Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer

Relationships and School Performance
Emily Grey
St. Marys College of Maryland

Abstract: Student-peer relationships are an important aspect of classroom climate that affect student
attitudes, behaviors, and performance in school. Research has shown that collaborative learning techniques
are effective at improving relationships in the classroom because they allow students to learn from one
another while working together toward a common academic goal. I implemented a jigsaw intervention with
second graders and measured changes in student attitudes toward working with peers and the number of
classmates they liked. In addition, I examined changes in their motivation, participation, and academic
performance. Results showed that jigsaw instruction did not change student attitudes toward working with
peers, but it did increase the number of classmates students reported liking. The number of classmates
students liked continued to increase even after the intervention period ended. Academic achievement
significantly increased during the intervention period as well. However, there was no significant change in
motivation or participation.

Introduction

Shes being mean to me! Theyre not helping. But I dont want to work with
him! These are all statements that I have heard being said by my students in the
classroom. Typically after views such as these are expressed, the students are told by the
teacher that they need to work nicely with one another and finish the assignment. In these
cases, the tension between students often goes unresolved and the lesson continues to be
interrupted and suffer due to poor student-peer relationships. Effective instruction
facilitates student understanding of academic content areas, but curriculum standards and
time restraints do not leave room for the strengthening student-peer relationships. With
the implementation of intensive content-based curriculum, the average classroom teacher
does not necessarily have the time or resources to focus solely on fostering positive
relationships between all students in the classroom.

In the classrooms in which I have taught, I have observed a stark difference between
the performance of groups of students in which members had positive relationships with
one another and groups composed of classmates who did not get along. In the groups made
up of strong peer relationships the students were able to work together to solve the
problem or learn the information at hand. Alternatively, in groups where the students
Rising Tide Volume 7

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

clearly disliked each other, most of their time together was either spent arguing over
student roles within the group or the members decided not to work together and
attempted to learn the information on their own. In both cases the negative peer
relationships prevented the students from learning, while the groups with students who
had positive relationships were able to work together to complete the task.

Research on the components of positive classroom environments illustrate the
importance of fostering strong student-peer relationships. When children feel comfortable
with their classmates they are more cooperative and are more likely to follow the rules of
the classroom (Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). Numerous links have been found between
strong student-peer relationships and positive aspects of school performance, such as
academic achievement and attitudes toward school (Aronson, Blaney, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978;
Tarhan, Ayyildiz, Ogunc, & Sesen, 2013). These connections indicate that improving
students relationships with their classmates could have various other positive outcomes
on their performance in school.

Cooperative learning techniques, strategies in which each students learning is
dependent on their classmates as well as themselves, have been found to be a successful
way to improve student-peer relationships (Tarhan et al., 2013). These strategies have
been effective in many different classroom environments, with some types of cooperative
learning techniques proving more beneficial than others. Considering the research on
cooperative learning techniques and the effects of positive peer-relationship in schools,
through this study I attempted to improve my own classrooms student-peer relationships
using the jigsaw cooperative learning technique. I aimed to answer two main research
questions:

1. Does my intervention strategy improve student-peer relationships in my own
classroom?
2. Does improving student relationships have effects on other aspects of school
performance?


This research will be useful to teachers who want to understand the effects of strong
student-peer relationships and who hope to build positive relationships within their own
classrooms. In the next section, I will detail the existing research on the importance of
positive student-peer relationships in the classroom and different methods that have been
used to improve classroom relationships. Then I will describe my cooperative learning
intervention strategy and how I collected my data, which will be followed by data analysis
and a discussion of my findings and their implications in the classroom.

Literature review
Classroom Climate

The environment in which a student learns is an important influence on the way
that student feels, acts, and learns. The overall atmosphere of the classroom as it is
perceived by each student is often referred to as the classroom climate (Urdan &
Schoenfelder, 2006). It is made up of many different components that are present in most
classrooms. One basic element of classroom climate is student attitudes toward the
learning structure that has been established by the classroom teacher. Additionally, the
strength and quality of the relationships between the teacher and students are important
Rising Tide Volume 7

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

components of a classrooms climate (Brown, Powell, & Clark, 2012; Urdan & Schoenfelder,
2006). Similarly, the relationships students have with their classmates are a critical factor
in how comfortable children feel in their classroom (Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006).

Classroom researchers have found that the social components of a classroom
climate can impact student behavior. Having a strong peer support system has been found
to be related to higher levels of student cooperation and a greater likelihood of following
the rules of the classroom (Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). According to Cappella, Neal, and
Sahu (2012), positive emotional climate within the classroom involves more genuine and
open peer interactions, more socially and emotionally-developed students, and is
predictive of higher peer agreement. The relationships between children and their peers
within the classroom setting is related to a multitude of feelings and behaviors exhibited by
the students. These relationships and their impact on the way a student exists in their
classroom will be discussed in the following sections.
Peer Relationships

Negative Peer Relationships. Students relationships with their classmates are an
important component of their classroom climate, and students who do not have strong,
positive relationships with their peers may suffer. Children who display aggressive-
disruptive behavior in early elementary school tend to have less positive relationships with
their peers (Powers & Bierman, 2013). These children are often victimized or not accepted
by peers, and because of their lack of interaction with well-behaved classmates they are not
exposed to acceptable types of behavior. The absence of good relationships with their peers
usually continues throughout their schooling, and their aggressive-disruptive behavior
does not decrease as they grow older. Additionally, externalizing and internalizing
problems in children, which are associated with displays of aggressive-disruptive behavior,
are often related to impeded relational and academic development (van Lier at al., 2012).
For these students, having weak or negative peer relationships negatively influences their
behavior and development throughout their schooling.

