islamic university-gaza · experimental approach and employed a sample of (72) efl male learners...
TRANSCRIPT
Islamic University-Gaza
Deanery of Graduate Studies
Faculty of Education
Department of Curricula and
Teaching Methods
The effectiveness of Using Jigsaw Strategy on Palestinian Tenth
Graders’ English Grammar Learning
Thesis
Submitted by
Samir M. I. Saker
Supervised by
Dr. Sadek S. Firwana
Thesis submitted to the Curriculum & Teaching Methods Department - Faculty of
Education - in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement
for the Master Degree of Education
March 2015
بسى هللا انزح انزحى
اقزأ باسى ربك انذي خهق ي سا خهق ال
انذي عهى اقزأ وربك الكزو عهق
يا نى عهى بانقهى سا عهى ال
صذق هللا انعظى
سورة انعهق
I
Dedication
I would like to dedicate my work:
To Allah, who is the source of wisdom, patience, and infinite love.
To my great teacher, Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him ).
To all Muslims in the world.
To my beloved country, Palestine.
To the soul of my dear father, who always waited for my success.
To my mother for her endless patience and unwavering support.
To the soul of my beloved brother, Ismaiel.
To all martyrs and prisoners who sacrificed their life
for the sake of Palestine.
To all my brothers and my dear sister.
To all my friends, colleagues and students, especially: Mohammad El-Masri, Amjad Abu-Haloub,
Moaz Salem, Ahmad El-Kilany, Moaz Rajab and Adel Sbaih
To my dear wife and her sister Elham, who did their best to help me.
To my dear sons Mohammad,Belal and Anas.
To my dear daughters Umama and Maryam.
To all who lightened my way toward success.
To all knowledge-seekers.
II
Acknowledgments
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
My deep thanks and gratitude are due to Allah, the Almighty, Who granted me knowledge
and bestowed His everlasting mercies and bounties upon me during this long journey. Without
His support, this work would not have been possible.
Peace and blessing of Allah be upon all prophets and messengers, especially on Mohammad,
the last of the prophets and on all those who follow him in righteousness until the Day of
Judgment.
All praise to Allah for enabling me to undertake this research. As Prophet Mohammad (peace
be upon him) said, "He who is thankless to people is thankless to God"
I greatly acknowledge the contribution of sincere people who supported me throughout this
study. The completion of my master study and this thesis was made possible and pleasant through
the support, encouragement and assistance of those dedicated and helpful people.
First of all, I would like to express my deepest and warmest thanks to Dr. Sadek Firwana, my
supervisor, for his great help, valuable suggestions and considerable understanding.
Special thanks go to my head teacher Abdel-Hakeem Abu-Jarad, who gave me the chance to
carry out my experiment in Beit Lahia Basic School "A" for Boys and always supported me.
A sincere note of thanks is due to the teachers, especially those who helped me a lot during
observing the sample of the study.
My gratitude is deeply paid to my students, especially the leaders: Mohammad El-Masri,
Amjad Abu-Haloub, Moaz Salem, Ahmad El-Kilany, Moaz Rajab and Adel Sbaih, who were so
active and helpful during implementing the strategy.
My appreciation and gratitude are paid to the referee committee for their fruitful comments
and valuable suggestions.
My final and most heartfelt acknowledgement must go to my family, especially my mother
and my wife, whose prayers, love, affection and supplications guided, helped and stimulated me
to complete this work.
Once again, I would like to thank all those who helped and supported me through this study.
III
Abstract
"The effectiveness of Using Jigsaw Strategy on Palestinian Tenth Graders’ English
Grammar Learning"
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of using Jigsaw Strategy on Palestinian
tenth graders’ English grammar learning. To achieve this aim, the researcher adopted the
experimental approach and employed a sample of (72) EFL male learners studying at Beit Lahia
Basic School "A" for Boys in the Gaza Strip. The researcher chose two classes of four ones which
he was teaching: one class was as an experimental group consisting of (36) students and the
second one was as a control group consisting of (36) students. one. The traditional method was
used in teaching the control group, while the jigsaw strategy was used with the experimental one
in the second term of the school year (2013-2014).
As a main tool for the study, the researcher used an achievement test of four domains with
(32) items designed and validated to be used as a pre and post test. Being used as a pre-test, the
achievement was meant to prove groups equivalence. Besides, it was used as a post-test to
measure any possible differences between the target groups.
The collected data were analyzed and treated statistically through the use of SPSS, T-test
and Mann Whitney test to identify the direction of the effectiveness. Furthermore, the effect size
equation was used to measure the effect size of jigsaw strategy on the experimental group in each
scope of the test.
The findings of the study revealed that there were significant differences in learning
English grammar between both groups: the experimental and the control ones, favoring the
experimental group , and this is due to using the strategy.
In the light of those findings, the study recommended the necessity of implementing
jigsaw strategy in teaching and learning English grammar to bring about better outcomes in
students’ achievement. Also, the researcher suggested that further research should be conducted
concerning the effectiveness of using jigsaw strategy on different English language skills and
other school subjects as well.
IV
الدراسة ملخص
ف تعهى قواعذ انهغت الجهزت " ججسو"فاعهت استخذاو إستزاتجت "
"عهى طالب انصف انعاشز ف فهسط
ف حؼ لىاػذ اغت اإلجضت ػ طالة " ججغى"مذ هذفج اذساعت ا اخؼشف ػ فبػت اعخخذا اعخشاحجت
اعخخذ اببدث اهج اخجشب دث طبك اذساعت ػ ػت ثت ,و أج حذمك هزا اهذف .اصف اؼبشش ف فغط
واخخبس اببدث صف أسبغ فصىي وب ذسعهب واػخبش .ب " أ"طببب ذسعت بج الهب األعبعت ((72ىىت
طببب (36)حىىج دث جىػت حجشبت واػخبش افص اخش نطببب (36) حىىج جىػت ضببطت ن فصال
ف حذسظ اجىػت " ججغى"واعخخذج اطشمت اخمذت ف حذسظ اجىػت اضببطت بب اعخخذج اعخشاحجت .
. (2014-2013)اخجشبت وره ف افص اثب اؼب اذساع
فمشة و ث ح (32)فمذ لب اببدث بببء اخخببس حذص ىى أسبغ فشوع حذخى ػ -ذساعتي وؤداة سئغت
مذ اعخخذ اببدث االخخببس اخذص وبخخببس لب و ره خذمك ذي حىبفئ اجىػخ و , اخذمك صذله و ثببحه
.اعخخذه أضب وبخخببس بؼذ و ره مبط أ فشوق راث دالت ادصبئت ب اجىػخ
و ره أج (اخخببس ب وخ)و (اخخببس ث ) و (SPSS)ببعخخذا بشبج حذ ابببث وؼبجخهب ادصبئب ومذ ح
"ججغى" اعخشاحجت ؼبدت دج اخؤثش و ره مبط دج أثش اببدث ببإلضبفت ا اعخخذا,ؼشفت ذي دج حؤثش اخجشبت
. ف و جبي جبالث االخخببساجىػت اخجشبتػ
اخجشبت : اجىػخ اغت اإلجضت بف حؼ لىاػذ وجىد فشوق راث دالت ادصبئت ا مذ خصج خبئج اذساعت
."ججغى"صبخ اجىػت اخجشبت حؼضي العخخذا اعخشاحجت وره اضببطت
ف حؼ اغت اإلجضت خذمك خبئج أفض ف " ججغى"ف ضىء اخبئج أوصج اذساعت بضشوسة حىظف اعخشاحجت
ػ هبساث " ججغى"حذص اطبت وأضب الخشح اببدث ضشوسة اجشاء اضذ اذساعبث خؼشف ػ أثش اعخشاحجت
.أخشي اغت اإلجضت و غشهب اىاد اذساعت وزه
V
Table of Contents
Page Contents No.
I Dedication 1.
II Acknowledgments 2.
III Abstract in English 3.
IV Abstract in Arabic 4.
V Table of contents 5.
IX List of tables 6.
XI List of appendices 7.
XII List of abbreviations 8.
Chapter I
Study Background
2 Historical Background 1.
4 Statement of the problem 2.
4 The need for the study 3.
5 Research major question 4.
5 Study Sub-questions 4.1.
5 Research Hypotheses 5.
6 Purpose of the study 6.
6 Significance of the study 7.
7 Limitations of the study 8.
7 Definition of variables and operational terms 9.
9 Summary 10.
Chapter II
Literature review
11 Section One: Theoretical Framework
11 First domain: Grammar 1.
12 Definition of the term "grammar" 1.1.
13 Why do we learn grammar? 1.2.
13 Principles of practicing grammar 1.2.1.
13 The uses of grammar 1.3.
13 Grammar and written language 1.3.1.
14 Grammar and spoken language 1.3.2.
VI
Page Contents No.
14 Grammar and communication 1.3.3.
14 Kinds of grammar 1.4.
14 Traditional grammar 1.4.1.
14 Structural grammar 1.4.2.
15 Transformational grammar 1.4.3.
15 Communicative grammar 1.4.4.
15 Cognitive grammar 1.4.5.
15 Functional grammar 1.4.6.
15 Universal grammar 1.4.7.
15 Teaching grammar 1.5.
17 The importance of grammar. 1.6.
17 Second domain : Cooperative learning 2.
17 Types of social interdependence 2.1.
18 Competitive learning 2.1.1.
18 Individualistic learning 2.1.2.
19 Cooperative learning 2.1.3.
19 Elements and conditions of cooperative learning 2.2.
20 Positive interdependence 2.2.1.
20 Individual and Group accountability 2.2.2.
21 Face-to-face interaction 2.2.3.
21 Socialization and small group skills 2.2.4.
21 Group processing 2.2.5.
22 Methods of cooperative learning 2.3.
22 Jigsaw 2.3.1.
22 Learning Together 2.3.2.
23 Team – Games- Tournament 2.3.3.
23 Student Team-Achievement Divisions 2.3.4.
23 Team Assisted Individualization 2.3.5.
24 Group-Investigation 2.3.6.
24 Teacher's role in cooperative learning 2.4.
25 Benefits of cooperative learning 2.5.
25 Learning benefits 2.5.1.
29 Social benefits 2.5.2.
VII
Page Contents No.
30 Psychological benefits 2.5.3.
32 Third domain: Jigsaw strategy 3.
32 History of Jigsaw learning 3.1.
32 Jigsaw strategy 3.2.
33 Types of Jigsaw 3.3.
34 The importance of using the Jigsaw strategy 3.4.
35 The objectives of using the Jigsaw strategy 3.5.
36 Steps of Jigsaw strategy 3.6.
39 Benefits of the Jigsaw 3.7.
40 Teacher's role in Jigsaw strategy 3.8.
41 Student's role in Jigsaw strategy 3.9.
42 Troubles shooting with Jigsaw strategy 3.10.
43 Section Two: An Overview of Related Pervious Studies
43 Previous Studies 4.
43 The first part: Previous Studies Related to Teaching and Learning English
Grammar 4.1.
48 The second part : Previous Studies Related to Using Jigsaw Strategy 4.2.
56 Commentary on the previous studies 4.3.
57 Analysis of the previous studies 4.4.
59 Summary 4.5.
Chapter III
Methodology
61 The research design 1.
61 The sample of the study 2.
61 The variables of the study 3.
62 The instrumentation 4.
62 Achievement test 4.1.
62 The general aims of the test 4. 1.1.
63 Description of the test items 4. 1. 2.
63 The items of the test 4. 1. 3.
64 The pilot study 4. 1. 4.
64 The validity of the test 4. 1. 5.
67 Reliability of the test 4. 1. 6.
VIII
Page Contents No.
68 The experimentation of the test 4. 1. 7.
68 Difficulty Coefficient 4. 1. 7.1.
69 Discrimination coefficient 4. 1. 7.2.
70 Description of the students 4. 1. 8.
70 Controlling the variables 4. 1. 9.
71 The Teacher Variable 4. 1.9.1.
71 Time Variable 4. 1.9.2.
71 Age variable 4. 1. 9.3.
71 English and general achievement variable 4. 1.9.4.
72 Previous learning English variable 4. 1. 9.5.
77 The statistical analysis 5.
77 Procedures of the study 6.
78 Summary 7.
Chapter IV
Result and Data Analysis
80 Data analysis 1.
80 Data analysis of the first hypothesis findings 1.1
84 Data analysis of the second hypothesis findings 1.2.
88 Data analysis of the third hypothesis findings 1.3.
92 Summary 2.
Chapter V
Discussion of Findings, , Conclusions and Recommendations
94 Findings 1.
94 Discussion of study findings 2.
94 Discussion of the first hypothesis findings 2.1.
95 Discussion of the second hypothesis findings 2.2.
96 Discussion of the third hypothesis findings 2.3.
98 Conclusions 3.
99 Recommendations 4.
99 Recommendations for curriculum designers and decision makers 4.1.
99 Recommendations for supervisors 4.2.
99 Recommendations for English language teachers 4.3.
100 Recommendations for further studies 4.4.
IX
Page Contents No.
100 Suggested studies for future studies 5.
101 References list
List of tables
No. Subject Page
2.1 Comparison of Jigsaws 34
2.2 Steps of Jigsaw strategy 38
3.1 The distribution of the sample according to the groups 61
3.2 Table of specifications 62
3.3 Correlation coefficient of knowledge items 65
3.4 Correlation coefficient of comprehension items 65
3.5 Correlation coefficient of applying items 66
3.6 Correlation coefficient of analyzing items 66
3.7 Correlation coefficient of the scopes with the test 67
3.8 (K_R21) Coefficients for the Test Domains 67
3.9 Reliability coefficient by Spilt –half Technique 68
3.10 Difficulty coefficient for each items of the test 69
3.11 Discrimination coefficient for each test item 70
3.12 T-test results of controlling general achievement variable 71
3.13 Mann-Whitney Test results of controlling English achievement variable 72
3.14
T.test results of controlling previous learning in English variable (According to
Bloom levels) 72
3.15
T.test results of controlling previous learning in English variable ( According to
content of the test) 73
3.16 Mann-Whitney Test results of controlling previous learning in English
variable( According to Bloom levels) 74
3.17 Mann-Whitney Test results of controlling previous learning in English
variable( According to content of the test) 75-76
4.1 T. test results of differences between experimental and control groups in Bloom
levels / (The first hypothesis) 80
X
Page Contents No.
4.2 levels of effect size (η
2) and (d)/ ( According to Bloom levels) / (The first
hypothesis) 81
4.3 "t" value, eta square " η
2 " , and "d" for each scope and the total degree in
Bloom levels / (The first hypothesis) 81
4.4 T.test results of differences between experimental and control groups in
contents of the test / (The first hypothesis) 82
4.5 "t" value, eta square " η
2 " , and "d" for each scope and the total degree in
contents of the test / (The first hypothesis) 83
4.6 Mann-Whitney U test of differences of learning in English variable( According
to Bloom levels) /( The second hypothesis) 84
4.7 The table references to determine the level of size effect (η
2) and (d)/ (
According to Bloom levels) /( The second hypothesis) 85
4.8 Z" value, eta square " η
2 " , for each domain and the total degree( According to
Bloom levels) /( The second hypothesis) 85
4.9 Mann-Whitney U of differences of learning in English variable ( According to
content of the test) /( The second hypothesis) 86
4.10 "Z" value, eta square " η
2 " , for each domain and the total degree( According
to content of the test) /( The second hypothesis)
87
4.11 Mann-Whitney U of differences of learning in English variable( According to
Bloom levels)/( The third hypothesis) 88
4.12 "Z" value, eta square " η
2 " , for each domain and the total degree( According
to Bloom levels) /( The third hypothesis) 89
4.13 Mann-Whitney U of differences of learning in English variable( According to
content of the test) /( The third hypothesis)
90-91
4.14 "Z" value, eta square " η
2 " , for each domain and the total degree( According
to content of the test) /( The third hypothesis)
91
XI
List of appendices
Page(s) Title No.
