Jigsaw: Using Cooperative Learning in Teaching Organic Functions

Communication Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 1515−1518

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Jigsaw: Using Cooperative Learning in Teaching Organic Functions Brenno R. M. Oliveira,* André L. Vailati, Edinara Luiz, Fabrine G. Böll, and Samuel R. Mendes* Chemistry Department, Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina, Rua Paulo Malschitzki, 200, Joinville, Santa Catarina 89219-719, Brazil

Downloaded via VOLUNTEER STATE COMMUNITY COLG on July 22, 2019 at 12:54:19 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: This study discusses the potential of the Jigsaw cooperative method in the teaching of organic chemistry. Such an approach was used in five classes with Brazilian secondary school students. Results indicate better learning regarding the development of knowledge about the nomenclature, application, and identification of functional groups at the beginning and at the end of cooperative work classes. Therefore, the Jigsaw method is an important didactic strategy to potentialize the learning of chemistry.

KEYWORDS: General Public, Chemistry Education Research, Organic Chemistry, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning

T

that the students know the reasons why the teacher is exploring this new teaching strategy.14 In addition, cooperative learning methods assist in the development of communication skill, critical thinking, and problem-solving ability.1,3,5 A study about cooperative learning and the teaching of atomic models revealed the potential for the development of skills and attitudes that possibly improve the cognitive performance of students.10 The Jigsaw method of cooperative learning15−17 was employed for the first time in the mid-1970s and consists of the interdependence of the content studied by the group members, fitting together like a puzzle.8 It is divided into three stages.18 First, the students form base groups where they study and discuss a general topic. Second, students are relocated into expert groups, formed by an integral part of each group as a basis for studying a specific topic, that will assist them in understanding the general topic studied in the base group. Finally, the students return to the base groups and share their findings, to maximize their learning on the topic studied. The use of other strategies, along with cooperative learning methods, has become very common and has produced relevant learning results. In this regard, the use of the jigsaw technique in the classroom, together with the use of videos in a flipped classroom, was well-received and had a good rate of participation, which stimulated shared learning.19

he school sets itself as an environment conducive to conviviality and group learning, as it is there that students build their first relationships, interacting with each other in the classroom during learning activities. However, just dividing the students into groups to perform such activities is not a guarantee of good results.1 In this sense, teachers must plan activities according to the assumptions of cooperative learning2−5 to create interdependence among students and to ensure the importance of the participation of all group members in learning.6 Considering its main characteristics, this technique encourages mutual learning among students from the articulation between the activities and the studied contents, so that, even though the work is collective, there is an individual responsibility for a good group performance,6 which can be accomplished through individual tests7 and division of roles and contents, among other strategies. Thus, no student will be successful unless all his or her group fellows also are.8 In a meta-analysis based on 15 studies identified in the Journal of Chemical Education, Science Education, the International Journal of Science Education, and the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, which considered the use of cooperative learning in chemistry teaching, students that participated in activities in a cooperative environment performed better, on average, than other students.9 The use of this method has been explored in several areas of chemistry, for example, atomic models,10 phase diagrams,11 and protein sequencing.12 Cooperative learning in the classroom was especially wellreceived by the students of organic chemistry.13 However, this type of activity should be implemented gradually, making sure © 2019 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Received: September 19, 2018 Revised: April 26, 2019 Published: June 12, 2019 1515

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00765 J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 1515−1518

Journal of Chemical Education

Communication

molecular structures of some compounds studied in the groups. Therefore, group 1 studied amides and amines, group 2 dealt with alcohol, phenol, and aldehyde, group 3 focused on ester and ether, and group 4 studied carboxylic acid and ketone. During the two classes, the students were able to see the support material and relied on the teacher’s mediation, who oversaw the work of groups to assist them in their studies and clarify doubts. The experts were oriented to develop plans and/or texts that could help them share what they had learned with their colleagues when they returned to the base groups. In the fourth lesson, the students returned to their base groups to share their studies and the learning consolidated in the expert groups. In this sense, the only way all group members will entirely appropriate the basis of knowledge would be from the colleagues’ reports and mutual learning. The dynamics of the first four classes was based on the Jigsaw method and can be represented by Figure 1.

The Jigsaw method has been widely used in high schools,20,21 including in the teaching of Chemistry.22 In Brazil, however, its use is still scarce. A few studies revealed the potential of the Jigsaw method for learning molecular structures using infrared vibrational spectroscopy (IR vibrational spectroscopy)15 and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).23 These activities were developed with undergraduate students. We believe that the potential of the Jigsaw cooperative learning technique, presented by these studies, can also be exploited in secondary school for students to learn about organic functions. Teaching the nomenclature and identification of functional groups in organic compounds has proved to be problematic in some respects for quite some time,8 and even today, especially in Brazilian schools, there is a lack of innovative proposals that go beyond the mere memorization. The Jigsaw method was used with Turkish students to teach basic organic chemistry concepts. Based on pre- and post-test answers, the experimental group that used cooperative learning presented better results than the control group, which had a traditional approach.24 In view of the above, a didactic sequence was developed aimed at exploring the olfactory properties of some organic compounds and at studying their classifications and functional groups from the cooperative work. Thus, five lessons (40 min each) were carried out for five consecutive days with eight senior high school students (17 years old) of a Brazilian school, after school hours. The students had already been introduced to organic chemistry and had studied hydrocarbons and their nomenclatures, but had not yet studied the other functional groups of the Brazilian teaching programs (alcohol, carboxylic acid, aldehyde, ketone, ether, ester, amine, and amide).