Students who are well-behaved in the classroom but who do not have strong
relationships with their peers can also have problems in school. Rotenberg and Boulton
(2013) measured trustworthiness between students and their classmates and its relation
to student feelings in the classroom. Students who felt that they could not trust their peers
reported higher levels of peer victimization, feelings of helplessness, fear and anxiety, and
social withdrawal. In these classrooms, a lack of strong relationships between students
contributed to many negative emotions that could influence aspects of student school
performance. Students who do not have strong, positive relationships with their classmates
often suffer socially and emotionally because of it.

Positive Peer Relationships. There are many negative outcomes associated with
poor student-peer relationships within the classroom. Alternatively, strong relationships
between children and their classmates have been associated with positive effects on
student behavior in the classroom, attitudes toward school and learning, and academic
performance.

Behavior. Given what is known about negative peer relationships of students who
exhibit aggressive-disruptive behavior, it is possible that improving peer relations between
negatively-behaving students and their classmates could have positive outcomes on their
behavior in school. If students with behavioral issues usually lack social support from their
Rising Tide Volume 7

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

well-behaved counterparts, then fostering better relationships with their peers may expose
them to positive types of behavior and enhance their own behavior. Social control theory
suggests that children who feel close with their peers are less likely to behave in ways that
conflict with the values of their shared community (Lynch, Lerner, & Leventhal, 2013). This
occurs because having support from their peers prompts students to be more cooperative
and socially responsible in the classroom, which involves following the rules and norms set
by the teacher and students (Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). Because weak relationships
with peers are associated with negative behaviors, having strong social connections with
classmates is related to behaviors that are desired in the school setting.

Similar to social control theory, which suggests that people who have strong
relationships with community members are more likely to follow the expectations of that
community, Banduras (1977) social learning theory explains why positive peer
relationships lead to positive behavior outcomes. Social learning theory states that people
learn through observation; seeing others complete an action and receive the consequence
is enough to influence an individuals own behavior (Bandura, 1977). When adapted to the
classroom and combined with social control theory, this suggests that students learn what
is acceptable to do by observing those who are close to them and exhibiting behavior that is
displayed and accepted by their peers with which they have strong relationships.

Attitudes. Positive student-peer relationships can influence not only students
behaviors, but also they way they think and feel about themselves and their environment in
school. High school boys who were rated as being well-liked by their male classmates
reported lower levels of loneliness than boys who were not well-liked (Betts, Rotenberg,
Trueman, & Stiller, 2013). Similarly, students with higher levels of friendship and peer
acceptance, more reciprocated best friendships, and fewer reports of peer victimization
were less likely to report feeling lonely and dissatisfied in school (Ladd, Kochenderfer, &
Coleman, 1997). Strong student-peer relationships are often associated with lower levels of
negative emotions toward the self and the school.

Relationships between classmates have also been shown to be related to student
attitudes toward school. High school girls who reported liking their female classmates
reported liking school more than those who did not like their same-gendered peers (Betts
et al., 2013). Not only does being liked by peers influence a students attitudes, but also the
students liking of their classmates was connected to their enjoyment of school.
Comparably, high levels of peer acceptance and low levels of peer victimization were
correlated with higher levels of school liking as well as lower levels of school avoidance
(Ladd et al., 1997). Students relationships with their classmates are connected to the way
they feel about themselves and their school environment; stronger and more positive peer
relationships are often linked with more positive feelings toward the school and the
individual student.

Academics. In addition to strong student-peer relationships being related to positive
behaviors and attitudes in school, they are also connected to aspects of academic
performance. In a study on school adjustment in kindergarteners, children who had a
higher number of friends and a higher rating of peer acceptance also achieved higher
scores on an academic readiness assessment (Ladd et al., 1997). Additionally, higher scores
on the best friend measure (i.e., having more reciprocated best friendships) were
correlated with greater classroom involvement and higher levels of school adjustment.
Better performance in the classroom is often associated with stronger relationships
Rising Tide Volume 7

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

between students and their peers. Further, Lynch and colleagues (2013) found that what
they term the relational component of peer culture, which involves the students view of
the overall positive or negative climate of peer relationships within the school, was
positively related to an individuals school engagement. When strong, positive student-peer
relationships are present among classmates, high levels of academic achievement and
positive classroom measures are often also present in individuals.
Improving Peer Relationships

Based on the large quantity of research on positive behavioral, emotional, and
academic measures linked with strong student-peer relationships, a desire to improve
childrens relationships with their classmates is warranted. There are many different
strategies and techniques teachers can use to attempt to improve their students attitudes
toward their peers; most of these approaches stem from the idea of increasing students
exposure to their classmates.