110 An Invitation to Referee a Pre-post Test 1.
111-113 The achievement test (Pre-post Test ) / After refereeing 2.
114 An Invitation to Referee an Observation Card and a Reflection Log 3.
115 The observation card / After refereeing ) In English ) 4.
116 The observation card / After refereeing ( In Arabic ) 5.
117 Reflection log card / Learners 'perceptions of jigsaw strategy )In English ) 6.
118 Reflection log card / Learners 'perceptions of jigsaw strategy ( In Arabic ) 7.
119 Distribution of the experimental group according to jigsaw strategy 8.
120-136 All worksheets and quizzes 9.
137-138 Referee Committee 10.
139-140 Curriculum Vitae 11.
141-153 Some photos of the students during the experiment 12.
154 Students 'names of the experimental group 13.
155 Students 'names of the control group 14.
156 Permission received from The Islamic University of Gaza 15.
157 Permission received from Ministry of Education & Higher Education 16.
158 Permission received from Directorate of Education /North Gaza 17.
XII
List of abbreviations
Denotation Abbreviation No.
Cooperative Learning CL 1.
English as Foreign Language EFL 2.
English Language Teaching ELT 3.
English as Second Language ESL 4.
International English Language Testing System IELTS 5.
Islamic University of Gaza IUG 6.
First language L1 7.
Second language L2 8.
Ministry of Education and Higher Education MOEHE 9.
Statistical Package for the Social Science SPSS 10.
Teaching English as Second Language TESL 11.
Test of English as Foreign Language TOEFL 12.
United Nations Relief and Work Agency UNRWA 13.
1
Chapter I
Study Background
2
Chapter I
Study Background
This chapter outlines the study background and states its problem. It also presents
the hypotheses, the objectives, the significance and limitations of the study. In addition,
it defines the study operational terms adopted by the researcher.
1. Historical Background:
Grammar is considered a very important learning area in teaching the English
language. Grammar gains its prominence in language teaching particularly in English as
a foreign language and English as a second language. Practically, while learning
grammar, learners are taught rules of language commonly known as sentence patterns.
The teaching of grammar should also ultimately center attention on the way grammatical
items or sentence patterns are correctly used. In other words, grammar teaching should
compass language structures or sentence patterns, meaning and use.
Furthermore, grammar is thought to furnish the basis for a set of language skills:
listening, speaking, reading and writing. In listening and speaking, grammar plays a
crucial part in grasping and expressing spoken language (expressions) since learning the
grammar of a language is considered necessary to acquire the capability of producing
grammatically acceptable utterances in the language (Corder, 1988). In his turn, Doff
(2000) says that by learning grammar students can express meanings in the form of
phrases, clauses and sentences.
Doff (1988 :32) states that "if students learn the main structures of English, it will
help them greatly to speak and to write the language". Accordingly, the main goal of
teaching grammar is to help students speak English with organized and correct
structures, and if Palestinian students learn English with clear and right structures when
they are young, they may become good communicators in the future.
Palmer (1971) sees grammar as central to teaching and learning of languages. It is
also one of the most difficult aspects of language to teach well. Many people, including
language teachers, hear the word "grammar" and think of a fixed set of word forms and
rules of usage. They associate "good" grammar with the prestige forms and rules of the
language, such as those used in writing and in formal oral presentations, and "bad" or
"no" grammar with the language used in everyday conversation or used by speakers of
no prestige forms.
Kohli (1999) sees that language teachers who focus on grammar as a set of word
forms and rules teach grammar by explaining the forms and rules and then drilling
students on them. This results in bored, disaffected students who can produce correct
3
forms on exercises and tests but consistently make errors when they try to use the
language in context.
Grammar helps us to analyze and describe our language. In addition, many EFL
students seek to continue their study in English-speaking countries and they need to pass
exams such as TOEFL or IELTS and students have to be excellent in grammar because
it is very important for doing well in those exams (Abu Jeld).There are several strategies
and techniques for teaching English language skills. One of them is cooperative learning
which is nowadays considered as one of the best strategies.
In the mid-1960s, cooperative learning was relatively unknown and largely ignored
by educators. Elementary, secondary, and university teaching was dominated by
competitive and individualistic learning. Much training time is devoted to helping
teachers arrange appropriate interactions between students and materials (i.e., textbooks,
curriculum programs) and some time is spent on how teachers should interact with
students, but how students should interact with one another is relatively ignored. It
should not be. How teachers structure student-student interaction patterns has a lot to
say about how well students learn, how they feel about school and the teacher, how they
feel about each other, and how much self-esteem they have.
Cooperative learning is now accepted and often preferred as instructional procedure
at all levels of education. Cooperative learning is presently used in schools and
universities in every part of the world, in every subject area, and with every age student.
It is difficult to find a text on instructional methods, a teacher’s journal, or instructional
materials that do not discuss cooperative learning. Materials on cooperative learning
have been translated into dozens of languages. Cooperative learning is now an accepted
and highly recommended instructional procedure.
There are many benefits of using Cooperative Learning. First of all, students will
appreciate the value of teamwork and make a positive contribution when working with
others to solve problems and complete tasks. Secondly, students learn research skills
more readily when skills are shared through cooperative learning. Thirdly, cooperative
Learning allows students to enhance their ability to manage ideas and information in
collaboration with others.
Finally, cooperative Learning allows students to observe, imitate, and learn from
each other. Students keep each other on task and share a sense of accomplishment. The
encouragement, support, and approval of peers build motivation and make learning an
enjoyable experience. In addition, with advances in technology and changes in the
4
workforce infrastructure, the teamwork and cooperation learned through Cooperative
Learning activities is of high value for the future success for the students.
There are several well-known methods that apply cooperative learning philosophy
(See chapter II, pages 22-24 for a survey of such methods). They all proved to have
positive effect when compared with competitive or individualistic learning (Johnson,
Johnson & Stanne, 2000)
The jigsaw strategy developed by Slavin(1977) Aronson(1978), and Holliday (2000)
is among these cooperative methods. In the jigsaw strategy, students are members of two
groups: home group and expert group. In the heterogeneous home group, students are
each assigned a different topic. Once a topic has been identified, students leave the
home group and group with the other students with their assigned topic. In the new
group, students learn the material together before returning to their home group. Once
back in their home group, each student is accountable for teaching his or her assigned
topic.
The researcher examined the effectiveness of using jigsaw strategy to help learners
learn grammar easily and to tune the teachers’ attention to the importance of using the
jigsaw strategy in teaching grammar.
2. Statement of the problem:
The researcher has been teaching grammar to 10th grade students for six years. None
of their grammatical accuracy, their motivation, and their classroom level of
participation seems to have improved. This led the researcher to reflect on how grammar
should be taught and learned more effectively. Thus, the researcher felt that it is crucial
for him as a practitioner to find out both the advantages and limitations of using jigsaw
strategy as a cooperative learning technique with regard to the learning of grammatical
rules and in relation to the raising students' motivation, confidence and the improvement
of the classroom atmosphere.
In brief, the main intent of this research stemmed out of the researcher's attempt to
validate, through research, the pedagogical usefulness of using the jigsaw strategy in
learning grammar to Palestinian tenth graders.
3. The need for the study:
Teaching grammar traditionally became boring with the rapid development of
technologies and new strategies. The researcher has been a teacher of English for seven
years. The teacher could neither shut his eyes to the results of the students in English
language exams nor shut his ears to the complaints of the parents and the teachers
regarding the deficiencies of the students’ performance in English language in general.
5
Hence, there is a great need to a solution using new strategies. Palestinian teachers
should be aware of new teaching strategies. Recent studies were carried out to show the
effect of using new learning strategies like jigsaw on the students' achievement.
4. Research major question:
The study problem is stated in the following major question:
What is the effectiveness of using jigsaw strategy on Palestinian tenth graders’ English
grammar learning ?
4.1.Study Sub-questions:
To achieve the purpose of the study, the researcher addressed the following questions:
1. Are there statistically significant differences at (α ≤ 0.05) level between learning
English grammar by using jigsaw strategy in the mean scores of the experimental
group and learning English grammar by the traditional method in the mean scores
of the control one?
2. Are there statistically significant differences at (α ≤ 0.05) level in learning English
grammar between the mean scores of the high achievers in the experimental group
and their counterparts in the control one?
3. Are there statistically significant differences at (α ≤ 0.05) level in learning English
grammar between the mean scores of the low achievers in the experimental group
and their counterparts in the control one?
5. Research Hypotheses:
In order to address the research questions, the following null hypotheses were tested:
1- There are no statistically significant differences at (α ≤ 0.05) level between
learning English grammar by using jigsaw strategy in the mean scores of the
experimental group and learning English grammar by the traditional method in the
mean scores of the control one.
2- There are no statistically significant differences at (α ≤ 0.05) level in learning
English grammar between the mean scores of the high achievers in the experimental
group and their counterparts in the control one.
3- There are no statistically significant differences at (α ≤ 0.05) level in learning
English grammar between the mean scores of the low achievers in the experimental
group and their counterparts in the control one.
6
6. Purpose of the study:
The study aimed to achieve the following objectives:
1. Identifying the effect of using jigsaw strategy in learning grammar on the students'
level of grammatical accuracy
2. Measuring the changes in 10th graders’ achievement in learning grammar as a
result of using jigsaw strategy
3. Giving a suggested perspective for improvements .
4. Monitoring the factual level of the students' learning in the grammatical exercises
5. Contributing to improving the process of teaching English in general and grammar
in particular to tenth graders
6. Familiarizing English language teachers with the basic principles of designing and
using Jigsaw strategy in teaching English grammar
7. Significance of the study:
The study is significant because of the following:
1. It is an attempt to point out the using of jigsaw strategy in learning English
grammar among the 10th
grade students.
2. It suggests a perspective for developing learning English grammar among the 10th
grade students through using Jigsaw strategy.
3. It stimulates specialists’ and supervisors' interests to conduct courses and
workshops for their teachers to enhance the use of Jigsaw strategy.
4. It may improve the students' rate of accuracy, as well as creating a more positive
class atmosphere and a more positive learning experience overall.
5. It may have implications for developing curriculum design, textual materials and
the training of foreign language instructors if there are any positive results of using
of Jigsaw strategy as a teaching-learning strategy.
6. It familiarizes English language teachers with the basic principles of designing and
using Jigsaw strategy in teaching English grammar.
7. It bridges the gap between theory and practice by comparing the group of (Jigsaw)
strategy with the traditional one.
8. It provides other researchers with some reliable instruments, action procedures, and
experimental findings for employing them in future research.
9. It encourages educational decision-makers and local educational supervisors as well
as faculties of education to better qualify and prepare prospective teachers to make
use of and promote a variety of procedures to facilitate the CL of their students.
7
10. It attracts the attention of curriculum designers to the procedures and strategies
incorporated within the framework of the jigsaw for developing teacher’s guides; it
also suggests activities to assist in implementing the jigsaw strategy successfully.
11. It should gear more research towards the CL method or any of its variations.
8. Limitations of the study:
The study is applied in accordance with these limitations:
1. The study was applied in Beit Lahia Basic School "A" for Boys.
2. The study was applied in the second semester of the scholastic year (2013 – 2014).
3. The study was limited to learning grammar from English language course book
“English for Palestine" grade 10, (from Unit One to Unit Ten) through
implementing the experiment.
4. Grammar learnt in this experiment included:
a. Present tenses active (Present simple & Present perfect)
b. Present tenses passive (Present simple & Present perfect)
c. Past tenses active (Past simple & Past continuous)
d. Past tenses passive (Past simple & Past continuous)
5. It was intended for English learners in the tenth grade.
6. The study aims at finding the effectiveness of using jigsaw strategy in learning
English grammar among 10th
grade students.
7. The study was limited to cooperative methods using jigsaw strategy.
9. Definition of variables and operational terms:
The following terms were operationally defined for the purpose of providing clarity and
understanding, relative to the focus of the research study:
Grammar:
Lock (2002) points out that the term grammar is regarded as a set of rules that specify
the grammatical structures of the language. Thornbury (2004) states that grammar is the
study of forms and structures of a language and description of rules which govern how
sentences are formed.
In linguistics, grammar refers to the logical and structural rules that govern the
composition of sentences, phrases, and words in any given natural language. The term
refers also to the study of such rules, and this field includes morphology and syntax,
often complemented by phonetics, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics
Effectiveness:
Effectiveness means power to be effective; the quality of being able to bring about
an effect capacity to produce strong physiological or chemical effects. It can be defined
8
as the degree to which objectives are achieved and the extent to which targeted problems
are solved. In contrast to efficiency, effectiveness is determined without reference to
costs and, whereas efficiency means "doing the thing right," effectiveness means "doing
the right thing."
Cooperative learning:
Johnson and Johnson (1989) have noted that cooperative learning has two essential
characteristics. First, its basic elements are positive interdependence, face-to-face
interaction, individual accountability, collaborative skills and group processing. Second,
cooperative learning is said to have extreme flexibility in that any curriculum can be
broken down.
Tenth grade class:
Tenth grade class is the class which students attend after succeeding in Grade 9
while their ages are between 15 and 16.
Achievement:
Hamdan (1991) asserts that the term achievement is the cognitive product of
teaching process. It concentrates on the knowledge and experiences introduced in the
content and acquired by learners through various learning situations and experiences.
Achievement means accomplishment. It is the information, experience and skills of
English language introduced in curriculum and acquired by the learner during a certain
period. Achievement is measured by the marks the learner gets in the examination.
High achievers:
High achievers are students whose total score on the achievement test lies among the
highest 25% of other students’ score.
Low achievers:
Low achievers are students whose total score on the achievement test lies among the
lowest 25% of other students’ score.
Strategy:
Strategy can be defined as “a well-planned series of actions for achieving an aim"
(Longman, 2001), Strategy is the art and science of planning and marshalling resources
for their most efficient and effective use. The term is derived from the Greek word for
generalship or leading an army.
9
Language learning:
Language learning is any sets of operations, steps, plans, routines used by the
learner to facilitate the obtaining, storage, retrieval, and use of information
(Hismanoglu,2000)
10. Summary:
This chapter tackled the following issues (1) the historical background, (2) the
statement of the study, (3) The need for the study, (4) Research questions, (5) the
hypotheses of the study, (6) the purpose of the study, (7) the significance of the study,
(8) limitations of the study and (9) the definition of the study terms. The next chapter
will tackle the literature review (the theoretical framework as well as the previous
studies)
10
Chapter II
Literature review
11
Chapter II
Literature review
This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section presents the study theoretical
framework and will entail issues related to grammar such as definition, uses, kinds, importance
and teaching grammar, other issues related to cooperative learning like the types of social
interdependence, the elements of cooperative learning, the teacher's role in cooperative learning,
the methods and benefits of cooperative learning and issues related to jigsaw strategy as history of
Jigsaw learning, Jigsaw, types of Jigsaw, its importance, its goals, its steps of the strategy, its
benefits, its use in the classroom, and teacher's and students’ roles in Jigsaw strategy.
The second section discusses twenty-six previous studies on grammar and Jigsaw strategy.
Reviewing these studies will entail brief details concerning their objectives, samples, tools,
findings, conclusions and recommendations. Finally, the researcher’s comments on these previous
studies will be highlighted.
Section one
Theoretical Framework
This section includes three domains. The first domain contains details about grammar:
definitions, reasons for studying grammar, its uses, its types, teaching grammar and its
importance. The second domain discusses cooperative learning as regards the types of social
interdependence, the elements of cooperative learning, the teacher's role in cooperative learning,
the methods and benefits of cooperative learning. The third domain tackles Jigsaw as a strategy
which can be used in education. This domain includes jigsaw definitions, goals, importance,
steps, and teacher's and student's role in Jigsaw strategy.