■

METHODOLOGY In the first class, research on the students’ prior knowledge about the functional groups was carried out: structure, applications, and nomenclature. Thus, they individually wrote an essay on the following organic functions: carboxylic acid, aldehyde, ketone, amine, amide, ester, ether, alcohol, and phenol. The students were divided into groups (two groups with four students) and a dynamic was carried out aimed at reflecting about the characteristics of some organic compounds, mainly their olfactory properties. The base groups received eight flasks containing ethyl alcohol, propanone, methylamine, ethanoic acid, methyl-2-hydroxybenzoate, methyl salicylate, cinnamaldehyde, ethyl ether, 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine, and caffeine, all identified only numerically. The students attempted to identify each aroma (which reminded them of materials of their daily routine) and relate it with functional groups listed for the samples. Soon after, from this relation established and in possession of the chemical structures, they completed a table associating the smell and function to the structure. Students were also requested to name each substance based on their structures. In the second and third classes, the students were divided into groups of experts (four groups of two students). Each group specifically studied some of the organic functions from a support text produced based on various materials.25−27 The texts exploited characteristics of a few organic compounds, their nomenclature and functional group, as well as images representing the molecular structures. In addition, the teacher used molecular models to clarify the representations of the

Figure 1. Dynamics of the classes according to the Jigsaw cooperative learning method.

In the fifth class, the students individually solved a list of exercises on the organic functions studied. The list was elaborated based on adaptations of questions proposed by the National High School Exam (ENEM), which allows students with good grades join the university, and by the selection examinations performed by some universities. Therefore, we sought to verify the students’ learning in comparison with their prior knowledge, recorded in the first class. Hence, the students were able to discuss the exercises collectively and with the teacher’s support.

■

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In Figure 2, one can observe the percentage of students who managed to respond in a descriptive way about the nomenclature, application, and structure of the organic functions presented in the preliminary free writing test in the 1516

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00765 J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 1515−1518

Journal of Chemical Education

Communication

functions (questions 1, 3, 5, and 9) since in the preliminary tests these functions were unknown to the students. Initially, students were not able to indicate the organic molecules according to their functional group but, after the application of lessons using the Jigsaw method, they were able to identify the functions easily. In questions 7 and 8, which dealt directly with nomenclature and organic functions, all students managed to respond correctly. When the students’ prior knowledge was compared with the data obtained in the final activity, a significant improvement was noticed in their knowledge regarding organic functions (Figure 4). Initially, only a few students answered the

Figure 2. Prior knowledge of the students regarding the nomenclature, application, and structure of each functional group.

first class. These responses denoted the students’ knowledge level about these organic functions, revealing the difficulties and deficiencies in their prior knowledge. Thus, it is noticed that the students had little knowledge on the nomenclature of the main organic functions studied in the high school, and could hardly relate these functions with their structures (exception made to the phenols). Most answers presented the relationship of some organic functions with their applications in daily life as, for example, the ethanol, which was cited by several students as “an alcohol used as fuel.” In the fifth class, after the students returned to the base groups and shared the knowledge acquired in the expert groups, a new list of exercises was applied, using exercises of university selection examination, which directly explored the students’ initial difficulties, namely, identifying and indicating the molecular structures of organic functions. The results are summarized in Figure 3. An analysis of the students’ performance shows that in six of the nine issues carried out a hit rate equal to or greater than 50% was verified. Only in two questions (1 and 2) was this percentage smaller. One may highlight the index of correct answers in the questions about the ester and aldehyde organic

Figure 4. Overall results of preliminary and final tests.

questions and the responses were very superficial. In the final tests, there was a significant percentage of accuracy, as the average of correct responses was 64%. Given this situation, it becomes clear that the use of the Jigsaw method, in which students were able to share their learnings arising from studies in expert groups with other colleagues, was effective for learning, encouraging mutual learning and cooperation, and improving the students’ understanding about organic functions.2,4 The teacher who administered the activity described in this study, emphasized that initially the students were shyer when they had to work with each other or even while presenting their ideas, but over time they became more participatory and dedicated, with no sign of difficulty. In addition, according to

Figure 3. Index of hits in the exercise list applied at the end of the project. The main organic functions addressed in the questions are shown in parentheses (the full questions are in the Supporting Information). 1517

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00765 J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 1515−1518