Exposure. Exposure techniques are based on bringing students who do not have
strong relationships with each other physically closer together in order to improve their
attitudes toward one another. These methods have been found to have positive effects on
the way students view their peers. Researchers van den Berg, Segers, and Cillessen (2012)
used student ratings of their classmates to determine the strength of student-peer
relationships within different classrooms, and used that information to determine which
students had the weakest relationships with their classmates. They then had teachers
change the seating arrangements so the students who disliked one another the most were
moved closer together for several weeks. Results showed that likeability ratings among
students who initially reported disliking each other improved most between pre- and post-
tests when they were moved closer together within the classroom. Simply being moved
closer to a classmate whom a student disliked improved their attitudes toward that
student. This process can be explained by intergroup contact theory, which suggests that
exposure to an individual leads to familiarity with that person, which then leads to liking
them more (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Studies assessed by Pettigrew and Tropp
continually showed that increasing proximity between members of different groups led to
a decrease in prejudiced opinions between the differing group members. This decrease in
an individuals prejudice occurred for both the person who was originally disliked as well
as for the outgroup of which that person was a member. Further, studies in which
individuals were required to work with their peers in addition to being moved closer to
them displayed the strongest peer relationship improvement (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).

Group Work. Exposure methods generally yield positive results toward peer
relationships, but these results are notably stronger when peers are forced to work
together (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Additionally, having students work together can have
positive effects on achievement. Students who worked in pairs to answer questions using
computer searches were more efficient and gave more correct answers than students who
worked individually to answer the same questions (Dinet & Vivian, 2012). In this study, the
performance of partners who were friends was compared to that of partners who were not
friends, but the results contradict the previously described findings on the positive
outcomes of good student-peer relationships. Although students who worked in pairs were
overall more successful in answering the questions than students who worked individually,
students who were friends with their partner engaged in more conflict-related discussions
Rising Tide Volume 7

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

than pairs that were not friends. Additionally, pairs who were not friends gave more
correct answers than partners who were friends. Similarly, in a study of high school
students attitudes toward their peers, higher levels of positive peer interaction were
related to liking math less (Winheller, Hattie, & Brown, 2013). These findings seem to
counter those demonstrating that improving students relationships with their peers will
have positive outcomes in the classroom. However, careful consideration of the nature of
peer relationships between the studies warrants one possible reason for these differing
results. The studies that demonstrated negative outcomes of positive peer relationships
were not focused on relations based on academic goals. Rather, they involved friendships
and attitudes that had been formed out of the academic context. In these studies, consistent
with social control theory, students who were friends behaved in ways that were accepted
by their friends rather than by their teachers and class peers. This analysis suggests that
methods that improve student relationships would warrant more desirable outcomes for
the teacher and classroom if peer interaction was based around academic goals rather than
simply forming friendships. An approach that has students working together to solve an
academically-based problem or reach a learning goal is more likely to improve peer
relationships and warrant the desired positive behavioral and academic outcomes.
Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning techniques are a method teachers can use to attempt to
improve student-peer relationships with a focus on academic goals. The traditional
classroom, as described by Aronson and colleagues (1978), is structured with the teacher
as the expert and the children as competitors for attention and praise; cooperative learning
is aimed at overcoming this type of classroom system. The goals of cooperative learning are
focused on making student success incompatible with competitiveness toward their peers
and dependent on collaborative behavior among students. Cooperative learning strategies
contain four main elements: (1) students are clearly interdependent on classmates, (2)
there is a substantial amount of time spent working face-to-face with peers, (3) every
student is responsible for the learning of their group and every student depends on the
group to learn, and (4) within the group there is evaluation of group functioning and
effectiveness (T. & Johnson, 1994). There are several different kinds of cooperative
learning methods that can be used to improve student-peer relationships; however, some
yield more positive effects than others.

Teams-Games-Tournament. As implied by its name, the Teams-Games-
Tournament (TGT) cooperative learning approach is made up of three main components:
teams, games, and tournaments (Edwards & DeVries, 1974). The set up of this approach
involves assigning students to groups composed of differing achievement levels, and then
having students on equal achievement levels from each group competing in academic
games against one another. Through their performance on these games, students can earn
points toward their groups tournament score, and each student in the group contributes to
their groups score. This cooperative learning approach has been found to improve student
attitudes about class members and class cohesiveness. However, this impact varies across
the content areas in which the approach is used. Edwards and DeVries found that TGT
methods only improved measures of class cohesiveness in mathematics classes, and
student satisfaction toward the subject was only effected in social studies classes. A
cooperative learning approach with less of an emphasis on competition within the
Rising Tide Volume 7

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

classroom may be more effective at improving relationships and other classroom measures
effectively across content areas.

Drama Approach. Another type of cooperative learning that has been utilized
specifically in Reading instruction is the drama approach (Law, 2011). Although the
research on this approach does not focus on the interventions effects on student-peer
relationships, it still has important implications for this study. This method is not
competitive, and involves students working together to reorganize a story into a play,
assign roles, and perform their work. Although students who were taught using the drama
approach reported greater liking of the learning technique, there was no difference in
reading comprehension compared to the control group. Law suggested that students in the
drama approach group may have been overwhelmed by having drama-related instruction
(e.g., expression, gesture, etc.) in addition to the reading content instruction, which could
have reduced the possible positive achievement outcomes of the cooperative learning
technique. This research demonstrated that in order to achieve the desired positive social
and academic outcomes, an implemented cooperative learning approach should not involve
excessive instruction that could potentially overwhelm students.