1. First domain: Grammar
Beverly (2007) asserts that Grammar is the sound, structure and meaning system of
language. All languages have grammar, and each grammar has its own grammar. He adds that
people who speak the same language are able to communicate with each other because they know
the grammar system of that language, that is, the meaningful rules of grammar. Students who are
native speakers of English grammar recognize the sounds of English words, the meaning of those
words and also can combine words to make meaningful sentences in different ways.
Grammar has been a familiar part of the school language teaching for many years, and its
familiarity has given rise to some inconsistencies in the same use of the word grammar (Robin,
1980). "For several last years, English grammar teaching in schools has been a subject of
12
criticism; some people believe that there is no correlation between teaching grammar and pupils'
improvement in writing of English" (Kohli,1999: 138).
1.1. Definition of the term "grammar”:
There are different types of definitions for the term grammar . Some of these definitions refer
to the theoretical point of view; others refer to the practical ones.
Grammar, linguistically, refers to the logical and structural rules that govern the composition
of sentences, phrases, and words in any given natural language. The term refers also to the study
of such rules, and this field includes morphology and syntax, often complemented by phonetics,
phonology, semantics, and pragmatics. A reference book describing the grammar of a language is
called a "reference grammar" or simply "a grammar".
A fully explicit grammar exhaustively describing the grammatical constructions of a language
is called a descriptive grammar, as opposed to linguistic prescription, which tries to enforce the
governing rules of how a language is to be used. Chomsky (1986) states that the term "grammar'
is used with a systematic ambiguity. It refers, on the one hand, to the explicit theory constructed
by the linguist and proposed as a description of the speaker's competence.
One the other one, it refers to the competence itself. Williams (2005) utilizes the term
grammar when teachers grow frustrated over errors in students' writing. They often return to the
basics or essentials which are defined as grammar. He also says that the term grammar refers to
how people speak. Palmer (1995) maintains that grammar describes the native spoken language of
people; it does refer to what we can find in the students' books written down or learnt by heart.
Harmer (2001) sees that grammar is a description in which words change their forms and
combined into sentences. Lock (2002) points out that the term grammar is regarded as a set of
rules that specify the grammatical structures of the language. Millrood (2001) asserts that
grammar describes the rules of how the language produces sentences using the words and their
morphology as the building blocks. Woods (1995) maintains that grammar helps us know how to
make use of words and to be able to choose the words; you have to be familiar with the principles
and rules. Thornbury (2004) states that grammar is the study of forms and structures of a language
and description of rules which govern how sentences are formed. Brinto (2000) maintains that
grammar is a term used to refer to rules or principles by which languages work their system or
structures.
From the previous definitions, it can be noticed that the term grammar has been defined in
different ways to mean different things. So the term grammar is a set of rules that govern the
language; these rules arrange and organize words together to help learners to use the language
correctly and accurately.
13
1.2. Why do we learn grammar?
Learning the grammar of any language is very important because language cannot be
transmitted correctly and accurately. Therefore, language without grammar is, to some extent,
meaningless and aimless. In addition, Palmer (1971) states that grammar is the link to make our
communication with other people meaningful and understandable. He adds that we as humans
spend a lot of our life listening, speaking, reading and writing. Moreover, Woods (1995) states
that grammar helps learners to express their thoughts correctly either in speaking or in writing.
Kohli (1999) says that grammar is regarded as a very important aspect in the field of language
teaching.
Furthermore, Alexander (1990) mentions that grammar is the support system of
communication and learning; it helps learners communicate better using a language. He adds that
grammar explains the why and how of language. He states that people cannot learn a language
without studying and learning its grammar. A person can't learn and practice a foreign language
accurately without having knowledge of grammar.
1.2.1. Principles of practicing grammar:
1. Grammar helps learners to monitor their performance.
2. It is preventive and corrective; it gives learners a usual feedback to the points or word-use
which is especially liable to error.
3. It helps learners to improve their written work; it makes them understand how to link
sentences.
4. It helps learners to arrange and consolidate forms and structures that they have already learnt.
5. It offers a set of labor saving rules, explanations and patterns which economize effort in
language.
1.3. The uses of grammar:
Woods (1995) mentions that grammar was used in different aspects to mean different
matters. That is to say, it may come in a book form to mean the language rules or it may come as
a subject which teachers teach at schools to their learners to utilize the language correctly, or
grammar may be regarded as an approach to describe and analyze the language.
Leech et al. (1982) confirm that the term grammar is considered as the core of the
language that relates semantics with phonology. Podgorski (2008) asserts that grammar is
considered to be an important part of a language and therefore taught in detail using several
different teaching methods.
1.3.1. Grammar and written language:
Thotnbury (2004) says that grammar presented to the learners in recent days is basically
based on written grammar. Ridout and Clarke (1970) mention that the term grammar was derived
14
from Greek meaning "the science of letters ". Leech and et al. (1982) see that mastering grammar
helps learners improve their style of writing.
1.3.2. Grammar and spoken language:
Eyres (2000) clarifies that grammar is something which language speakers need. He
shows that knowledge of grammar is divided into two types: implicit knowledge which enables
speakers to form sentences in a grammatical way and explicit knowledge which enables speakers
to identify and describe the errors.
Jespersen (1969) sees that the speakers of the language have different choices in using the
langrage in expressing their thoughts and feelings, while in suppression some speakers may want
to express something but they could not, and this will affect the impression of the listeners.
1.3.3. Grammar and communication:
Lock (1996) states that communicative competence is not just the ability to produce
correct sentences but also to know when, where and with whom to use them. He also adds that
communication has pre-requisites and that grammatical competence is an essential part of
communicative competence and the development of the communication is the result of the
relation between grammar and communication.
Purpura (2004) asserts that the grammatical competence is the knowledge of the rules of
phonology, lexicon, syntax and semantics. He adds that there are three kinds of competencies that
people need for communication: sociological competence (using the language functionally and
contextually), strategic competence (ways to get our meaning across) and discourse competence
(strategies of constructing and interpreting texts).
1.4. Kinds of grammar:
Kailani and Mugattach (2003) point that there are seven kinds of grammar affecting
English teaching methodology.
1.4.1. Traditional grammar:
This kind of grammar depends on classical and inflected languages such as Greek and
Latin. Traditional grammarians design eight parts of speech owing to the influence of Latin: noun,
adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction and interjection. Besides, traditional grammarians
classify words within sentences as subject, verb, direct object, indirect object, complement, and so
on. They also categorize nouns according to cases which are called genitive, vocative,
nominative, accusative, dative, and instrumental.
[
1.4.2. Structural grammar:
This kind of grammar is descriptive. It refers that language has a set of structural patterns
in which words are arranged to reflect meaning. The meaning of a structure is determined by
15
word form, function words, word order, intonation patterns, stress and juncture. Furthermore,
structural linguistics categorizes the parts of speech according to form and function.
1.4.3. Transformational grammar:
Transformational grammar is often called generative grammar. This kind clarifies that
language is based on a system of rules and not on a set of speech habits. These rules can produce
an infinite number of structures at the deep structure level.
1.4.4. Communicative grammar:
Communicative grammar is a modern approach which is a reaction against structural
grammar. It does not depend on memorizing the structure and the names of tenses like past
simple, present continuous or future perfects, but it depends on using the language
communicatively. This approach involves the use of forms and meaning of language items
simultaneously.
1.4.5. Cognitive grammar:
Taylor (2002) states that cognitive grammar refers to the idea that language is essentially
symbolic in nature. Symbolic thesis indicates that language seeks to relate sound and meaning.
Also, according to this theory, any linguistic expression, whether this be a word, a phrase, a
sentence, a morpheme or even a text has three aspects which are semantic structure, phonological
structure, and symbolic relations.
1.4.6. Functional grammar:
Functions usually refer to different situations in our daily life such as describing people
and places, asking for directions, talking about the past, and so on. That is, functions mean
possible uses of language. So, "a functional grammar is the kind of grammar most likely to have
useful things to say to language learners and teachers" (Richards, 2007: 3-10).
1.4.7. Universal grammar:
Universal grammar refers to the system of rules and principles that are elements of all
human languages regardless of which language they speak. It is a theory of knowledge which is
interested in the internal structure of human mind. The theory of universal grammar claims that
the speakers know a set of principles that to apply to all languages.
1.5. Teaching Grammar:
Palmer (1971) sees grammar as central to teaching and learning of languages. It is also
one of the most difficult aspects of language to teach well. Many people, including language
teachers, hear the word "grammar" and think of a fixed set of word forms and rules of usage.
They associate "good" grammar with the prestige forms and rules of the language, such as those
16
used in writing and in formal oral presentations, and "bad" or "no" grammar with the language
used in everyday conversation or used by speakers of no prestige forms.
Kohli (1999) sees that language teachers who focus on grammar as a set of word forms and
rules teach grammar by explaining the forms and rules and then drilling students on them. This
results in bored, disaffected students who can produce correct forms on exercises and tests but
consistently make errors when they try to use the language in context. Garacia (2003) believes
that other language teachers, influenced by recent theoretical work on the difference between
language learning and language acquisition, tend not to teach grammar at all. Believing that
children acquire their first language without overt grammar instruction, they expect students to
learn their second language the same way. They assume that students will absorb grammar rules
as they hear, read, and use the language in communication activities. This approach does not
allow students to use one of the major tools they have as learners: their active understanding of
what grammar is and how it works in the language they already know. Byrd (2004) sees that the
goal of grammar instruction is to enable students to carry out their communication purposes. The
goal has three implications:
Students need overt instruction that connects grammar points with larger communication
context.
Students do not need to master every aspect of each grammar point, only those that are
relevant to the immediate task.
Error correction is not always the instructor's first responsibility.
The problem with grammar is not to learn it or not; it is how to teach and present grammar
to your learners (Kailani & Muqattach, 2003).
Hence, teachers do not agree on a limited method to teach grammar. Some of them prefer
the old style and the explicit explanations of the English syntax, while others believe that implicit
teaching of grammar and the communication methods are more effective (Hussein, 2004).
Saricoban and Metin (2000) point out that in order to make a grammar lesson effective,
beneficial, and interesting, a teacher should use some well-developed and fascinating techniques
in the classroom. The examples of such integrated sources and techniques are the use of such of
songs, verse, games, and problem solving activities. Sysoyev (1999) suggests three stages for
teaching grammar which are exploration, explanation, and expression (EEE).
The researcher came to the conclusion that there are different techniques and methods
focusing on teaching and learning grammar.
17
1.6. The importance of Grammar:
The main goal of teaching grammar is to help students speak English with organized and
correct structures. If students learn English with clear and right structures when they are young,
they will be good communicators in the future. Without grammar, students are able to
communicate effectively only in limited situations. Besides, grammar is regarded as a very
essential part of the study and ideas. In fact, grammar helps humans to analyze and describe their
language. In addition, many EFL students seek to continue their study in foreign countries and
they need to pass exams such as TOFEL and IELTS. So, students must be excellent at grammar to
succeed in the exams (Abu Jeld, 2004).
Thornbury (2004: 40) points out that "grammar has a psychometric function: that is to say,
it is used as a measure of language proficiency ". Doff (1988: 32) states that "if students learn the
main structures of English, it will help them greatly to speak and to write the language".
Nordquist (2010: 2) realizes that grammar is very important for excellent writing. So, he says "by
gaining a clearer understanding of how our language works, you should also gain greater control
on the way you shape words into sentences and sentences into paragraphs". In a word, grammar
leads learners to be effective writers. Ziegler (2007: 7) believes that "language has a structure and
grammatical form; the structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses".
As a matter of fact, students need structure and accuracy practice which leads them to
fluency. The teacher should encourage fluency by offering a climate of trust and support in the
classroom through allowing pair-checking of answers before open-class checking as well as
giving the class the chance to discuss a topic in small groups (Belchamber, 2007).
2. Second domain: Cooperative learning
This domain will discuss the types of social interdependence in classrooms and the basic
elements required for the sound implementation of cooperative learning activities. It will also
discuss the teacher's role in cooperative learning activities as well as the methods and benefits of
cooperative learning.
2.1. Types of social interdependence
The nature of students' interaction when learning in classrooms has a very important effect on
a wide variety of learning outcomes. Accordingly, whenever teachers plan for a lesson, they have
to think about the strategies they will adopt to organize the students’ interaction.
An important teaching skill that all teachers need to acquire is deciding when and how to
structure the learning goals competitively, individually, or cooperatively because when they
structure positive, negative or no interdependence among students, teachers can influence the
pattern of their interaction and consequently the learning outcomes that result.
18
They may structure their lesson so that students are in a win-lose struggle to see who is the
best, learning individually on their own without interacting with their class mates, or learning in
small groups helping each other master the assigned material (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec,
1988).
2.1.1. Competitive learning:
Within competitive learning activities, the students’ goal achievement is negatively correlated.
Students find themselves in a win or lose situation. In order for one student to win, the others with
whom he/she is competitively related must lose. Students work for objectives that are personally
beneficial, but in the same time detrimental to the others whom they are competing with (Johnson
& Johnson, 1998). Students are graded on a curve which urges them to work better or faster than
their classmates. They try to prove to the others that they are the best.
A lot of students tend to consider school as a competitive enterprise; consequently, they either
work hard to do better than others students or they take it easy and withdraw because they do not
think they have a real chance to win. Doing just enough to pass becomes the accepted mode for a
lot of students (Halt, 1992).
Teachers can use competition activities when well-learned material needs to be reviewed and
revised and when it is relatively unimportant whether one wins or loses since high level of anxiety
tends to appear when winning becomes too important for students .
2.1.2. Individualistic learning:
Individualistic learning exists when the students’ achievement is not linked and is independent
from the achievement of the other students. Each student works on his/her own towards set
criteria and the attainment of a certain student does not affect other classmates (Johnson &
Johnson, 1998).
Within Individualistic learning situations, students work on their own to achieve well-defined
objectives. They do not have to interact with classmates as they do not need to discuss answers,
negotiate opinions or share information. Every student should assume responsibility for
completing the required tasks and should also be motivated to complete them alone. In this type
of activities, teachers go round, observe the students while working, assess where students are on
the assigned task and encourage them to exert efforts to achieve the goals.
In the two previous types of learning (Competitive learning & Individualistic learning),
students are evaluated independently by a criterion-referenced system. However, much is lost as
the students are not granted the chance to learn to work together to recognize their similarities and
their differences and to learn social and supporting skills (Shevin, 1990).
19
2.1.3. Cooperative learning:
Cooperative learning is the third option teachers can use in structuring student-student
interaction. It focuses on having students to work together in small, mixed-ability groups.
A positive interdependence is created among them. Students have an additional twist to their
learning. They are not only responsible for learning the material but also for making sure that
everyone in the group masters it as well.
Various definitions have been given to cooperative learning. Johnson and Johnson (1998)
state that cooperative learning exists when students work together to accomplish shared learning
goals. Slavin (1990) defines it as a form of small group interaction where students work in a
social setting to solve problems. According to Dumas (2003), cooperative learning involves small
heterogeneous teams, usually of four or five members working together towards a group task in
which each member is individually accountable for part of the outcome.
The modern tendency to use cooperative learning may be due to different reasons. Firstly,
cooperative learning is clearly based on theory supported by research and operationalized into
practical procedures teachers can use. It is based on a variety of theories in anthropology,
sociology and economics.
