cooperative learning settings than in individualized setting. Furthermore, the findings provide
sound empirical basis which indicate that performance of students in physics and other
science subjects would be greatly improved if students are exposed to computer-supported
Jigsaw II cooperative learning strategy.
Recommendations
Based on the major findings of this study, the following recommendations are
proffered.
(i) Teachers should expose physics students to computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative
instructional strategy so as to improve students’ performance in physics. In addition,
government, educational agencies and other education stakeholders should organize
workshops on the use of computer-supported cooperative learning strategy to enhance
better performance of secondary school students.
(ii) Teacher education programme in Nigerian tertiary institutions should be improved
upon to prepare teachers who can apply innovative teaching approach (computer-
supported instructional strategy), which will promote effective teaching and learning.
About the Authors
Isiaka Amosa GAMBARI (Ph.D) is Senior Lecturer (Educational Technology) in Science
Education Department at Federal University of Technology, Minna.
Charles Olubode OLUMORIN (PhD) is working in Department of Educational Technologyat
University of Ilorin.
Mudasiru Olalere YUSUF (Ph.D) is Professor (Educational Technology) in Department of
Educational Technology at University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

References
Adegoke, B. A. (2011). Effect of multimedia instruction on senior secondary school students’
achievement in Physics. European Journal of Educational Studies 3(3), 537-541.
Adeyemi, B. A. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning and problem-solving strategies on
junior secondary school students' achievement in social studies. Electronic Journal of
Research in Educational Psychology, 6(3), 691-708. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c19u25816754q5j5/
Ajaja, O. P. & Eravwoke, O. U. (2010). Effects of cooperative learning strategy on junior
secondary school students achievement in integrated science. Electronic Journal of
Science Education, 14(1), Retrieved from http://ejse.southwestern.edu
Altiparmak, M. & Nakiboglu-Tezer (2009 ). Hands on group work paper model for teaching
DNA structure, central dogma and recombinant DNA. Online submission, US-China
Education Review, 6(1), 19-23.
Annetta, L., Mangrum, J., Holmes, S., Collazo, K. & Cheng, M. (2009). Bridging realty to
virtual reality: Investigating gender effect and students’ engagement on learning
through video game play in an elementary school classroom. International Journal of
Science Education, 31(8), 1091-1113.
Arra, C. T., D’Antonio, M. D., & D’Antonio Jr., M. (2011). Students’ preferences for
cooperative learning instructional approaches: Considerations for college teachers.
Journal of Research in Education, 21, 114-126.
Artut, P. D. & Tarim, K. (2007). The effectiveness of jigsaw II on prospective elementary
school teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 129-141.
Doymus, K. (2008). Teaching chemical equilibrium with the Jigsaw technique. Research in
Science Education. 38(2), 249-260.
Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004). National policy on education. Lagos: Federal
Government Press.
Gambari, I. A. (2010). Effect of computer-supported cooperative learning strategies on the
performance of senior secondary students in physics, in Minna, Nigeria. Unpublished
PhD thesis, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.
Gambari, A.I. & Mogbo, I. N. (2006). Effect of computer-assisted instruction software for
individualized physics instruction in secondary schools: Implication for counselling.
Book of Proceedings, 1st
Annual SSSE, FUT, Minna, 155-164.
Gomleksiz, M. 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.
Hanze, M. & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivation effects, students
characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct
instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 29-41.
Jansoon, N., Somsook, E. & Coll, R. 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.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Stanne, M.B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A
meta-analysis. University of Minnesota website.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Cooperation and the use of technology. In J. M.
Spector, M. D.Merrill, J. V. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York:
Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. B. (1996). Comparison of computer-assisted
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. American Educational Research
Journal, 23(3), 382-392.

Keramati, M. (2010). Effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement of physics
course. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(2), 155 -173.
Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved on the 15th
April, 2010 from
http://www.editlib.org/p/33121
Khairulanuar, S., Nazre, A.R., Sairabanu, O.K. & Norasikin, F. (2010). Effects of training
method and gender on learning 2D/3D geometry. Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(2), 175 - 188. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Retrieved on the 15th
April, 2010, from http://www.editlib.org/p/33188
Kost, L. E., Pollock, S. J. & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Characterizing the gender gap in
introductory physics. Physics Education Research, 5(1) 1-14.
Lai, C. Y. & Wu, C. (2006). Using handhelds in a jigsaw cooperative learning environment.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(4), 284-297.
Moreno, R. (2009). Constructing knowledge with an agent-based instructional Program: A
comparison of cooperative and individual meaning making. Learning and Instruction,
19(5), 433 - 444.
Olson, V. E. (2002). Gender differences and the effects of cooperative learning in college
level mathematics. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Perth,
Western Australia.
Ross, M. C., Seabborn, A. W. & Wilson, E. K. (2002). Is cooperative learning a
valuable instructional method for teaching social studies to urban African American
students? Retrieved February 5 2008, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal=(ED480458).
Schmidt, K. (2002). Computer-supported cooperative work and learning. Retrieved from
http://www.uoc.edu/web/esp/art/uoc/schmidt0202/schmidt0202.html 30/04/2011
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know,
what we need to know. Retrieved from http://www.scov.csos.jhu.edu/sfa/cooplear.html
Tekos, G. & Solomonidou, C. (2009). Constructivist learning and teaching of optics concepts
using ICT tools in Greek primary school: A pilot study. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 18(5), 415-428.
Thompson, M. & Pledger, L. (1998). Cooperative learning versus traditional lecture format:
A preliminary study. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal
West African Examination Council, (WAEC, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011). May/June.
Chief Examiner’s Report. Lagos.
Yusuf, M. O. & Afolabi, A. O. (2010). Effects of computer assisted instruction (CAI) on
secondary school students’ performance in biology. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology. 9 (1). Retrieved from http://www.tojet.edu.com
Yusuf, M. O., Gambari, A.I. & Olumorin, C. O. (2012). Effectiveness of Computer-
Supported Cooperative Learning Strategies in Learning Physics. International J. Soc.
Sci. & Education, 2(2), 94-109.
Zakaria, E., & Iksan, Z. (2007). Promoting cooperative learning in science and mathematics
education: A Malaysia perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &
Technology Education, 3, 35-39.
Zakaria, E., Solfitri, T., Daud, Y. & Abidin, Z. Z. (2013). Effect of Cooperative Learning
on Secondary School Students’ Mathematics Achievement. Creative Education,
l.4(2), 98-100. Retrieved from (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce).

Effectiveness of computer supported jigsaw ii cooperative learning strategy

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Effectiveness of computer supported jigsaw ii cooperative learning strategy (20)

More from Gambari Isiaka (20)

Effectiveness of computer supported jigsaw ii cooperative learning strategy