Jigsaw. The jigsaw technique is a cooperative learning approach that does not
involve competition or excessive instruction. Aronson and colleagues (1978) describe the
jigsaw method as one in which diverse sets of students are put in groups (i.e., the home
group) where everyone works toward a common goal, and all group members depend on
each other for some aspect of achieving that goal. One member of each home group is
assigned to an expert group where they learn about a specific topic. After students finish
learning in their expert groups, they return to their home groups and teach their fellow
group members about their expert topic. The implementation of the jigsaw cooperative
learning method has been found to improve social, emotional, and academic aspects in the
classroom.

Effects on peer relationships. The effectiveness of jigsaw method instruction on
improving student relationships stems from the basis of intergroup contact theory. In
group situations, relationships between members were most improved when individuals
had to work together to achieve a specific, common goal rather than as separate entities
working toward their own ends (Brown et al., 2012; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).
Researchers focusing specifically on the jigsaw approach have found that after the
cooperative learning method was implemented, students reported liking their classmates
significantly more than their counterparts in traditional classroom control groups
(Aronson et al., 1978; Tarhan et al., 2013). There was also a significant increase in the belief
that they could learn from their classmates in jigsaw groups compared to controls
(Aronson et al., 1978). Because students need to depend on every other member of their
group in order to achieve all learning goals, they are able to value everyones part in
achieving group success.

Other benefits. In addition to improving relationships between group members, the
jigsaw method of instruction has been found to improve other aspects relating to student
success. Students in a reading jigsaw group had higher reading comprehension scores than
students in the drama cooperative learning and control groups (Law, 2011). Similarly,
students who learned science content through jigsaw groups had fewer misconceptions
about the material than those in a traditional class setting (Tarhan et al., 2013). After
receiving jigsaw method instruction most students show more improvement between
Rising Tide Volume 7

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

scores on a course pre- and post-test than control groups (Aronson et al., 1978; Sahin,
2011). Additionally, students who learn in a jigsaw classroom often exhibit higher levels of
motivation than controls (Brown et al., 2012; Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). Across
different content areas, the jigsaw cooperative learning technique tends to elicit better
academic performance compared to traditional classroom instruction.

Jigsaw instruction has also been found to improve student attitudes toward school
and themselves. Students often report being more interested in school in general and
specific content areas when they are taught using the jigsaw approach (Aronson et al.,
1978; Tarhan et al., 2013). Students in jigsaw classrooms also often report increased self-
confidence and feelings of accomplishment. Additionally, Aronson and colleagues found
that students from jigsaw groups scored higher on empathy tests; these students easily
recognized the perspective of others, whereas students in the traditional classroom control
groups were more likely to respond to prompts with egocentric statements. The jigsaw
cooperative learning method has been shown to improve student attitudes toward peers,
school, and their own ability, as well as achievement and motivation.
Research Questions

A thorough review of the existing literature details the negative effects of poor
student-peer relationships on student behavior, as well as the power of good student-peer
relationships on academic and performance measures. Because of their basis in social
contact theory, cooperative learning techniques have been shown to improve student-peer
relationships in the classroom. The jigsaw technique is distinctly successful in improving
student relationships due to its non-competitive nature and the obligation for students to
depend on one another for their own learning. Based on previous research on the
importance of good student-peer relationships and the effectiveness of the jigsaw method
of instruction in improving student relationships, my research questions are as follows:
1. How does my jigsaw method intervention affect student-peer relationships in
my classroom?
2. How does the intervention affect
a. Student motivation?
b. Student participation?
c. Student achievement?

3. How do the effects of the intervention carry over to non-jigsaw instruction?

Intervention

I attempted to improve student-peer relationships among the 16 students of my
second grade class using a jigsaw instruction intervention developed and studied by
Aronson et al. (1978). The implementation of the jigsaw intervention occurred during a
STEM unit on electricity. Expert groups were determined based on student performance,
with input from the classroom teacher. Each expert group was responsible for different
information, and the amount and format of information each group was presented with
was differentiated based on performance and reading ability level (i.e., students with lower
independent reading levels were presented with information using less text and more
images than higher-performing classmates). When the jigsaw groups were first created
there were 18 students in the class, so there were originally three expert groups each
Rising Tide Volume 7

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

composed of six students. Once the expert groups were determined, one student from each
group was assigned to one of the six home groups. During the intervention period two
students left our class; instead of forming new expert and home groups based on the new
number of students I kept the children in their original groups and had groups with missing
members listen in on other group discussions when necessary.

On the first day of implementation, students were moved into their expert groups
and were instructed to work together with their group members to learn the content given
to them that day. While in expert groups, they become experts on their topic, and were told
that they were responsible for learning that topic well enough to teach it to the rest of their
home group. Students were taught using teacher instruction and informative passages that
presented information in text and with visual elements. After every member of each expert
group was familiar with their information, they were then broken into their home groups
and instructed to work with these group members to learn and teach the days material.
They were told that every member of the group is important, and that they all needed to
count on each other in order to learn (Tarhan et al., 2013). Each group member was given
two minutes to share the information he or she had become an expert on with their home
group. Then home groups worked together to complete a culminating activity (e.g., creating
an informational poster) that related to information learned in each expert group. The
jigsaw intervention was implemented for five days throughout the ten-day electricity unit.