Secondly, the amount, generalizability and applicability of research on cooperative,
competitive and individualistic structures support and validate the use of cooperative learning
more than the other teaching methods (Choen, 1994). Research on cooperative learning focused
on various learning outcomes as achievement, critical thinking, retention, and time on task,
motivation, and cognitive development, social competence, valuing differences, psychological
health, self esteem and attitudes.
Thirdly, cooperative learning has a wide variety of methods available for teachers ranging
from very formal and prescribed to very conceptual and flexible. It is usually a generic term that
refers to numerous methods for structuring classroom activities. Every teacher may find a way to
use cooperative learning that suits his/her philosophy and practice (Johnson & Johnson, 2001).
From the previous information about the three types of learning, it can be concluded that
learning cooperatively is more beneficial, effective and much better than learning competitively
or individually.
2.2. Elements and conditions of cooperative learning:
Not all groups are cooperative ones (Johnson & F. Johnson, 2009). Placing people in the
same room, seating them together, telling them they are a group, does not mean they will
cooperate effectively. It can result in competition at a close quarters or individualist work with
talking. Cooperative learning differs from traditional classroom groups in the following ways:
20
1. Cooperative learning is based on positive interdependence among the group members
while traditional group learning only focuses on task completion regardless of member
contribution.
2. In cooperative learning, Individual accountability is stressed so that every student is
responsible for mastering the assigned material, while in traditional learning, individuals
are often allowed a free ride and others complete the whole work.
3. In traditional groups, members are homogenous; in cooperative learning, members are
chosen on the basis of ability, gender, background or achievement, so the groups are
heterogeneous.
4. In traditional groups, one leader is chosen by the teacher; in cooperative learning,
leadership is shared so that all the students are responsible for the group work.
5. In traditional groups, the priority is to do the task. In cooperative learning, the priority is
not to do the task but to include every member through the use of social skills.
6. In cooperative learning, the teacher acts as a mediator in both the completion of group
work and the group's internal functioning, while in traditional group learning, the teacher
only mediates the completion of the group task.
7. In cooperative learning, self evaluation is a vital element and an integral part of the
group's function, while in traditional groups, it is not a priority.
To be cooperative and to reach the full potential of the group, five essential elements need to
be carefully structured into the situation: positive interdependence, individual and group
accountability, face to face interaction, appropriate use of social skills, and group processing
(Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005).
The five essential elements will be discussed in the following lines in details:
2.2.1. Positive interdependence:
It is the first and most important element. Teachers must give a clear task and a group
goal so students believe they “sink or swim together.” Positive interdependence exists when
group members perceive that they are linked with each other in a way that one cannot succeed
unless everyone succeeds. If one fails, all fail. Group members realize, therefore, that each
person’s efforts benefit not only him- or herself, but all other group members as well. Positive
interdependence creates a commitment to other people’s success as well as one’s own and is the
heart of cooperative learning. If there is no positive interdependence, there is no cooperation.
2.2.2. Individual and Group accountability:
The group must be accountable for achieving its goals. Each member must be accountable for
contributing his or her share of the work (which ensures that no one “hitch-hikes” on the work of
others). The group has to be clear about its goals and be able to measure (a) its progress in
21
achieving them and (b) the individual efforts of each of its members. Individual
accountability exists when the performance of each individual student is assessed and the results
are given back to the group and the individual in order to ascertain who needs more assistance,
support, and encouragement in completing the assignment. The purpose of cooperative learning
groups is to make each member a stronger individual in his or her right. Students learn together
so that they can subsequently perform higher as individuals.
2.2.3. Face-to-face interaction:
This kind of interaction occurs when members share resources and help, support, encourage,
and praise each other’s efforts to learn. Cooperative learning groups are both an academic
support system (every student has someone who is committed to helping him or her learn) and a
personal support system (every student has someone who is committed to him or her as a
person). There are important cognitive activities and interpersonal dynamics that can only occur
when students promote each other’s learning. This includes orally explaining how to solve
problems, discussing the nature of the concepts being learned, teaching one’s knowledge to
classmates, and connecting present with past learning.
It is through promoting each other’s learning face-to-face that members become personally
committed to each other as well as to their mutual goals.
2.2.4. Socialization and small group skills:
In cooperative learning groups students are required to learn academic subject matter (task
work) and also to learn the interpersonal and small group skills required to function as part of a
group (teamwork). Cooperative learning is inherently more complex than competitive or
individualistic learning because students have to engage simultaneously in task work and
teamwork. Group members must know how to provide effective leadership, decision-making,
trust-building, communication, and conflict-management, and be motivated to use the prerequisite
skills. Teachers have to teach teamwork skills just as purposefully and precisely as teachers do
academic skills. Since cooperation and conflict are inherently related, the procedures and skills
for managing conflicts constructively are especially important for the long-term success of
learning groups.
2.2.5. Group processing:
Group processing exists when group members discuss how well they are achieving their
goals and maintaining effective working relationships. Groups need to describe what member
actions are helpful and unhelpful and make decisions about what behaviors to continue or
change. Continuous improvement of the process of learning results from the careful analysis of
how members are working together.
22
These five elements are essential to all cooperative systems, no matter what their size
is. When international agreements are made and when international efforts to achieve mutual
goals (such as environmental protection) occur, these five elements must be carefully
implemented and maintained.
2.3. Methods of cooperative learning:
Cooperative learning methods organize the little groups with the objective of establishing the
ties and requirements necessary for cooperation. However, despite having this in common, each
method presents a different way of managing the teaching and learning activities, which makes
some more elegant than others so as to develop certain learning processes in the different
curriculum areas.
There is no method which can be regarded as the best and more elegant than the others; it is a
matter of using the method which better adapts to our needs taking into account the characteristics
of the group of students and the activity to be worked on, in such a way that the factors favoring
cooperation and learning are enhanced.
There are many variations within the cooperative learning models. Some of the most well-
known methods are the following:
2.3.1. Jigsaw
Jigsaw is especially useful in knowledge areas where content is susceptible of being
“fragmented” in different parts. This method enhances the interdependence among students given
that the information is provided to the students in parts (as many as team members), as if they
were jigsaw pieces. Each student gets a part of the necessary information to do the task, becoming
“expert” in his/her jigsaw piece or knowledge part. The team members are responsible for
knowing the corresponding information in depth, for teaching it and for learning the information
presented by the rest of the team members (Aronson and collaborators, 1978) .
Since the creation of Jigsaw, several modifications have been introduced to account for
concerns of both teachers and students who have participated in the classroom technique. There
are currently four of Jigsaw strategies available for teachers to use in their classes: (a) Jigsaw I
developed by Aronson and others in 1978, (b) Jigsaw II developed by Slavin in 1977, (c.) Jigsaw
III developed by Stahl in 1994 and (d.) Jigsaw IV developed by Holliday in 2000.
2.3.2. Learning Together.
In heterogeneous teams of 4 or 5 members, the students cooperate to obtain a product in
group. The reward is based on the mean of the team which is established from individual
progress. One key differs from other methods is the strong emphasis the learning together method
places on improving team functioning through teaching collaborative skills and processing group
interaction(Johnson & Johnson, 1999). It advocates team-building approach and provides time for
23
lots of discussion and reflection on how team members are interacting and functioning as a group
(Snowman, 1997).
2.3.3. Team – Games- Tournament (TGT)
The classroom organization with this method allows us to create an intergroup procedure
so as to compare the degree of performance of the different teams. It consists of creating teams of
4 to 5 students and arranging a competition with the members of the other teams. The teams are
the cooperative element of the TGT (Teams-Games-Tournament). The TGT guarantees the
implication and participation of each and every member of the group and allows them to compete
with the other members of the other teams who have a similar level to their own, which
considerably reduces the angst of the competition. As a negative aspect, we can suggest that with
this method the interest in the subject may disappear amidst the competitive game and extrinsic
motivation may be optimized (De Vries & Edwards, 1973).
2.3.4. Student Team-Achievement Divisions (STAD).
Student team-achievement divisions shares intergroup cooperation and intergroup competition
with the previous one. The students are divided into heterogeneous groups of four or five
members. The teacher presents a topic to all the class, with all the explanations and
exemplifications s/he considers necessary. The students work in teams for different sessions
where they discuss, compare, widen, formulate questions, elaborate conceptual maps, memorize,
etc. and make sure all the members of the group have learned what they were asked to.
After that, the teacher assesses each student individually and transforms the individual
qualification in group qualification using a system known as “performance in divisions”. This
method compares the performance of each student as regards the reference of a group of a similar
level. Thus, we make sure each student can contribute to the success of his/her team, given his/her
possibilities, and it can also be the case that a student with a lower performance level provides a
higher score to his/her team than another student with a higher performance level because s/he has
been better placed in his/her division (Slavin, 1986).
2.3.5. Team Assisted Individualization (TAI).
This method combines cooperative learning and individuated instruction: all the students work
on the same, but each of them follows a specific program. The common learning task is structured
in a personalized way for every member of the team, and within the team all the students help so
as to attain the personal objectives of each of its members (Slavin i cols., 1984).
24
2.3.6. Group-Investigation.
This is a very similar method to the project work arrangements used in primary school or to
the synthesis credits in secondary school in Spain. It follows the following steps:
1. Choice and distribution of subtopics: The students choose, according to their aptitude or
interests, a subtopic within a general topic suggested by the teacher taking into account the
curriculum.
2. Each team is responsible for a different subtopic, so all the class group works on the same
general topic but from different specializations (as the scientific community does).
3. Planning the study of the subtopic: The team members, together with the teacher,
determine the objectives they select and plan the procedures they will deploy to fulfill
them, at the same time they distribute the tasks they need to do.
4. Development of the plan: The students develop, in written form, their work plan. The
teacher follows each team’s progress and offers his/her help when necessary.
5. Analysis and synthesis: The students analyze and assess the information gathered. They
summarize it and present it to the rest of the class.
6. Presentation of the paper: Once presented, they make questions and provide answers to
possible questions, doubts or widening of the topic that may be relevant.
7. Assessment: Teacher and students together assess the paper and the presentation in group.
It is not incompatible with a later individual assessment.
This method promotes intrinsic motivation, with the commitment to the chosen subtopic and
the work plan of the team members and autonomy(Sharan & Sharan , 1976).
2.4. Teacher's role in cooperative learning
The relationship between teachers and students has changed. The teacher's role has also
changed. It has expanded from always being the focus of the learning and teaching process to
being a guide and a facilitator. The teacher is no longer the sole possessor of knowledge
(Holliday, 2000).
Any topic in any subject may be structured cooperatively. However, the practical
implementation of cooperative structures is not an easy job. To implement lessons that do in fact
work cooperatively requires conceptual understanding of the theory, foundation and conditions
that make it work.
Everything a teacher says or does in class has an effect on how students view themselves and
each other. Students can learn to see each other as enemies where one's success denotes the other's
failure, or as friends where one's success contributes to and reinforces the others'. They, when
using cooperative learning, should create opportunities for students to see each other as sources of
information, instruction, and support (Shevin, 1990).
25
According to Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1994), the teacher has a six-part role in
cooperative lessons:
1. Clearly identifying the objectives of the lesson.
2. Making certain pre-teaching decisions about the groups, classroom arrangement, teaching
materials, and member's role within each group.
3. Explaining the learning activity.
4. Setting the cooperative lesson in motion.
5. Monitoring the effectiveness of the cooperative learning groups and providing assistance
when necessary.
6. Evaluating students' achievement and encouraging them to process their performance.
2.5. Benefits of cooperative learning
This section will focus on the benefits of cooperative learning. These benefits will be
organized into three domains: learning benefits, social benefits and psychological benefits.
2.5.1. Learning benefits:
"What children can do together today, they can do alone tomorrow." (Lev Vygosky, 1978)
1- Cooperative learning develops oral communication skills (Yager, 1985a):
When students are working in pairs, one partner verbalizes his/her answer while the other
listens, asks questions or comments upon what he/she has heard. Clarification and explanation of
one's answer is a very important part of the collaborative process and represents a higher order
thinking skill (Johnson, Johnson, Roy & Zaidman , 1985). Students who tutor each other must
develop a clear idea of the concept they are presenting and orally communicate it to their partners
(Neer , 1987).
Tannenberg (1995) describes the benefit of developing oral skills which are discipline specific.
"As in other disciplines, computer scientists use specialized language to economically and
precisely communicate with one another. This involves not only mathematical symbols and
programming languages, but additional terms and special uses of natural language. A
consequence of having students work together in small groups is that they speak with one another
and directly engage in discipline-specific language use. In trying to explain their ideas relating to
the problems that they are solving, whether it be about a graph, program, algorithm, or proof, they
will of necessity acquire the terms that describe these objects."
2- Cooperative learning fosters metacognition in students:
Metacognition involves student recognition and analysis of how they learn (O'Donnell &
Dansereau, 1992). Metacognition activities enable students to monitor their performance in a
course and their comprehension of the content material. This includes detecting errors and
learning how to make corrections while monitoring one's performance. Cooperative learning
26
approaches create learning strategies which are independent of content and thus are transferable to
different content areas. Cooperative learning structures encourage the development of
metacognitive learning because they focus on the process of learning, which includes the
evaluation of the group's work by individual group members, assessment and improvement of the
social interactions which take place during cooperative activities, and efforts to make corrections
in each individual's performance. The content matter is almost secondary to the learning process.
3- Cooperative learning promotes critical thinking and develops higher level thinking skills
(Webb, 1982):
Students working together are engaged in the learning process instead of passively listening
to the teacher present information or reading information off a computer screen. Pairs of students
working together represent the most effective form of interaction, followed by threesomes and
larger groups (Schwartz, Black & Strange, 1991). When students work in pairs one person is
listening while the other partner is discussing the question under investigation. Both are
developing valuable problem solving skills by formulating their ideas, discussing them, receiving
immediate feedback and responding to questions and comments by their partner (Johnson, 1971).
The interaction is continuous and both students are engaged during the session. Compare this
situation to the lecture class where students may or may not be involved by listening to the
teacher or by taking notes (Cooper, et al, 1984).
According to Roberta Dees (1991: 410), "Although it is not clear which components of
cooperative learning are responsible for improvement in higher-level thinking; attempts have been
made to identify the components. One conjecture is that dealing with controversy may be such an
element." Smith, Johnson, and Johnson (1981: 652) studied sixth grade students who worked on
controversial issues. They found that for students engaged in controversy, "the cognitive rehearsal
of their own position and the attempts to understand their opponents’ position result in a high
level of mastery and retention of the materials being learned.". The Johnsons have developed a
cooperative method called structured controversy where students study and defend one position
and then switch with another group which has taken the opposite position. Slavin (1992: 162)
emphasizes that "Students will learn from one another because in their discussions of the content,
cognitive conflicts will arise, inadequate reasoning will be exposed, disequilibrium will occur,
and higher quality understandings will emerge".
4- Cooperative learning creates an environment of active, involved and exploratory learning
(Slavin, 1990):
The entire focus of collaborative learning is to actively involve students in the learning
process. Whenever two or more students attempt to solve a problem or answer a question they
become involved in the process of exploratory learning. They interact with each other, share ideas
27
and information, seek additional information, make decisions about the results of their
deliberations and present their findings to the entire class. They may tutor their peers or receive
tutoring. Students have the opportunity to help structure the class experience through suggestions
regarding class format and procedures. This is a level of student empowerment which is
unattainable with a lecture format or even with a teacher-led whole class discussion.
5- Cooperative learning enhances self management skills (Resnick, 1987):
Collaborative learning inherently calls for self management by students. In order to function
within their groups, they need to come prepared with assignments completed and they must
understand the material which they are going to contribute to their group. Students are given
training about their responsibilities toward the group and how to be an effective group member.