Journal of Chemical Education

Communication

Spectra of Unknown Compounds in an Organic Spectroscopy Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (6), 823−829. (6) Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A. Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity; ASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 4.; The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development: Washington, DC, 1991. (7) Wenzel, T. J. A new approach to undergraduate analytical chemistry. Anal. Chem. 1995, 67 (15), 470A−475A. (8) Davis-Mcgibony, C. M. Protein-Sequencing Jigsaw. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (4), 409−411. (9) Bowen, C. W. A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievement. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (1), 116−119. (10) Eilks, I. Experiences and reflections about teaching atomic structure in a jigsaw classroom in lower secondary school chemistry lessons. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82 (2), 313−319. (11) Doymus, K. Effect of a cooperative learning strategy on teaching and learning phases of matter and one-component phase diagrams. J. Chem. Educ. 2077, 84 (11), 1857−1860. (12) Davis-McGibony, C. M. Protein-sequencing jigsaw. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (4), 409−411. (13) Carpenter, S. R.; McMillan, T. Incorporation of a cooperative learning technique in organic chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (3), 330−332. (14) Paulson, D. R. Active learning and cooperative learning in the organic chemistry lecture class. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (8), 1136− 1140. (15) Jones, T. J.; Graham, K. J.; Schaller, C. P. A Jigsaw Classroom Activity for Learning IR Analysis in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (10), 1293−1294. (16) Whitlock, C. R. A Jigsaw Exercise in the Organic Classroom. Chem. Educator. 2009, 14 (3), 96−97. (17) Aronson, E.; Patnoe, S. Cooperation in the Classroom: The Jigsaw Method; Sage: London, 2011; p 20−21. (18) Aronson, E. Jigsaw Classroom. http://www.jigsaw.org/ (accessed Jun 2018). (19) Niemczik, C.; Eilks, I.; Pietzner, V.; The flipped classroom: an introduction to organic chemistry as a video based jigsaw puzzle. In Teaching is touching the future: Academic teaching within and across disciplines; Schelhowe, H., Schaumburg, M., Jasper, J. Webler: Bielefel, 2015. (20) Aronson, E. Nobody Left To Hate: Teaching Compassion after Columbine; W. H. Freeman: New York, 2000; p 15−63. (21) Aronson, E.; Patnoe, S. The Jigsaw Classroom: Building Cooperation in the Classroom, 2nd ed.; Addison Wesley Longman: New York, 1997; pp 12−39. (22) Eilks, I. Experiences and Reflections about Teaching Atomic Structure in a Jigsaw Classroom in Lower Secondary School Chemistry Lessons. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82 (2), 313−319. (23) Winschel, G. A.; Everett, R. K.; Coppola, B. P.; Shultz, G. V.; Lonn, S. Using jigsaw-style spectroscopy problem-solving to elucidate molecular structure through online cooperative learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (7), 1188−1193. (24) Ç aǧatay, G.; Demircioǧlu, G. The effect of jigsaw-i cooperative learning technique on students’ understanding about basic organic chemistry concepts. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2013, 4 (2), 30−37. (25) Solomons, T. W. G.; Fryhle, C. B. Organic Chemistry, 10th ed.; John Willey & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, 2008. p1280. (26) McMurry, J. Organic Chemistry, 7th ed.; Thomson: Belmont, 2008; p 1224. (27) Clayden, J.; Greeves, N.; Warren, S. Organic Chemistry, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press, New York, 2001. p1234.

the professional above, several students said that they really liked the format of the Jigsaw class, as well as the idea of studying chemistry concepts in daily life, such as aromas. Finally, some students said that learning this way was easier.

■

CONCLUSIONS From the results observed in the development of lessons based on the Jigsaw method, we can ratify the potential of the cooperative work in the construction of learning, especially in the learning of chemical concepts. In addition, this proposal is a creative alternative to introduce and/or develop the teaching of organic functions within the high school, stimulating group work. Reflecting on the results, the authors decided that future classes should include strategies that complement the texts used by the experts, such as images and videos, to stimulate the study. Furthermore, the establishment of roles inside the groups (mainly in larger classes) is recommended, to guarantee the students’ interdependence in activities and the importance of every integrant of the group.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00765.

■

Preliminary activity, table of olfactory properties by structures, supporting texts, and final activity (PDF, DOCX)

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Authors

*E-mail: [email protected]. *E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Samuel R. Mendes: 0000-0002-2388-3008 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was financed in part by the Coordenaçaõ de ́ Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior, Brasil (CAPES), Finance Code 001, by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) under Protocol 431391/2016-5, and by UDESC, FAPESC, and FITEJ. The authors would like to thank Vinicius Felipe Pereira, creator of the graphical abstract.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Wenzel, T. J. AC Educator: Practical Tips for Cooperative Learning. Anal. Chem. 2000, 72 (9), 359A−361A. (2) Slavin, R. E. Cooperative Learning. In Learning and Cognition in Education; Aukrust, V. G., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, 2011; p 160. (3) Cooper, M. M.; Cox, C. T.; Nammouz, M.; Case, E.; Stevens, R. An Assessment of the Effect of Collaborative Groups on Students’ Problem-Solving Strategies and Abilities. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (6), 866−872. (4) Sandi-Urena, S.; Cooper, M.; Stevens, R. Effect of Cooperative Problem-Based Lab Instruction on Metacognition and ProblemSolving Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (6), 700−706. (5) Angawi, R. F. Using a Problem Solving-Cooperative Learning Approach to Improve Students’ Skills for Interpreting 1H NMR 1518

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00765 J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 1515−1518