Figure 1. Jigsaw intervention grouping; figure adapted from Tarhan et al. (2013).

Methods
Methodological approach

I used quantitative methods to determine what kind of effect my intervention had
on student-peer relationships and classroom performance measures (i.e., motivation,
participation, and achievement). Using quantitative methodology to measure the typically
subjective variables of relationships and motivation made data collection and
interpretation more objective. Using quantitative methodology was also appropriate for
Rising Tide Volume 7

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

interpreting the typically quantitative variables of participation (i.e., volunteering to
present information to the rest of the class) and achievement (i.e., scores on class work
assignments).
Data collection

Before the intervention was implemented I measured student-peer relationships
using the Student Liking Questionnaire based on peer acceptance scales created and used
by Kingery and Erdley (2007) on elementary-aged children to measure student-peer liking
(see Appendix A). Students were asked individually to respond to the questionnaire
regarding how they feel about their classmates. They were also shown a set of photos of all
of their classmates and asked to count the number of kids they really like to spend time
with at school. Before seeing the questionnaire, students were told that their answers
would be kept private, and to not share how they responded with anyone. I recorded
student responses; individual responses were not shared with any students. Following the
first questionnaire, student motivation was measured using the Motivation Questionnaire
developed using motivation measures by Lepper, Corpus, and Iyengar (2005) and
Vallerand and colleagues (1992; see Appendix B); the researcher read the prompts and
responses aloud while the student read along silently and responded. These interviews
took approximately five minutes to perform with each child, and were conducted during
strategic intervention time over the course of the week before intervention
implementation. The order in which the students were interviewed, before, during, and
after the intervention, was randomized. Student participation was measured using the
Participation Checklist (see Appendix C) during the week before the jigsaw
implementation. Each student was observed for a five minute interval during either
science, math, or reading instruction; the order and subject in which students were
observed was randomly assigned. Student scores on class work assignments were used to
measure student achievement. Assignments from every student in science, math, and
reading, were used to determine average student achievement in the classroom.

During the intervention, participation was measured in the same way it was before
jigsaw implementation. Scores on class work assignments completed during the
intervention were used to determine student achievement. Throughout the week following
the jigsaw implementation, students were interviewed using the Student Liking and
Motivation questionnaires; the order in which students were interviewed was determined
randomly. In order to determine if any changes in student motivation, participation, and
achievement were due to improved student-peer relationships rather than to the jigsaw
intervention, these three variables were measured again two weeks after the intervention
was implemented, during a week of non-jigsaw instruction.

Rising Tide Volume 7

10

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

Table 1:
Research questions and data sources.


Student-Peer
Motivation
Relationships
Questionnaire
Questionnaire

How does my

jigsaw method measured
intervention
before and after
affect student-
intervention
peer
relationships in
my classroom?
How does the


intervention
measured
affect
before and
motivation,
during
participation,
intervention
and
period
achievement?

How do these


effects of the
measured two
measured two
intervention
weeks after
weeks after
carry over to
intervention
intervention
non-jigsaw
period
period
instruction?

Participation
Checklist

Class work
Scores

measured
before and
during
intervention
period

using class
work completed
before and
during
intervention
period

measured two
weeks after
intervention
period

using class
work completed
two weeks after
intervention
period

Data analysis

I used descriptive and inferential statistics to analyze the attitudinal (student-peer
relationships and motivation), behavioral (participation), and performance (academic
achievement) measures and answer my research questions. Student responses to the
student-peer liking interview were averaged to calculate the quality of relationships within
the classroom (a low average indicates there are more poor student-peer relationships in
the classroom) the week prior to and immediately following the jigsaw intervention, as
well as two weeks after intervention implementation. Averages of the classroom
performance measures were calculated using the corresponding data sources before,
during, and after the intervention period. Student-peer relationship means from before and
after the intervention were compared using paired two-tailed t-tests to determine if a
significant change in attitudinal measures occurred during and following the jigsaw
implementation. Similarly, classroom performance means from before, during, and after
the intervention were also compared using paired two-tailed t-tests. Comparing these
means from before intervention to means from during the jigsaw implementation helped to
illustrate the relationship between the intervention itself and these performance measures.
Rising Tide Volume 7

11

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

To determine if changes in classroom performance measures were related to student-peer
relationships separate of the jigsaw instruction, the means from before implementation
were also compared to the means collected several weeks after the jigsaw implementation
period.
Validity concerns

In order to attend to validity, I triangulated data sources. Both questionnaires
contained more than one question that factored into the calculation of the measure being
tested. Using both of these measures represented changes in participation before, during,
and after the intervention. Student achievement was measured and averaged using
multiple grades on class work assignments from before, during, and after the jigsaw
intervention. Triangulation within each of these data sources minimized validity concerns.
Although participation was only measured in one way, it was measured by an outside
observer to avoid personal bias from the researcher. Additionally, I was aware of my desire
for the intervention to produce positive results and how that could affect my interpretation
of certain measures, such as grading student work from during and after the intervention
period more leniently than their work from before. I was sure to remain conscious of my
own biases regarding the results of this study in an attempt to reduce the influence of them
on my interpretation of the data. I also discussed my data findings with my placement
teacher in an attempt to reduce my biases in data interpretation.