They are also given time to process group behaviors, such as checking with each other to make
sure homework assignments are not only completed but understood by each group member. These
primitive interactions help students learn self management techniques. From a psychological view
CL fosters self efficacy among students. Student self direction is generated in part by the high
expectations by the teacher and the high degree of responsibility placed upon the students for their
learning.
6- Cooperative learning increases students' persistence in the completion of assignments and
the likelihood of successful completion of assignments (Felder, 1997):
When individuals get stuck, they are more likely to give up; groups are much more likely to
find ways to keep going. This is reinforced by the Johnsons (1990), who state "In a cooperative
learning situation, students’ goal achievements are positively correlated; students perceive that
they can reach learning goals if and only if the other students in the learning group also reach
their goals. Thus, students seek outcomes that are beneficial to all those with whom they are
cooperatively linked. Students who work together discuss the material with the other group
members, explain how to complete the work, listen to each other's explanations, encourage each
other to try to understand the solutions, and provide academic help and assistance." All of these
activities provide a support mechanism for individual students and encourage the completion of
assignments because the potential for success is increased dramatically through the use of CL
methods.
Group norms create a powerful dynamic within cooperative behavior (Deutsch, 1949). Having
norms established by a group instead of being imposed by an outside agent, such as a teacher,
increases the likelihood that the norms will be adhered to (Marzano, 1992). This in turn leads to a
more positive metal climate within the class and increased student persistence in task completion.
When students work together to establish group norms, they develop feelings of responsibility for
their peers and a sense of camaraderie. Students who might be reluctant to work on a difficult
28
problem alone devote much more energy and time when they do it with others (Costa & O'Leary,
1992).
7- In cooperative learning, students stay on task more and are less disruptive:
An enormous hidden benefit of CL is one most attractive to teachers: it negates many forms of
student disruptive behavior. As any teacher knows, it is extremely easy for only one (or more)
member(s) of an entire class to disrupt class proceeding when the lecture method is employed. In
contrast, when students are working in groups, the stage is removed from those who try to act out
(Stahl & Van Sickle, 1992).
It is very difficult for an individual to gain the entire class's attention when the class is
working in many smaller groups. Within groups intense working is being carried on because more
students are involved actively in the process. The CL activities are very focused and often create a
high degree of concentration by group members. Thus, they will not be distracted by an individual
acting out in another group or trying to gain the class attention.
8- Cooperative learning addresses learning style differences among students: (Midkiff &
Thomasson, 1993)
Students working in collaborative classes utilize each of the three main learning styles:
kinesthetic, auditory and visual. For example, material presented by the teacher is both auditory
and visual. Students working together use their kinesthetic abilities when working with hands on
activities. Verbal and auditory skills are enhanced as students discuss their answers together.
Visual and auditory modalities are employed when students present their results to the whole
class. Each of these learning styles is addressed many times throughout a class in contrast to the
lecture format which is mainly auditory and occasionally visual.
9- Cooperative learning activities enhance skill building and practice in and out of class
(Tannenberg, 1995):
Foundational aspects of education, the acquiring of information and operational skills, can be
facilitated through the use of collaborative activities (Brufee, 1993). In order to develop critical
thinking skills, students need a base of information to work from. Acquiring this skill base often
requires some degree of repetition and memory work. When this is accomplished individually, the
process can be tedious, boring or overwhelming. When students work together, the learning
process becomes interesting and fun despite the repetitive nature of the learning process.
Tannenberg (1995) states "The most significant benefit that I have observed using CL has been
for students to engage in the skills and practices of the computing discipline within the classroom.
These practices include reading and understanding programs, designing and writing programs,
complexity analysis, problem solving, writing proofs, scholarly debate, teaching one another,
negotiating meaning, using alternate forms of representation (e.g. drawings of trees, graphs, and
29
other data structures), and building collegial relationships. In a lecture based setting, we are
limited to the extent to which we can convey skills and practices -- many of these do not lend
themselves well to verbal description. And even for those that do, students appropriate such skills
through active engagement, not by watching and listening. By working within a small group
setting, students can be encouraged and helped by their peers and the instructor, and they learn
from one another by watching and imitating."
10- Cooperative learning fits in well with the constructivist approach: (Davis, Mahler &
Noddings, 1990)
Only when students formulate their own constructs and solutions are they truly thinking
critically. Collaborative techniques create a constructivist approach when students become
actively involved in defining questions in their own language and working out answers together
instead of reproducing material presented by the teacher or the textbook (Wooley et al, 1990).
2.5.2. Social benefits:
"Without the cooperation of its members, society cannot survive, and the society of man has
survived because the cooperativeness of its members made survival possible."(Ashley
Montague, 1965)
1- Cooperative learning develops social interaction skills:
A major component of cooperative learning elaborated by Johnson, Johnson and Holubec
(1984) includes training students in the social skills needed to work collaboratively. Students do
not come by these skills naturally. Quite the contrary, in our society and current educational
framework competition is valued over cooperation. By asking group members to identify what
behaviors help them work together and by asking individuals to reflect on their contribution to the
group's success or failure, students are made aware of the need for healthy, positive, helping
interactions when they work in groups (Cohen & Cohen, 1991).
2- In cooperative learning, students practice modeling societal and related roles:
In collaborative classes students may be assigned roles in order to build interdependence
within the groups. Roles such as reader, recorder, reporter, materials handler, time keeper,
skeptic/challenger and others are rotated among group members for each new assignment or
project (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1984). Students are thus encouraged to develop and
practice the skills which will be needed to function in society and the work world (Houston,
1991).
These skills include leadership, information recording, communication of results orally and in
writing, challenging ideas in a constructive manner, obtaining and distributing materials and
information to group members, encouraging member participation, brainstorming, meeting
deadlines, etc (Sandberg , 1995).
30
Wlodowski (1985) observes that "If students realize the direct applicability of classroom small
group problem-solving to their own lives, motivation to learn will show a marked increase."
Building strong social characteristics within students can be practiced in a risk free environment
with support and training from the teacher.
3- Cooperative learning encourages diversity understanding among students (Burnstein &
McRae , 1962):
Understanding the diversity that exists among students of different learning styles and abilities
is a major benefit of collaborative learning. Lower level students benefit by modeling higher level
students and they benefit by forming explanations and tutoring other students (Swing, Peterson
1982; Hooper & Hannafin, 1988).
Higher level students benefit by explaining their approaches. Students observe their peers in a
learning environment, discuss problem solving strategies and evaluate the learning approaches of
other students. Often behaviors which might appear odd when taken out of context become
understandable when the opportunity is presented to students to explain and defend their
reasoning. For example, Americans signal agreement by nodding vertically while students from
India nod horizontally. Very little opportunity exists for students to explain their behavior in a
lecture class, whereas in a CL environment discussions of this nature occur continuously. Warm
up and group building activities play an important role in helping students understand their
differences and learn how to capitalize on them rather than use them as a basis for creating
antagonism.
2.5.3. Psychological benefits:
In addition to the learning and social benefits of cooperative learning discussed in the previous
domains, cooperative learning also has positive impact on the students' Psychological health.
1- Cooperative learning builds self-esteem in students: (Johnson & Johnson, 1989)
Collaborative efforts among students result in a higher degree of accomplishment by all
participants as opposed to individual, competitive systems in which many students are left behind
(Slavin, 1967). Competition fosters a win-lose situation where superior students reap all rewards
and recognition and mediocre or low-achieving students reap none. In contrast everyone benefits
from a CL environment. Students help each other and in doing so build a supportive community
which raises the performance level of each member (Kagan, 1986). This in turn leads to higher
self esteem in all students (Webb, 1982).
2- Cooperative learning promotes a mastery attribution pattern rather than helpless
attribution pattern:
In typical classes students are given lectures, complete assignments outside of class, and take
an exam to demonstrate their knowledge retention of the subject matter. The exams are returned
31
and new material is covered, repeating the process over and over. There is little time for reflection
and discussion of students' errors or misconceptions. With the CL paradigm students are
continuously discussing, debating and clarifying their understanding of the concepts and materials
being considered during the class. They are constructing their own knowledge base. Assessment
may vary from individual activities such as tests or oral reports to group tests or projects. The
emphasis is on understanding the material as evidenced by the student's ability to explain ideas to
their peers. This leads to a sense of mastery of content versus a passive acceptance of information
from an outside expert, which promotes a sense of helplessness and reliance upon others to attain
concepts.
3- Cooperative learning encourages students to seek help and accept tutoring from their
peers:
Students are often reluctant to seek out extra help or tutoring from their peers because help-
seeking is interpreted negatively as an indicator of dependency (Hertz-Lazarowitz et al., 1992).
Beller (1955) points out that help-seeking may lead to self-perceptions of low ability,
embarrassment, or feeling of indebtedness. Hertz-Lazarowitz et al. (1992) identify additional
research in social psychology which indicates that students show a decreased liking toward
helpers; negative feelings are generated when students do not see opportunities to reciprocate the
help; helping activities reflect adversely upon a person's intelligence.
Hertz-Lazarowitz (1992) points out that "It is important to note, however, that Cook and
Pelfrey (1985) found that a person who received help when working as a member of a cooperative
group expressed more liking for a teammate who provided help." Cook and Pelfrey surmise that
this effect occurs because group settings create norms of responsibility toward teammates which
minimizes the negative effects that ordinarily occur when one is unable to reciprocate help that is
received. In addition, group members often have opportunities to help each other thus reducing
the perception of one way help. Members of groups recognize their importance to the group and
contributions they may offer to their peers. Nelson-LeGall (1992) states that "Help-seeking,
particularly the seeking of information, is valued more positively than volunteering information in
cooperative work conditions; these evaluations are reversed, however, in competitive work
conditions." Further, "In small cooperative learning groups, students may consult, question,
explain, and monitor one another, multiplying the number of helpers and learning opportunities
available."
4- Classroom anxiety is significantly reduced with cooperative learning (Kessler, Price &
Wortman, 1985):
In a traditional classroom when a teacher calls upon a student, he/she becomes the focus of
attention of the entire class. Any mistakes or incorrect answers become subject to scrutiny by the
32
whole class. Such experiences produce embarrassment and anxiety in many students. In contrast,
in a CL situation, when students work in a group, the focus of attention is diffused among the
group. When an answer is presented to the class, it represents the work of the entire group;
therefore, no single individual can be held up to criticism. In addition, the group produces a
product which its members can review prior to presenting it to the whole class, thus diminishing
prospects that mistakes will occur at all (Slavin & Karweit , 1981). When a mistake is made, it
becomes a teaching tool instead of a public criticism of an individual student. Coincidentally, the
general class attitude is one of cooperation and nurturing, not criticism.
3. Third domain: Jigsaw strategy
This domain tackles Jigsaw as a strategy which can be used in education and includes: history
of Jigsaw learning, Jigsaw, types of Jigsaw, its importance, its goals, the steps of the strategy,
benefits of the Jigsaw, Jigsaw in the classroom, and teacher's and student's role in Jigsaw strategy .
3.1. History of Jigsaw learning:
Jigsaw was developed by Elliot Aronson and his graduate students at the University of Texas
and the University of California in the 1970s. According to Aronson, the technique was invented
when he and his students were trying to establish ways to “defuse an explosive situation.” The
schools in Austin, Texas had just become integrated, and there was increasing racial tension
among the White, African American, and Hispanic students who were now in the same classes.
After Aronson and his students observed classrooms where competitiveness caused hostility
and a sense of rivalry, they realized that there was a need for a strategy to “shift the emphasis
from a relentlessly competitive atmosphere to a more cooperative one.”
In order to create a more cooperative environment, Aronson and the teachers divided students
into small groups that were diversified based on ability, ethnicity, and gender. This structure
required students to take responsibility for their personal assignment in class and to work out any
personal issues they had with one another.
After eight weeks of using the Jigsaw strategy, Aronson reports that students expressed less
prejudice and negative stereotyping, displayed more self-confidence, and showed more positive
attitudes to school than did their peers in traditional classes. Academically, students who
participated in the Jigsaw learning technique showed greater academic improvement than their
peers.
3.2. Jigsaw strategy:
Aronson recommends using a 10-step approach to implementing the jigsaw technique into
classroom practice. First, teachers create small heterogeneous groups with students representing
multiple ability levels. Then, the teacher appoints a group leader to be in charge of the group’s
tasks. Next, the teacher assigns the group several tasks, depending on the number of students in
33
each group. Each student is in charge of completing a separate task. The teacher allots a certain
amount of time for students to complete their tasks or become familiar with material. Then,
students from different groups who have the same tasks work together temporarily to become
“experts” on their topic and fill in any gaps in their information.
Original group members come back together and each member presents his/her own
information and provides an opportunity for the rest of group to ask questions. While students are
teaching each other about the topic, the teacher moves around the room monitoring progress and
answering any questions that students have about the topics. Finally, students are assessed on the
material they have all learned through their cooperative learning.
3.3. Types of Jigsaw:
Since the creation of jigsaw, several modifications have been introduced to account for
concerns of both teachers and students who have participated in the classroom technique.
There are currently four of Jigsaw strategies available for teachers to use in their classes: (a)
Jigsaw I developed by Aronson and others in 1978, (b) Jigsaw II developed by Slavin in 1977,(c.)
Jigsaw III developed by Stahl in 1994 and (d.) Jigsaw IV developed by Holliday in 2000.
In Jigsaw II, students all research specific topics as opposed to parts of one larger reading.
This variation of the original technique also requires that students complete “expert sheets” that
provide notes for introducing the topic back to base group and are given individual assessments as
opposed to a group evaluation.
Jigsaw III allows for a review process prior to assessment. Jigsaw IV has several additional
features: teacher introduction of material; expert group quizzes; review process prior to individual
assessment; and re-teaching of any material that wasn’t adequately explored in the collaborative
group work. The following table shows the comparison of Jigsaws.
34
Table (2.1)
Comparison of Jigsaws
No. Jigsaw II Jigsaw III Jigsaw IV
1. --------- --------- Introduction or presentation
2.
Each member in the home
group is assigned a part of
the material to learn, then
teaches to other members.
Same as II Same as II
3.
Students leave the original
groups to form expert
teams
Same as II Same as II
4.
Teams negotiate, discuss
and answer the expert
sheets. --------- ---------
5. --------- ---------
Quiz on material in the
expert groups to check for
accuracy.
6. --------- Review process Review process
7. Groups share information
and teach each other. Same as II Same as II
8. --------- --------- A second quiz on the whole
material.
9. Individual evaluation and
scoring groups' average. Same as II Same as II
10. --------- ---------
Re-teaching the points
which the students haven't
mastered
The differences indicated by the above table are not big. Competition is a basic element in Jigsaw
II and Jigsaw III adds a whole group review process before the test but follows Jigsaw II for the
competition element. The major difference between Jigsaw III and Jigsaw IV is found in an
introduction to the class and two quizzes that check for accuracy of information gathered by the
students. A third slight difference is the re-teaching of material which the students have not
mastered (Holliday, 2002).
3.4. The importance of using the Jigsaw strategy:
Abul Khair (2003) sees that the importance of this strategy lies in the following:
1. This strategy enjoys the presence of a mutual positive dependence in tasks, sources,
resources, target and reward.
2. This strategy enables each member of the group in the allocation of a part of the learning
unit and teaching it to his colleagues in the same group.
3. It makes every student give a maximum effort to study a particular part of the learning
material and provides his ideas and information about his own part of the learning material
35
and explains it to his colleagues to achieve an integrated understanding in studying the
subject of the learning material.
4. This strategy has the flexibility to build a mutual positive dependence between the groups.
5. In this strategy, the students have the opportunity to practice cooperative behaviors and it
urges the students to learn with perseverance and persistence.
6. It gives the students the freedom to express what they want to do when they act their roles
and this contributes to increase students' linguistic wealth and develop the skills of written
and creative expression.
