Reconsidering jigsaw social psychology: Longitudinal effects on social interdependence, sociocognitive conflict regulation, motivation, and achievement.

Abstract

Jigsaw is a peer learning procedure based on the assumption that making "children treat each other as resources" (Aronson & Patnoe, 2011, p. 8) stimulates cooperation among equals. Using a short-term, longitudinal experimental design in 14 sections of an undergraduate human anatomy laboratory, we contrasted this perspective with the idea that Jigsaw's two-group composition actually elicits a mix of opposing social-psychological processes and outcomes. Supporting this view, students' perceptions of social interdependence and sociocognitive conflict regulation covaried over time with each other and with motivation and achievement. Likewise, rather than solely elicit cooperation, Jigsaw students initially reported higher levels of competition and individualistic efforts than students in a business-as-usual (BAU) control, and lower levels of epistemic regulation. These trends then reversed over time, but the magnitude of increasing cooperation and decreasing competition and individualistic efforts among Jigsaw students never exceeded that of BAU students. In fact, at the end of the semester, the only significant differences between Jigsaw and BAU were for relational regulation and academic achievement. Overall, these findings provide a much more complete but complicated portrait of Jigsaw social psychology and its effects over time, and so doing indicate that theory development is needed to account for mixed-motive situations that simultaneously elicit cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goals and different forms of sociocognitive conflict regulation. For practice, findings also suggest that simply distributing resources among jigsaw group members does not result in optimal outcomes, and consequently Jigsaw must change in ways that strengthen positive interdependence and decrease social comparison. Educational Impact and Implications StatementThis study suggests that Jigsaw, a classic peer learning procedure in which students are expected to combine resources and work together cooperatively actually involves a mix cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts as well as social comparison. Thus, even though Jigsaw increased academic achievement compared with a business-as-usual control, this study's overall pattern of results suggests that simply distributing resources among jigsaw group members does not result in optimal outcomes. Instead, it may be more appropriate to think of Jigsaw as a two-group composition that must be modified to increase cooperation and decrease social comparison.

Dual Effects of Partner’s Competence: Resource Interdependence in Cooperative Learning at Elementary School

“…One can expect that when cooperative learning is introduced, this competitive orientation would be reduced. Nevertheless, research has pointed out that competitive social comparisons are at work, even during cooperative learning at university [29,[47][48][49].…”

Designing and Implementing a Sustainable Cooperative Learning in Physical Education: A Pre-Service Teachers’ Socialization Issue

“…In this instructional-training context, CL configurations are less studied under a practical teaching viewpoint, leaving little room for reflective skills [56]. In line with this lack, recent studies were conducted in a human anatomy course [57] and PE training program [58] that considered Jigsaw as a two-group configuration that would be relevantly integrated into PSTs' vocational training. In reference to Aronson's historical account [59], Jigsaw is a CL environment in which students structure knowledge and skills in an expert phase before coming back to their initial team to instruct teammates.…”

Sociocognitive Conflict Regulation: How to Make Sense of Diverging Ideas

“…For instance, compared with relational regulation (both competitive and protective), epistemic regulation increases the perceived quality of the relationship with the partner, the perceived importance of the partner’s contribution, and the recognition of the partner’s competence (Darnon et al, 2002, 2006; Darnon, Doll, & Butera, 2007). Moreover, conflict regulation has been studied in relation to the development of cognitive structures in children as a function of socioeconomic background (Doise & Mugny, 1984) and the refinement of existing pedagogical tools (e.g., the “jigsaw classroom”; see Roseth, Lee, & Saltarelli, 2019). Future research should expand the range of cognitive, affective, behavioral, and relational consequences of conflict regulation.…”