Findings and interpretations

Student-Peer Relationships

The Student-Peer Relationships Questionnaire (see Appendix A) was broken down
into two parts: student attitudes toward classmates and the number of classmates students
liked).

Attitudes toward peers. I averaged the three Likert-type question responses (i.e.,
How much do you like your classmates?, Do you feel like your classmates help you to
learn in class?, and Do you enjoy working with your classmates in class?) to represent
student attitudes toward their classmates as a group. I compared the means of student
attitudes toward peers from before the intervention (M = 9) to means from directly
following the intervention period (M = 8.93) using a two-tailed paired t-test. There was no
significant difference in student attitudes toward their peers after the implementation of
the jigsaw intervention (p = .89). Students did not report an increase or decrease in the
amount that they enjoyed working with their peers in class. Student attitudes toward their
classmates were positive before the implementation of the jigsaw intervention, therefore a
ceiling effect may have taken place. If students already felt they could learn from their
classmates before the intervention took place, there was little room for a change in their
attitudes.

In order to determine if the effects of the intervention changed after the period of
jigsaw instruction ended, I compared student attitudes toward their peers from before the
intervention (M = 9) to attitudes from two weeks after the intervention period (M = 8.75)
using a two-tailed paired t-test. There was no significant difference in student attitudes
toward working with peers when compared from before and after the intervention period
Rising Tide Volume 7

12

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

(p = .55). Student attitudes toward their peers continued to remain relatively high without
increasing or decreasing significantly two weeks after the intervention period was over.
Figure 2 breaks down students attitudes toward their class by illustrating the responses to
the three questions that were combined to represent this measure. The figure shows that
students started with positive attitudes toward their peers before the intervention, and
that changes in attitudes were not significant.

Figure 2. Student responses to Student-Peer Relationship Questionnaire.


Number of classmates liked. I then used the mean of student responses to the
fourth prompt from the Student- Peer Relationships Questionnaire (i.e., Count the number
of classmates that you really like to spend time with at school,) to represent how students
felt about each classmate. Using a two-tailed paired t-test I compared means from before
(M = 8.75) and directly after (M = 10.88) the intervention. There was an increase in the
number of classmates students reported liking after the jigsaw intervention, however, the
increase was not statistically significant (p = .06). Although some students reported liking
more of their classmates after participating in jigsaw groups, overall there was not a
significant increase in the class.

I also compared the mean number of classmates students liked from before the
intervention (M = 8.75) to the mean two weeks after the intervention period (M = 11.31)
using a two-tailed paired t-test. The number of classmates students reported liking was
Rising Tide Volume 7

13

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

significantly increased after the intervention period ended compared to before the
intervention was implemented (p < .05). After the jigsaw intervention ended, student liking
continued to improve and was significantly increased two weeks after the intervention
period was over (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Number of classmates liked before, during, and after the intervention.

Figure 4 shows individual responses to the number of classmates students liked
before, during, and after the implementation of jigsaw instruction. Even though there was
not a significant difference in means directly following the intervention, there were several
students who reported a large increase in the number of classmates they enjoyed spending
time with at school. This increase in the number of classmates students liked continued to
grow after the intervention ended. This figure illustrates the effectiveness of participating
in jigsaw groups on improving many students liking of their peers.

Rising Tide Volume 7

14

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

Figure 4. Individual reports of student liking of classmates before, during, and after intervention.
Student Motivation

The Motivation Questionnaire (see Appendix B) was used to measure internal and
external motivation. The means for internal motivation (i.e., Questions 1 and 3) were
compared from before (M = 5.63) and during (M = 5.31) the intervention using a two-tailed
paired t-test. There was no significant difference in internal motivation after the
intervention was implemented (p = .26). Similarly, the means for external motivation (i.e.,
Questions 2 and 4) were compared from before (M = 4.88) and during (M = 4.56) using a
two-tailed paired t-test. There was no significant change in external motivation after the
jigsaw intervention (p = .21). Students did not report a significant increase or decrease in
internal or external motivation due to the jigsaw intervention.

The means of internal and external motivation before the jigsaw intervention were
also compared to means from two weeks after the intervention period using two-tailed
paired t-tests. There was no significant change in internal motivation between means
before (M = 5.63) and after the intervention ended (M = 5.31; p = .17). The comparison of
extrinsic motivation from before (M = 4.88) and after (M = 5.06) also yielded no significant
results (p = .38). There was no significant change in internal or external motivation after
the jigsaw intervention period ended.

Rising Tide Volume 7

15

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

Student Participation

The Participation Checklist (see Appendix C) was used to measure student
participation in the classroom. I used a two-tailed paired t-test to compare participation
means from before (M = 4.8) and during (M = 4.67) the intervention period. There was no
significant difference in participation before and during the intervention (p= . 87).