7. It obliges the students to reach the group goal which is based on the collective division of
labor among them, making them contribute to the degree of the group.
8. In this strategy, the students are required to participate in the learning material, discuss it
with his colleagues and listen to them attentively.
9. It provides the opportunity for each student to contribute to the learning process and
develop the minds of students to become like teachers' minds.
10. In this strategy, the students are engaged in learning all the time during learning subtopic
of the learning material in the group expert and then teaching it to their colleagues again in
the home group. Therefore, this strategy helps the students depend on each other in the
learning process and overcome many of the problems such as the problem of low
achievers and the problem of boredom experienced by students.
The researcher finds that the importance of Jigsaw strategy lies in that it makes the learning
material so exciting to learn and it is characterized by gravity and thrill. It also reduces the
introvertness and isolation of some students, develops the spirit of love among the students, and
makes them benefit from each other. Moreover, Jigsaw strategy provides opportunities for
cooperation among the students and teaches them how to express themselves during group
participation in discussion and conversation.
3.5. The objectives of using the Jigsaw strategy:
Afaneh and Al-Jeish (2008) mention that Jigsaw strategy includes the following objectives:
1. Activating both sides of the learners’ brain when they interact in groups, analyze problems,
consult others, participate in the merger of the group, using their minds and thinking in the
discussions. Therefore, this strategy provides a good atmosphere for activating both sides of
brain.
2. This strategy makes the learner become as an expert having his own personality, bearing
responsibility in leading teams or groups, listening to others, casting them lectures and being
accountable, reacting with his feeling, drawing conclusions and coming up to generalizations.
36
This means this strategy activates both sides of the brain to respond to these situations and
events.
3. The strategy focuses on active teamwork where learners use materials and different sources
to interpret and explain the experiences that they exert as well as their presence in the groups
of experts. They acquire certain information through their experiences, and then they connect
with others using their cognitive strategies for understanding and learning, so this strategy is
fully meshed with both sides of the brain. That is, this strategy raises the brain and activates
it as well.
3.6. Steps of Jigsaw strategy:
As prescribed by Afaneh and Al-Jeish (2007), this strategy includes the following steps:
1- Strategy inputs:
This step includes the following:
Identifying the goals that the teacher wants to achieve through the process of teaching by
using this strategy.
Preparing and assembling the materials and the tools needed to learn the subject of the lesson
from references, books, articles, videos, forms, graphics, cut-outs and others.
The preparation of expert reports to be a guide for learners who are learning them and then
teach them to others.
Splitting the learners into teams or heterogeneous groups according to their capacities and
talents.
Preparing an evaluation tool such as a test in the light of the objectives of each lesson.
2- Implementation of the strategy:
Implementation of the strategy includes the following steps:
A) Compiling information:
This step includes the following:
Formation of small groups of experts which have the same number as the number of
groups.
The distribution of content or topics into parts divided for each individual in one
group.
Consideration each individual in the group as an expert in the part that he is going to
teach.
Outsourcing the materials, devices and equipment to understand the content topics.
37
B) Interviewing the experts:
This step includes the following:
The experts who took the same part meet together to discuss and clarify the mysterious
elements in the content.
Comparing the notes collected in the light of the views of members of the groups which
experts came from in order to purify them from a misconception of their colleagues in
the different groups.
C) Reports of the group or team:
This step includes the following:
After interviewing the experts who have learnt the same part, the expert learner prepares a
report on the subject and considers it as a summary which helps him later in explanation
and teaching.
The expert learner returns to his expert group to teach them the subtopic belonging to him
to the members of his group.
D) Assessment and evaluation:
This step includes the following:
Modifying and correcting the work of the groups, guiding them, directing them and
developing concepts.
Following-up the activity of the learner and observing to what extent the learner is
integrated into the group.
Increasing the effectiveness of the work of learners and groups through reinforcement and
feedback.
3- Strategy outputs:
This step involves the following:
A) Assessment of the group:
These include the step as follows:
Determining the extent of groups work progress and their performing the tasks assigned
to them.
Identifying the level of participation and interaction of learners in teamwork.
Determining the extent of the progress of the expert learner within the expert groups and
in his own home group.
B) Assessment of learners' understanding of the content:
This step includes the following:
Applying a test on the learners to measure the progress of each learner in its own part of
the topic.
38
Applying another test that measures what each learner has acquired in the contents of
different groups as a whole.
The following table ( 2.2) shows the steps of Jigsaw strategy:
Table (2.2)
Steps of Jigsaw strategy
The researcher divided the experimental group consisting of 36 male students into 6 equal
heterogeneous groups (home groups), then assigned one leader for each one who has the ability to
teach, follow and lead his group and these 6 leaders work together in one group which is called
experts' group. (See Appendix 8).The researcher explained eight grammar lessons (See
Limitations of the study, page 7) during the whole experiment for all class students, including
home groups and the expert group. Each grammar lesson lasted one period, then the researcher
distributed worksheet related to the explained grammar lesson in the period, after that the
researcher asked the experts' group to come together and discuss the distributed worksheet under
include
Implementation of
the strategy Strategy inputs Strategy outputs
include
include
include
1.Identifying the
goals that the
teacher wants to
achieve.
2.Preparing and
assembling the
materials and the
tools needed to
learn the subject
matter.
3.Preparing expert
reports.
4.Splitting the
learners into teams
or heterogeneous
groups.
5.Preparing an
evaluation tool.
1. Assessment of
the group.
2. Assessment of
learners'
understanding of
the content.
1. Compiling
information
2. Interviewing the
experts.
3. Reports of the group
or team.
4. Assessment and
evaluation.
39
his observation. When the researcher was sure that the leaders (experts' group) are competent at
the assigned task and able to discuss it (worksheet) with their home groups perfectly without any
problems ,he asked them to return to their home groups (learners) in order to play their roles as
teachers for them under his observation for the whole class. Finally, after finishing the task, all
students in the class were given a quiz to answer it as a feedback for the explained grammar
lesson in the period and so on till the end of the experiment.
3.7. Benefits of the Jigsaw:
The jigsaw approach has demonstrated numerous benefits for students of multiple ability
levels. Santos Rego and Del Mar Lorenzo Moledo (2005) indicate that the jigsaw technique
improved academic performance with students at the beginning of secondary school (ages 12–14
years). The authors connect this finding to students having a higher self-esteem and self-efficacy.
They demonstrated that the jigsaw method can be effective at the high school level with both
general education and special education students.
A similar strength of the jigsaw is that it can do more than just teach students content material.
It can help motivate them and teach them to enjoy learning which can increase self-esteem and
self-efficacy. Mengduo and Xiaoling (2010: 122) concluded that, “The jigsaw classroom reduces
students’ reluctance and anxiety to participate in the classroom activities while increasing self-
esteem and self-confidence”.
This is important at the high school level because students are preparing for their future and
need to learn how to participate in group activities. Efe and Efe (2011) analyzed how students
assigned as group leaders in the jigsaw helped motivate the rest of the group. Results suggested
that when given the title of “group leader”, students worked to motivate other students to
complete their work.
Education is not just about learning the four core content areas (math, science, English, and
social studies), but it is also about learning how to interact in society and be a productive citizen.
In addition to helping students learn new material, the jigsaw helps build social skills. Anderson
and Palmer (2001) reports that the jigsaw approach is backed by research showing it to motivate
students to work together, share ideas, pursue common goals, and develop self-esteem.
Learning the material, being able to work in groups, and knowing how to motivate people are
all positive attributes for success in the work place. Whether it is learning material, building self-
esteem, or knowing how to motivate, the jigsaw can be utilized to help students with and without
disabilities.
A final strength of the Jigsaw is that it can decrease students’ anxiety levels. Many students
deal with anxiety throughout their educational careers either in a specific subject, in all subjects,
or with test anxiety. Oludipe and Awokoy (2010) examined students’ anxiety levels in relation to
40
participation in chemistry class. Students were divided into two groups; one in a cooperative
learning classroom that used the jigsaw approach and the other using a traditional lecture
approach.
The results showed that students in the cooperative classroom had lower levels of anxiety due
to the positive interdependence attribute of the jigsaw method. Positive interdependence allows
students to see that success is dependent on their effort and the contributions of the group.
Oludipe and Awokoy (2010: 35) conclude that students “became more confident and felt secure
participating actively in chemistry lessons”.
The Jigsaw method also provides a way to help students become active in classroom activities
and/or lessons. When students are anxious or sometimes even afraid to contribute, they are going
to miss information that is needed to fully understand the material. The jigsaw allows students to
work with one another and develop a sense of being needed.
When students are needed by their peers, they are more likely to do the work and contribute to
the group, and when they do the work, they are less anxious to become involved in future
activities. It can also be used early in the school year to help students get to know one another, as
it is useful for social skill development as well.
3.8. Teacher’s role in Jigsaw strategy:
Al- Deeb (2006) says that the role of the teacher is to:
1. divide the students into groups so that the members of each group are homogenous.
2. identify the subject taught by students in the educational session.
3. divide the designated subject for the educational session into parts based on the number of
members per group.
4. tell the students the instructions related to the cooperative method.
5. intervene when there is a problem to be solved, and in this case he is considered as a
consultant and a guide to the members of the group showing them how to solve the
problem.
6. encourage the students in the groups to participate and discuss from time to time,
especially the shy students.
7. urge the students to search for facts and information related to the subject they are learning
by monitoring the students' answers to the questions.
8. illustrate to students, from time to time, the instructions related to the educational
situation.
9. prepare the appropriate tests to measure the products of learning the content.
10. collect the answers of the members of the group at the end of the session and then
announce the result of the group.
41
11. praise the members of the group about the efforts and the answers they provide by means
of the degree of the group as a whole.
From the above mentioned points, it is clear that the role of the teacher is the role of
mentor and guide towards the right path through which students learn cooperatively. He does
not play the role of teleprompter where the teacher himself makes decisions, forms
educational groups and identifies educational aims.
The primary role of the educator is to choose learning material, structure the groups,
explain the cooperative nature of group work, provide an environment conducive for this
type of work, monitor group work, and assist students in summarizing, synthesizing, and
integrating material. It is also essential that the teacher effectively model and explain
Jigsaw prior to involving students in this type of teaching method.
3.9. Student's role in Jigsaw strategy:
Al- Deeb (2006) mentions that the roles of the student are as follows:
1. to receive specific task of the subject (part of the subject).
2. to find out specific information, then collecting and organizing them.
3. to share his classmates in learning a specific part of the subject matter.
4. to help each other learn their part and then they return to their home groups in order to
study this part that they have taught to their colleagues.
5. to teach the part that he has learned in the experts group to his colleagues in the home
group and he is responsible for teaching them.
6. to be interested in listening to his colleagues when they perform their roles.
7. to show his support to his colleague who explains the specific part of the lesson to him and
expresses his opinion about what his colleague is presenting.
8. to answer the questions directed to him.
9. to follow the instructions provided to him.
From the above mentioned points, it is obvious that the student is the focus of the teaching
process and his role in this strategy is positive and effective where he is trying to look for
information, to resolve issues, to activate previous experiences and to link them to experiences
and new situations. In this strategy, the student is considered as a permanent researcher, unlike his
role in the traditional teaching methods, which is limited to receiving information and
memorizing it without trying to search for information and linking it to other situations.
42
3.10. Troubles shooting with Jigsaw strategy:
Sometimes teachers find that more talkative students tend to dominate discussions in the
jigsaw groups. One strategy Aronson suggests to curtail this dominance is for the teacher to
assign discussion leaders in each group on a rotating basis. The leader calls on students in a “fair”
manner and tries to keep the discussion moving around the assigned topics and tasks.
Aronson also suggests that engaging students in expert groups keeps slower students on pace
with the rest of the class. When working in expert groups, students who typically lag behind on
whole class assignments have the opportunity to discuss their material and modify it accordingly.
According to the research conducted in Jigsaw classes, students generally demonstrate less
boredom and report liking school better. Furthermore, the students who work at a faster pace are
not bored because they are engaging other students in discussion.
Aronson acknowledges that some students who have never experienced Jigsaw and who are
more accustomed to the competitive model of traditional schooling might be skeptical of this
model. However, if the teacher explains the method effectively and familiarizes students with the
benefits of cooperative learning, students may be more accepting.
43
Section Two
An Overview of Related Previous Studies
4. Previous Studies
As stated before, the study aims to investigate the effectiveness of using Jigsaw strategy in
learning English grammar on tenth graders in Gaza. This section tries to examine twenty-six
previous studies in an attempt to benefit from their procedures tools, results and
recommendations. The researcher surveyed twenty-six previous studies. The studies are divided
into two parts. The first part contains sixteen studies dealing with studies related to using Jigsaw
strategy in teaching / learning English language skills, and other school subjects. The second part
includes ten studies dealing with studies related to teaching English grammar. The studies in both
parts are sequenced thematically, followed by researcher's comments.
4.1. The first part: Previous Studies Related to Teaching and Learning English Grammar:
1-Ishtawi (2011)
This study aimed to investigate the effect of Game Strategy on the learning of English
grammar for the twelfth grade students at Gaza governmental schools. To achieve this aim, the
researcher adopted the experimental approach. The sample of the study consisted of (80) male
students from Palestine Secondary School in West Gaza. The educational game strategy was used
in teaching the experimental group, while the traditional method was used with the control one in
the first term of the school year (2009-2010). An achievement test of five domains with (50) items
was designed and validated to be used as a pre and post test, as well as five quizzes for the
purpose of formative evaluation .
The findings of the study indicated that there were statistically significant differences between
both groups, favoring the experimental one, and this is due to the method of the educational game
strategy. In the light of the findings, the researcher recommended the necessity of implementing
educational game strategy in teaching English grammar to achieve better outcomes in students'
achievement of English language. The researcher also suggested that further research should be
conducted on the effect of games on different English skills, and other school subjects as well.
2-Obaid (2010)
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of three grammar teaching approaches (the
inductive, the deductive and the contextualized approaches) on achieving English grammar
among the eleventh graders in Khan Younis governorate. To answer the questions of the study,
the researcher adopted the experimental approach. The sample of the study consisted of (158)
male students from Al-Motanabi Secondary School for Boys (A); three experimental groups and a
control one. The three grammar teaching approaches were used in teaching the three experimental
groups, while the traditional methods were used with the control one in the first term of the
44
scholastic year (2009-2010). An achievement test of four domains with (84) items was designed
and validated to be used as a pre and post test.
The study indicated that there were statistically significant differences in the eleventh graders'
achievement of English grammar due to the method of teaching in favor of the contextualized
approach. Based on those the findings, the study recommended the necessity of implementing the
contextualized approach in teaching English grammar in order to bring out better outcomes in
students' achievement of English language. It was also suggested that researches should be
conducted on the effectiveness of the contextualized approach on different dimensions of
achieving English language and other school subjects.
3-Abu Seileek (2009)
This study aimed at exploring the effectiveness of using an online-based course on the learning
of sentence types inductively and deductively. To achieve this purpose, a computer-mediated
course was designed. The sample of the study consisted of four groups taught under four
treatments of grammar: (1) with computer-based learning inductively, (2) with computer-based
learning deductively, (3) with non-computer-based learning inductively, (2) with non-computer-
based learning deductively. A pre-test/post-test design (between- subject) was used to investigate
the effect of two factors: method (computer-based learning vs. non-computer-based learning) and
technique (induction vs. deduction ) on the students' learning of sentence types.
The results revealed a new manner of enhancing grammar learning based on the level of
language structure complexity. The computer-based learning method was found to be functional
for more complex and elaborate structure, like the complex sentence and compound complex
sentence, and more complicated grammar structured to be taught by means of the deductive
technique. None of the inductive and deductive techniques were reported to be more practical
with simple grammar structures such as the simple sentences and compound sentences.
4-Al-Enazi (2009):
This study investigated the effect of using co-operative learning strategy on developing some
of the grammatical skills of Arabic among hearing impaired students in Riyadh City compared
with the normal teaching method that is used in the schools. To achieve the goal for this study, the
researcher conducted pre- and post- tests for the experiment group and for the control group. Both
groups were from Alamal Institute program. The control group was from Abdurrahman Bin
Mahdi secondary school. Both schools were in Riyadh area. The control group was from Mousa
Bin Alnusair Secondary school. The number of the students in this study was 35 students at the
beginning of the study divided into 17 students of the experiment group, and 16 students of the
control group. Two students dropped from the experiment group for special reasons.
45
The researcher applied the same pre- and post- tests on both groups –experimental and control
groups- in every test concerning the focus of this study which was “the dual, and the masculine-
feminine plural of pronouns". The researcher taught the two groups the same contents, but in
different approaches, where the researcher used the co-operative approach for the experimental
group for four weeks for two periods per week. The outcome was treated by the “Man Whitney”
test.
The result of this study shows that the experimental group who were taught through the co-
operative approach showed higher rate in acquiring, understanding, implicating, formatting and
correcting. So the researcher recommended applying the cooperative approach for disabled high
school students.
5-Abu Nada (2008)
In this study, the researcher investigated the effect of using concept maps on the achievement
of English grammar among the ninth graders in Gaza Governorate. The researcher adopted the
experimental approach. The sample of the study consisted of (113) students from Al-Zaitun Prep
School (A). The concept maps strategy was used in teaching the experimental group, while the
traditional method was used with the control one in the first term of the school year (2007-2008).
The researcher utilized an achievement test as a pre and post test.
The study indicated that there were statistically significant differences in the ninth graders’
achievement of English grammar due to the method in favor of concept maps strategy. The study
recommended the necessity of implementing concept maps strategy in teaching English grammar
to bring about better outcomes in students' achievement of English grammar. The study also
suggested that further research should be conducted on the effect of concept maps on different
dimensions of achieving English language of other school subjects.
6-Al-Wadey (2007)
This research aimed to understand the effect of using Cooperative Learning Method in
Grammar for second secondary students. The sample comprised (50) students – second secondary
level – Omer Al- Mokhtar School- Amran Town. The sample was distributed equally into two
groups (A & B) and then divided intentionally into two groups (25) each. The tools were a unit in
grammar prepared according to Cooperative Learning Method and achievement test to measure
the effect teaching of that unit. The researcher taught class (B) (Experimental Group) – (verbal
sentence unit) by Cooperative Learning Method. The teacher of Arabic taught class (A) (Control
Group)–(verbal sentence unit) from the textbook by the Traditional Method. After completing
teaching the unit (research topic) which lasted for four weeks, the achievement test was applied
(post) on both groups, the experimental & the control group. He used the mean, standard
deviation and t-test.
46
The results showed statistical significance at the level (0.05) between the mean of grades the
experimental and control groups, he (total) achievement at the level of recollection and
understanding in grammar. The means were in favor of the experimental group which was taught
by Cooperative Learning Method. While there was no statistical significance at the level (0.05)
between the mean of both groups in the subject of grammar at application level, the general
results indicated related with the total achievement test in grammar and at the level of recollection
and understanding on the effectiveness the C.L.M in achievement of grammar that helped to raise
the level of achievement in grammar for the second secondary students compared with the
traditional method.
7- Larkefjord (2007)
This study aimed to investigate what different ways there are to teach English grammar at
upper secondary level and what guidance experienced teachers have to offer. The study explored
two ways which are explicit and implicit grammar teaching. Interviews were used in this study.
The researcher interviewed seven experienced teachers to find out what they believed works best
in their classrooms today. The interview questions dealt with how they taught grammar, what
grammar they wanted students to learn and how their grammar teaching changed over the years.
The questions also regarded how the teachers assessed their students’ grammar knowledge and
what material they used in their lessons.
The results of this study showed that explicit grammar teaching decreased over the years and
was replaced by implicit grammar teaching integrated with activities focusing on meaning since
they learned in a native-like way. However, the students made some mistakes. Each teacher had
different methods for dealing with these mistakes, but they seemed to be keeping in mind the
students' need and the curriculum.
8- Sandell (2007)
This study aimed to investigate teachers', students' and researchers' opinions on the idea of
using literature to motivate students into learning grammar. The researcher wished to take a closer
look at the response from students and their attitude towards applying the teaching of grammar to
real fiction, such as novels, pomes and articles. The study was based on a questionnaire given to
(23) students at an upper secondary school after participating in a lesson. The study was also
based on literature on the subject and three personal interviews.
The findings showed that the students were very positive towards the idea and stated that it
would feel more real to be taught grammar from real texts. The researchers did not want to teach
grammar sections as before. Instead, they choose to use a more individual response strategy
which they felt gave better results. The interviewed teachers expressed very positive opinions
surrounding the use of real texts in grammar teaching. They preferred to use their students' own
47
written material to give individual grammar response. The idea of using real texts instead of a
textbook is given both positive and negative credit. Sandell thinks that literature, like games and
computer games, contextualizes grammar lessons effectively as well as it reflects cultural themes.
9- Yu (2005)
The researcher explored the effects of the use of games as a teaching strategy for raising the
grammatical accuracy level of secondary students of German as a second language. This thesis
also sought to examine the effect of game-based grammar instruction on students’ motivation and
classroom atmosphere. In addition, it explored that the use of game in practicing grammatical
features may improve the students' rate of accuracy, as well as create a more positive learning
experience overall. The participants in this study were divided into two groups, the control and
the experimental groups, and received 90 periods, over 18 weeks, of grammatical instruction by
the same teacher. The teaching program was the same for both groups. The difference consisted in
the use of game-based practice for the experimental group, while the control group performed
traditional game-based practice only. Data were collected using the following instruments:
grammar tests and examinations, a questionnaire on motivation, a questionnaire on classroom
atmosphere, questionnaire on the type of grammar practice, a questionnaire on the grammar and
grammar instruction, focus group interviews with students, and the researcher's field notes.
The findings of this study showed that the class became entirely student-centered. The
researcher noticed several differences in student behavior. He added that for the same time in the
classroom, instead of hearing a lot of Japanese heard predominately English spoken. Also, he
observed student interacting with native English speakers.
10- Weatherford (1997)
In this study, the researcher discussed a number of issues in second language classroom
instruction, context of recent research and theory. The discussion began with review of the nature
and the role of second language grammar instruction. The researcher wanted to discover whether
the native or target language should be used in explaining or discussing grammar; whether the
deductive or inductive approach should be adopted; whether students could read basic grammar
rules on their own, or need teacher intervention; whether grammar should occupy a central or
more subordinate role in the classroom.
The results showed that a necessary component of second language instruction, not to be either
the primary focus of instruction or relegated to a status of unimportance, but viewed as a tool for
development of communicative competence.
48
4.2. The second part: Previous Studies Related to Using Jigsaw Strategy:
1-Al-Motawak (2013)
This study aimed to identify the impact of using Jigsaw strategy on the development of critical
thinking and the trend towards science in the eighth grade students in Gaza. The researcher
adopted the experimental method. The study population consisted of all eighth grade students in
basic public schools in North Gaza in the academic year (2011-2012 AD). The study sample
consisted of (158) students from Nusseibeh Bent Kaap Basic School "A" for Girls and El-Nazla
Basic School "A" for Boys. The sample was divided into two groups: An experimental group
which was taught according to jigsaw strategy and a control group which was taught according to
the conventional way. For the purpose of the study, the researcher prepared the following tools:
Critical thinking test and a trend scale towards science.
The results of the study showed that there were statistically significant differences between the
average scores of students in the experimental group test of critical thinking in science, and the
average of their peers in the control group in favor of the experimental group. The study came out
with the following recommendations:
1. Urging the teachers to follow Jigsaw strategy in teaching after being trained adequately on
this strategy, and providing the necessary resources for the success of this method, such as
the appropriate classrooms.
2. Holding training courses and workshops for science teachers to be trained on good
planning for teaching of science units using Jigsaw strategy.
2- Maden (2011)
This study aimed to compare the effects of Jigsaw I technique from the cooperative learning
methods and traditional teaching method on academic achievement and retrieval of Turkish
teacher candidates in the matter of written expression. The sample of the study consisted of (70)
students studying at the Department of Turkish teaching in the academic year of (2009-2010).
One of the classes was randomly specified as control group (N=34) to which traditional teaching
method was applied, while the other as test group to which the Jigsaw technique (N=36) was
applied. The study was predicated on “Non-equal control group pattern”. Learning styles of the
groups were determined by the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI). Data about their academic
success were collected through Success Test for Written Expression (STWE) applied as pre-test
and post-test and views of students about Jigsaw I technique were collected through a form
questioning students’ views (SVF). Then, the results obtained from them were analyzed.
It was observed as a result of statistical analyses that there was not a significant variation in
favor of the test group in terms of academic success and stability between the test group and the
49
control group in teaching the written expression subject. It was also determined according to the
results obtained from the study that the students stated positive views for the Jigsaw I technique.
3- Younis (2010)
The study aimed at examining the effectiveness of using Jigsaw strategy in teaching social
studies for the 5th grade in acquiring the geographical concepts and their attitudes towards group
work. The researcher used the experimental method in his study. The study experiment was
applied on a group of the 5th
grade students in Mosab Ibn Omair Primary School in Al-Menia
(Egypt). The study sample consisting of (60) students was randomly chosen and divided into two
groups: an experimental and control group. The researcher prepared a test of geographical
concepts implied in the unit to be taught and an attitude scale towards group work.
The study indicated that there are statistically significant differences between the average
scores of the experimental group students and that of the control group in the post-test of
geographical concepts in favor of the experimental group. It also revealed that there are
statistically significant differences between the average scores of the experimental and control
group in the post-application of the attitude scale towards group work.
4- Ula (2009)
This study aimed to determine the effect/contribution of the use of the jigsaw technique in
the teaching of punctuation marks in mother tongue education on/to the academic improvement of
students. The functionality of reading, speaking and writing skills falling within the understanding
and expression domains of learning is dependent upon the proper use of punctuation marks so as
to strengthen the meaning. Use of tone, stress, gesture and mimics which are effective in speaking
enhances the effectiveness of the speech. Just as nonverbal behaviors are instrumental to
rendering speech effective and making meaning and expression richer, the ability to
express/understand the exact feeling and thoughts which are intended to be conveyed in reading
and writing is dependent upon the use of punctuation marks by assigning them functions for
different purposes. To that end, answers have been sought to the question how punctuation marks
could be better taught in mother tongue education at primary education level.
The jigsaw teaching technique, a contemporary teaching method, has been set to work in the
teaching process. The study population consisted of a primary school in central Erzurum during
the first semester of school year (2009 – 2010). The sample consists of two branches from the 4th
grade that were selected using random sampling method, one serving as the study group, the other
as the control group. The results of the study revealed that the jigsaw technique was superior to
traditional teaching methods in the teaching of punctuation marks.
50
5- Alzu’bi (2008):
This study aimed at investigating the impact of jigsaw strategy on the King Saud University
students' reading comprehension achievement in English. It attempted to answer the following
question: What is the effect of jigsaw strategy on reading comprehension compared with
conventional method? To answer the question of the study, the researcher prepared a program
based on the jigsaw strategy for the experimental group. Fifty male students in Almajma'a College
– English department were purposefully chosen in the 2nd semester of the academic year (2007-
2008). The participants of the study consisted of two assigned sections. The experimental group
was taught according to jigsaw strategy, while the control group was taught according to the
conventional way. The two groups were found equivalent upon analyzing the data of the pre-
achievement test. The reading achievement test is the instrument of this study. To establish the
validity for the test, the method of content validity was used. The test was given to a jury of
specialists. Before carrying out the experiment, a pre-test for the reading comprehension and
writing was administrated. By the end of the experiment, the researcher administered the reading
comprehension test to both groups. ANCOVA was used to examine the significance of the
treatment on the dependent variables.
The results revealed that the achievement of reading comprehension of the students in the
experimental group significantly improved. The study also proposed a number of
recommendations and suggestions for future research.
6- Thabet (2008)
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of using two cooperative learning
techniques on developing the reading and listening comprehension skills of eight graders versus
the traditional method. The study was an experimental one. To address this nature, a pre-test/post-
test control group design was adopted. Eighty eight students enrolled in the eighth grade at Gaza
Preparatory 'A" Girls School were involved in this study. The participants of the study were
randomly assigned to either the experimental or the control group, each consisting of forty four
students, comprising one class. According to a proposed plan, the Jigsaw and learning together
techniques, based on social constructivist learning theory, were used in teaching the subjects of
the experimental group. The students in the control group learned the same material via the
traditional method. Both groups were granted similar circumstances and the periods allocated for
teaching them the same. The experiment lasted for sixteen weeks during the first term of the
academic year (2006-2007). At the end of the experiment, the students in both groups were
exposed to the reading and listening test again.
The findings of the study affirm the contribution of two techniques to enhancing the students’
reading and listening skills and support them as effective instructional methods in teaching
51
English since the students who learned via them outperformed those who learned by the
traditional method in the post-testing of reading and listening. All students achieved better than
their counterparts at similar achieving levels. In the light of the study findings, the researcher
recommended the use of cooperative learning, structured and conceptual methods in teaching
English and stressed the necessity of providing the students with as many opportunities as
possible to be interactively engaged in class activities. Without these opportunities, it is highly
unlikely that they will develop their skills and acquire the English language.
7- Al-Haila (2007)
The purpose of this study is identify the impact of cooperative learning based on Jigsaw
strategy on the achievement of the educational sciences college students in comparison with
normal cooperative learning. The researcher adopted the experimental method. The study sample
consisted of (62) male and female students. Regarding the study tools to collect the data, the
researcher used an achievement test consisting of (100) multiple-choice items which was
designed and validated.
The results of the study showed that there were statistically significant differences in the level
of the academic achievement between the two groups due to learning method in favor of the
experimental group which was taught by cooperative learning based on Jigsaw strategy. It also
showed that there were statistically significant differences in the level of the academic
achievement between both groups due to gender in favor of the experimental group, which was
taught by cooperative learning based on Jigsaw strategy.
8-Al-Ghariby (2006)
The study aimed at examining the effect of using Jigsaw strategy on the achievement of 1st
grade female students in the subject of the Holy Qur'an. The researcher used the experimental
approach. The sample of the study consisted of (76) female students who were divided into two
groups: an experimental group taught by using Jigsaw strategy and a control one which was
taught by the traditional one. The experiment lasted for one semester. For the purpose of the
study, the researcher used an evaluation questionnaire which was prepared by the Ministry of
Education in order to measure the achievement of female students in the subject of the Holy
Qur'an. The findings of the study indicated that there were statistically significant differences
between both groups, favoring the experimental one, and this is due to the method of the Jigsaw
strategy.
9- Ghina (2005):
This study aimed at investigating the question of whether Jigsaw II is more effective than
whole class instruction in improving learners' reading achievement and motivation. The
participants were (44) grade five students in a private school in Lebanon. The students were
52
randomly assigned to control and experimental conditions and a post-test only control group
design was employed. The experimental group was instructed according to the dynamics of the
Jigsaw II method whereas the control group was taught according to whole class instruction. The
treatment lasted for eight weeks. Two posttests GMRT and MRP were administrated at the
conclusion of the study. The GMRT assessed two dimensions of reading comprehension: a)
vocabulary acquisition and b) reading comprehension. The MRP assessed two dimensions of
reading motivation a) reading self-concept and b) reading value. A multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) was conducted to compare the results of both groups. The treatment with
two levels (control and experimental) was the factor, and reading comprehension, vocabulary
acquisition, reading self concept, reading value and reading motivation were the dependent
variables.