I also used a two-tailed paired t-test to compare participation means from before
the intervention (M = 4.8) to two weeks after the jigsaw implementation (M = 4.4). There
was no significant change in participation after the jigsaw instruction ended (p = .62).
Student Achievement

I used student scores on math, reading, and science assignments to calculate an
average class work grade for each student. I compared the means of class work grades from
before (M = .91) and during (M = .96) the intervention period using a one-tailed paired t-
test, and found that there was a significant increase in student class work scores (p < .05).
Students performed significantly better academically during the time of the jigsaw
intervention than they had before the intervention.

In order to determine if the increase in academic achievement continued after the
intervention was over, I compared student class work means from before the intervention
(M = .91) to two weeks after the intervention (M = .89) using a one-tailed paired t-test.
There was no significant difference in student achievement after the intervention period
ended (p = .26). Once the class returned to its traditional non-jigsaw structure, academic
achievement was similar to achievement before students worked in jigsaw groups. Figure 5
illustrates the change in student achievement across the intervention period.

Figure 5. Student achievement before, during, and after the jigsaw intervention.

Discussion of results
My results indicate that some aspects of student-peer relationships were improved
after students participated in the jigsaw intervention. Although student attitudes toward
Rising Tide Volume 7

16

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

working with their peers did not change significantly during or after the intervention,
students reported liking more of their classmates directly following the intervention.
Furthermore, the number of classmates students reported liking increased even after the
intervention period was over. In line with previous research on cooperative learning
(Tarhan et al., 2013), students reported liking more of their classmates after working
together toward a common academic goal. Once the jigsaw intervention ended and the
class returned to a more traditional structure, the number of classmates students reported
liking continued to increase. This could be because the jigsaw intervention allowed
students to interact with more of their peers in class, and returning to the traditional
classroom framework allowed students to appreciate their classmates in a more familiar
structure. Although previous research found that students in jigsaw groups reported
feeling like they could learn from their classmates significantly more than students in
traditional classrooms (Aronson et al., 1978), I found no significant difference in student
attitudes toward being able to learn from their classmates after participating in jigsaw
groups. This could be because before the jigsaw intervention students already reported
feeling like they could learn from their classmates, and so the findings may be an artifact of
ceiling effect.
Previous research found students had higher levels of motivation after participating
in jigsaw instruction (Brown et al., 2012; Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). This study did not
elicit significant changes in motivation after the jigsaw intervention. Additionally previous
research on classroom climate has shown positive student-peer relationships to be related
to engagement in the classroom (Ladd et al., 1997; Lynch et al., 2013). Participation is often
associated with classroom engagement, however, this study did not yield significant
changes in participation after student liking of classmates significantly increased.
My results indicated an increase in academic performance during the jigsaw
intervention compared to performance before the intervention. Students performed
significantly better on class work during the intervention period than they had before
participating in jigsaw groups. This is similar to results found by Aronson et al. (1978) and
Sahin (2011). This increase in academic performance did not continue once jigsaw
instruction ended. Student scores on class work following the intervention period were
similar to their scores before the intervention began. This indicates that my students found
it easier to learn from jigsaw-based instruction rather than from traditional classroom
instruction, and that academic performance is not related to student-peer relationships.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to use jigsaw instruction to improve attitudinal
(student-peer relationships and motivation), behavioral (participation), and performance
(academic achievement) measures in my classroom. I found that implementing jigsaw
instruction can improve student liking of classmates, as well as academic achievement.
Limitations
There were several factors that could have limited the effectiveness of my study. As
previously stated, the lack of significant changes in students attitudes toward their peers
could be the result of ceiling effect. I minimized the amount of responses to the Student-
Peer Relationships Questionnaire in order to keep it simple for my students. However,
Rising Tide Volume 7

17

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

having more possible answers to these questions would have allowed for more varied
responses.
Other limitations center around the timing of the jigsaw intervention period. The
STEM unit including the jigsaw instruction began the week before spring break, and was
completed the week after. The five jigsaw lessons were implemented before and after the
break. Because the intervention was broken up by a week long break, the intervention may
not have been as effective at improving student relationships and other measures had it
been implemented over the course of two consecutive weeks. Additionally, two students
left our classroom during the implementation of the jigsaw instruction. The loss of two
peers may have caused a change in classroom dynamics and affected the way students
responded to the intervention as well as to the questionnaires.
Implications
The results of this study are relevant to educators who want to improve student
liking toward their peers in their classroom. Because student attitudes toward their peers
were already relatively high before the intervention, this study showed no significant
change in attitudes after the implementation of jigsaw instruction. In the future,
researchers might focus on a group of students starting with weaker peer relationships to
determine if the effects of jigsaw instruction are different when students do not like each
other to begin with. This study would also be useful to educators who want to improve
student academic performance. These results showed that academic achievement was
improved during the jigsaw intervention, and that the improvement was not related to
student-peer relationships. In addition, researchers might measure other factors, such as
student liking of the jigsaw intervention, to determine why students perform better when
being taught using jigsaw instruction compared to traditional classroom instruction.
The goal of this study was to find a way to improve student-peer relationships in the
classroom without taking away instructional time. Participating in jigsaw instruction
increased student liking of their classmates, and student liking continued to improve even
after the classroom returned to its original non-jigsaw structure. I plan to incorporate
jigsaw groups into my own classroom as a way to engage my students and improve
classroom climate through student collaboration.

Rising Tide Volume 7

18

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

References
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
van den Berg, Y. H. M., Segers, E., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2012). Changing peer perceptions and
victimization through classroom arrangements: A field experiment. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 40, 403-412. doi: 10.1007/s10802-011-9567-6
Betts, L. R., Rotenberg, K. J., Trueman, M., & Stiller, J. (2013). Examining the components of
childrens peer liking as antecedents of school adjustment. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 30, 303-325. doi:10.1111/j.2044-853X.2011.02041.x
Brown, E. L., Powell, E., & Clark, A. (2012). Working on What works: Working with teachers
to improve classroom behavior and relationships. Educational Psychology in Practice,
28(1), 19-30. doi: 10.1080/02667363.2011.639347
Cappella, E., Neal, J. W., & Sahu, N. (2012). Childrens agreement on classroom social
networks: Cross-level predictors in urban elementary schools. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
58(3), 285-313.
Dinet, J. & Vivian, R. (2012). The impact of friendship on synchronous collaborative retrieval
tasks in the primary school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 439-447.
doi:10.1111/j.1476-8535.2011.01199.x
Edwards, K. J. & DeVries, D. L. (1974). The effects of Teams-Games-Tournament and two
instructional variations on classroom process, student attitudes, and student achievement.
Report Number 172.
Kingery, J. N. & Erdley, C. A. (2007). Peer experiences as predictors of adjustment across the
middle school transition. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(2), 73-88.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1977). Classroom peer acceptance,
friendship, and victimization: Distinct relational systems that contribute uniquely to
childrens school adjustment? Child Development, 68(6), 1181-1197.
Law, Y. K. (2011). The effects of cooperative learning on enhancing Hong Kong fifth graders
achievement goals, autonomous motivation and reading proficiency. Journal of Research
in Reading, 34(4), 402-425. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01445.x
Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97(2), 184-196.
van Lier, P. A. C., Barker, E. D., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Boivin, M.
(2012). Peer victimization, poor academic achievement, and the link between childhood
externalizing and internalizing problems. Child Development, 83(5), 1775-1788. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01802.x
Rising Tide Volume 7

19

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

Lynch, A. D., Lerner, R. M., & Leventhal, T. (2013). Adolescent academic achievement and
school engagement: An examination of the role of school-wide peer culture. Journal of
Youth Adolescence, 42, 6-19. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9833-0
Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. doi: 10.1037/00223514.90.5.751
Powers, C. J. & Bierman, K. L. (2013). The multifaceted impact of peer relations on aggressivedisruptive behavior in early elementary school. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 11741186. doi: 10.1037/ a0028400
Rotenberg, K. J. & Boulton, M. (2013). Interpersonal trust consistency and the quality of peer
relationships during childhood. Social Development, 22(2), 225-241. doi:
10.111/sode.12005
Sahin, A. (2011). Effects of Jigsaw III technique on achievement in written expression. Asia
Pacific Educaiton Review, 12, 427-435. doi: 10.1007/s12564-010-9135-8
T., R. & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. Creativity and
collaborative learning.
Tarhan, L., Ayyildiz, Y., Ogunc, A., & Sesen, B. A. (2013). A jigsaw cooperative learning
application in elementary science and technology lessons: Physical and chemical
changes. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(2), 184-203. doi:
10.1080/02635143.2013.811404
Urdan, T. & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures,
social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44, (331349). doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.003.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F.
(1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation
in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003-1017.
Winheller, S., Hattie, J. A., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Factors influencing early adolescents
mathematics achievement: High-quality teaching rather than relationships. Learning
Environment Research, 16, 49-69. doi: 10.1007/s10984-012-9106-6

Rising Tide Volume 7

20

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

Appendix A
Student-Peer Relationships Questionnaire
1. How much do you like your classmates?
1 - I dont like them at all

2- I dont like them

3- I do not dislike or like

4- I like them

5- I really like them

2. Do you feel like your classmates help you to learn in class?

1 - No

2 - Sometimes

3 - Yes

3. Do you enjoy working with your classmates in class?

1 - Never

2 - Sometimes

3 - Always

4. Count the number of classmates that you really like to spend time with at school.

Rising Tide Volume 7

21

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

Appendix B
Motivation Questionnaire
1. I work on problems in class to learn how to solve them.
Not true for me
Sort of true for me

Very true for me

2. I work on problems in class because I am supposed to.

Not true for me
Sort of true for me

Very true for me

questions 1 and 2 from

Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97(2), 184-196.
3. I do my homework because it is important to me.
Not true for me
Sort of true for me

Very true for me

4. I do my homework because I am supposed to.

Not true for me
Sort of true for me

Very true for me

questions 3 and 4 adapted from

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F.
(1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation
in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003-1017.

Rising Tide Volume 7

22

Jigsaw Instruction: Improving Student-Peer Relationships

Appendix C
Participation Checklist
Student Name Verbally
responds to
teacher prompt

Rising Tide Volume 7

Raises hand in
response to
teacher

Asks relevant
question

Listens to
teacher/classmate

23