Results indicated that Jigsaw had a significant effect on students' self concepts as readers, the
value they place on reading and their reading motivation. However, no significant differences
were found in favor of Jigsaw II on the variables of vocabulary acquisition and reading
comprehension.
10- Chin (2004):
The researcher investigated the effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies in teaching
English as a foreign language to a group of college freshmen in Taiwan. (110) freshmen (34
males and 76 females) participated in this quasi-experimental study for three months. Two
cooperative learning strategies, Jigsaw and Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), were
implemented in the experimental group. In contrast, the control group was instructed using the
traditional Grammar-Translation Method. The instruments for data collection were two Tests of
English for International Communication (TOEIC). One was used as the pretest and the other as
the posttest. Statistical analysis was done with SPSS 10.00 for Windows. Multiple linear
regression and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) were used to analyze all the collected data.
The results of this study show that after statistically adjusting for pretest scores, gender,
motivation scores, and personality types. The experimental group outperformed the control group
on the TOEIC reading scale (P<0,01 )and total scores (P<0,05). After statistically adjusting for
pretest scores, gender, motivation scores and personality types, the experimental group made
more progress than the control group on the TOEIC reading scale with the p-value less than .01.
In addition, an examination of the TOEIC total results and gender by method of instruction
revealed that the presence of statistically significant differences between males and females
(P <0, 05).Male subjects of the experimental group performed better than those of the control
group (P <0 , 05). However, according to the findings of this study males performed better in a
cooperative structure than in the traditional competitive structure.
53
11-Jeanie & David (2003):
The purpose of this study was to determine if the use of jigsaw cooperative learning
approach incorporated with social studies materials presented in the form of advanced organizers
could have a positive effect on the academic achievement of elementary school students. Five
third-grade social studies classes served as the subjects of the study, four experimental and one
control. Three assessment instruments were used: the Piers-Harris Children's self-Concept Scale,
the Teacher Inferred Self- Concept Scale, and a researcher developed social studies test based on
information contained within the third-grade textbook.
Findings showed that the use of small-group instruction in the classroom positively affected
student self-concept, as well as their academic achievement. The students' self concepts increased
in the three of the experimental classes and the control class. However, a significant decline
occurred in teacher perceptions of student self concept in the control class, as opposed to the
experimental classes. Finally, the social studies test scores revealed considerable gains in all five
classes. In conclusion, the researchers believed that teachers should consider the use of
cooperative small groups with advanced organizers as a method of improving self-concepts and
social studies achievement of their students.
12-Ross, Seaborn & Wilson (2002)
The study investigated whether there was a difference in the level of academic achievement
when instructed through cooperative learning methods (Jigsaw). The participants of the study
were a convenient sample of 58 urban African American students in a public school system
located in the south-eastern of the United States. The students were 12th grade regular placement
government students with each class serving as the control and the experimental groups
respectively. Each class consisted of twenty-nine students. The study was conducted based on a
quasi-experimental design using a control group and an experimental group comparing for the
academic achievement of both groups and the experimental group's level of comfort and feeling
regarding their cooperative learning experience while controlling the variables of age, race and
socioeconomic status. The control group was instructed using the lecture discussion method and
the experimental group received instruction using the Jigsaw method of cooperative learning.
The participants were measured for academic achievement using the same post-test evaluation
instrument. Both groups were observed for ninety-six minutes during their regular instructional
time over a period of five days. The data sources for the study included observation of students'
behavior, students' surveys, and students’ scores and teacher interview. The findings of the study
indicated that there were no significant differences in the level of the academic achievement
between the students taught using cooperative learning and students taught using lecture-
discussion method.
54
13-Holliday (2002 a)
This study aimed to contribute to the literature on cooperative learning, especially jigsaw in
secondary schools. Three experiments were conducted. The subjects in the three experiments
were of (100) ninth grade geography students at an inner city school in the United States. The text
used in each study was the same throughout. Three home teams were divided one high achiever,
two middle achievers and one low achiever. The students were mixed heterogeneously by gender
and race. A pre and post test was administered to the subjects, as well as conducting several
student and teacher interviews prior to, during and after the study. A post survey was
administered to the students to measure their reaction to the study. An attitudinal survey was used
to measure the students' like or dislike for cooperative learning as a teaching method. The
majority of the students felt they learnt more and were more attentive in cooperative learning than
in their classes taught by traditional methods.
It was found that students were more attentive in class and absenteeism declined. The students’
attitudes towards each other improved. Students' academic achievement which is a major concern
for teachers was addressed. The pre-study failure percentage was about 30% of the ninth graders.
After the implementation of the Jigsaw program, the fail rate dropped to less than 10%. The
control group classes, taught by usual method, maintained their usual rate of about 30%. Higher
achievers' grades were not affected by the lower achieving students' grades, but the scores of
lower achieving students did rise because of cooperative learning strategy.
14-Holliday (2002 b)
The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis: Can using cooperative learning improve
the academic achievement of Inner City Schools Students? The school was in Indiana with a
population of (503) students. Two seventh-grade classes taught by an African American male
teacher served as a treatment group of twenty at risk students and one-non treatment group of
twenty four high achievers. Both groups took the same pretest on a unit about India. The
treatment group was taught using cooperative learning with a form of Jigsaw. They were given
expert sheets with which they used to learn the material on India and then were asked to teach
their peers. Students in the expert groups answered questions concerning the unit by using the
internet, the textbook, film, literature and maps. A quiz was given to each group to assure that the
information they collected was accurate. Once they were all in agreement with the answers,
students left the expert groups to return to their home teams. Students taught their respective
expert sheets to their teammates. This second teaching of teammates was followed by a second
quiz to assure accuracy again. These quizzes were followed by a whole class review via a quiz
bowl where the teams were matched against each other to via for bonus points. The last element
was the individual assessment administered to both groups. A team average was calculated
55
weekly. Achievement results indicated that cooperative learning strategies, (Jigsaw), worked well
with the group of at-risk students. The approach acknowledged the way those students want to
learn.
15- Meteetum (2001):
The researcher conducted a case study research on cooperative learning by using the jigsaw
technique with nine second-year English major students at Naresuan University. The purposes of
the study were to investigate students’ use of linguistic features in their discourse while being
involved in cooperative structures, to examine the improvement in students’ grammar and
competence, to investigate the quality of language input, output, and context in cooperative
learning, and to study to what extent the students had positive and negative attitudes towards the
cooperative learning method. The design of the study was based on a qualitative approach.
Research data came from four instruments including a grammar test, a structured field
observation, a semi structured interview and a reflective journal.
The results showed that there were 39 language functions and 3 social language functions used
in learning sessions. All subjects had higher academic and oral achievement test scores after
engaging in this learning. Moreover, the cooperative language learning also generated functional
and communicative, frequent, and redundant input. The last finding revealed that nearly all
subjects had positive attitudes towards cooperative learning in terms of oral competence,
academic achievement, social skills, personal development, collaborative skills, thinking skills,
and learning atmosphere.
16- Ali (2000):
This study was conducted to find out the effect of using the Jigsaw reading techniques on the
EFL prospective teacher's reading anxiety and comprehension. Seventy- two students enrolled in
the third year English Department, Faculty of Education, Cairo University in the academic year
(1999-2000) were involved in the study. The subjects were randomly assigned to either the
experiment or control groups: each consisting of thirty-six students. Both groups were granted
similar circumstances of practice. The experimental group was instructed to read sixteen passages
using the Jigsaw technique. The control group read the same passage individually. The time
allocated for reading for both groups was the same. The subjects of both groups were exposed to
the same questions after reading each passage for checking comprehension. The experiment lasted
for two months. The subjects of reading anxiety were pre and post-tested using a foreign language
reading anxiety scale designed by the researcher. Their comprehension reading was also pre and
post-tested using TOFEL reading comprehension section. A comparison of the means of scores
obtained by the experimental group subjects in the pre and post testing of reading anxiety
indicated a significant difference between the pre and post testing favoring post testing. A
56
comparison of the means of scores obtained by subjects of the experimental and control group in
the post testing of reading anxiety indicated a significant difference favoring the experimental
group. A comparison of the mean of scores obtained by the experimental group subjects in the pre
and post testing of reading comprehension indicated a significant difference favoring post testing.
A comparison of the means of scores of the subjects of the experimental and control group in the
post testing of reading comprehension indicated a significant difference favoring the experimental
group.
The findings of the study affirm the contribution of the Jigsaw reading techniques to reducing
the reading anxiety and improving reading comprehension. The advantages of cooperative
learning, the technique provided, were behind that contribution. Students, through working
together on reading texts, getting feedback from each other, and exchanging experiences
throughout the text had a wide variety of learning opportunities in a relaxed atmosphere. Ali
recommended the use of Jigsaw reading technique in preparatory and secondary schools.
4.3. Commentary on the previous studies:
Having reviewed the first part studies, the researcher considerably enriched his background of
general approaches in teaching English grammar. Also, these studies confirmed how grammar
teaching represents a major matter in learning English language. In Palestine, no similar research
in this regard has been conducted to the researcher’s best knowledge. Thus, it is critical to
investigate effective methods for learning grammar among Palestinian EFL learners to take a step
into developing our teaching methods in the field of teaching and learning English.
Moreover, the researcher believes that it is a must to conduct a study in this context to reveal
more about cooperative learning techniques like Jigsaw strategy. Grammar is considered an
essential part of the language learning process, but opinions vary on the effective ways of
teaching it. The study is thought to take a new dimension in dealing with grammar methods and
approaches. Finally, the researcher asserts that this study is worth being conducted and
investigated to prove the importance of using Jigsaw strategy as one of the cooperative learning
techniques in teaching or learning English grammar.
The studies of the second part helped the researcher realize that implementation of Jigsaw
strategy brings about good results in different dimensions. This is clear not only in the students'
achievement in and understanding of different school subjects, but also in its positive effects on
the teaching and learning process.
Some of the studies were conducted in the Middle East region, while others were conducted in
other countries. However, there was no study in Gaza that tackled the effectiveness of Jigsaw
strategy in learning grammar among primary, preparatory or secondary students.
57
It is very important to admit that the researcher got a great benefit from reviewing the related
studies as they helped him in:
Choosing and designing the tools of the study and the appropriate method.
Choosing the proper treatments for the study.
Forming the outlines of the theoretical framework.
Justifying, explaining and discussing the study results.
4.4. Analysis of the previous studies:
There are similarities and differences between this study and the previous ones in the
following aspects.
4.4.1. The subjects of the studies and their purpose:
Most of the previous studies focused on students' academic achievement in English language
skills and other school subjects in different countries in the world. Other studies like those of Chin
(2004) focused on students' motivation and the study of Ali (2001) focused on the EFL
prospective teacher's reading anxiety and comprehension and some studies like that of Al-
Motawak (2013) investigated the development of critical thinking and the trend towards science.
In this study, the researcher focused on using Jigsaw strategy in teaching /learning grammar
for the tenth graders cooperatively.
4.4.2. Methodology:
Nearly all of the previous studies used the experimental approach. Some studies like those of
Chin (2004) and Ross, Seaborn and Wilson (2002) were quasi-experimental studies, but studies
like that of Meteetum (2001) was based on a qualitative approach.
4.4.3. Tools:
The tools used in the previous studies were different from one to another in the number and
type of tools. For example, Al-Motawak (2013) used a trend scale and Ali (2001) used an anxiety
scale whereas Jeanie and David (2003) used three assessment instruments: the Piers-Harris
Children's self-Concept Scale, and the Teacher Inferred Self- Concept Scale. Some of the studies
like that of Al-Ghariby (2006) used an evaluation questionnaire, but the rest of the studies
prepared an achievement test (pre-post), and the study of Maden (2011) took also the views of
the students to test the change in the level of the students' achievement.
In this study, the researcher used an achievement pre and post test and an observation card.
4.4.4. Population and sample:
The population and sample of the previous studies were different from one to another in
number, gender and age. Al-Motawak (2013) implemented his study on a sample of (158) eighth
graders from Nusseibeh Bent Kaap Basic School "A" for Girls and El-Nazla Basic School "A" for
Boys, while Maden (2011) conducted the study on a sample of (70) students studying at the
58
Department of Turkish teaching. Alzu’bi (2008) carried out his study on a sample of (50) male
students in Almajma'a College – English department in the 2nd semester.
Thabet (2008) implemented his study on a sample of eighty eight students enrolled in the
eighth grade at Gaza Preparatory 'A" Girls School. Al-Ghariby (2006) carried her study on a
sample of (76) 1st grade female students. Ross, Seaborn and Wilson (2002) conducted the study
on a sample of (58) urban African American 12th
grade students in a public school system. Ali
(2001) conducted his study on a sample of seventy-two students enrolled in the third year English
Department, Faculty of Education, whereas Meteetum (2001) carried out a case study on a sample
of nine second-year English major students at Naresuan University.
Holliday (2002a) did his study on a sample of (100) ninth grade students at an inner city
school in the United States, while Holliday (2002 b) implemented the study on a sample of (44) of
7th grade classes. In this study, the researcher applied his study on (72) male students from Beit
Lahia Basic School "A" for Boys.
4.4.5. Place:
All the previous studies were applied in different countries. For example Jeanie and David
(2003), Ross, Seaborn and Wilson (2002), Holliday (2002 a) and Holliday (2002 b) were
conducted in the USA, whereas that of Chin (2004) was implemented in Taiwan. Some of the
studies like those of Al-Motawak (2013) and Thabet (2008) were applied in Gaza. Two studies
like Maden (2011) and Ula (2010) were applied in Turkey, while the studies of Younis (2010) and
Ali (2001) were conducted in Egypt. This current study took place in Gaza.
4.4.6. Time:
All the previous studies took place in the previous years. Some of them took place in the recent
years as Al-Motawak (2013), Maden (2011), Ula (2010), Younis (2010), Alzu’bi (2008), Thabet
(2008), Al-Haila (2007), Al-Ghariby(2006), Chin (2004) and Jeanie and David (2003). Other
studies took place a long time ago as Ross, Seaborn and Wilson (2002), Holliday (2002 a),
Holliday (2002 b), Meteetum (2001) and Ali (2001).
This study was implemented in the second term of the scholastic year (2013-2014).
4.4.7. Statistical treatment:
The Statistical treatments used in the previous studies to measure the results were varied and
different. Most of them used T-test, Man Whitney, ANCOVA, One Way Annova and Size Effect
and other Statistical measurements. In this study, the researcher utilized T-test, Means, Standard
Deviations, Spearman Correlation, Alpha Cronbach Technique, Split-half Technique and SPSS
Package for social science.
59
4.4.8. Findings:
All the studies proved the effectiveness of the Jigsaw strategy. They are consistent with the
body of the research conducted in this domain. The studies also proved that cooperative learning
had a remarkably positive effect on students' achievement and attitudes towards English learning.
Almost all the previous studies highlighted the importance of using Jigsaw method in teaching
and learning English and other school subjects.
4.5. Summary:
This chapter consisted of two sections: literature review and previous studies.
Literature review included two important scopes:
The first scope was a detailed idea about grammar: definitions, the uses, types, teaching
grammar and its importance, that's to help teachers to know the specifics about English
grammar.
The second scope discussed the types of social interdependence, the elements of cooperative
learning activities. It also discussed the teacher's role in cooperative learning activities as well
as the methods and benefits of cooperative learning.
The third scope was about Jigsaw as a strategy which can be used in education, the scope
included: different definitions, the goals, its importance, the steps of the strategy, teacher's
and student's role in Jigsaw strategy.
Previous studies includes two scopes:
Previous studies related to using Jigsaw strategy
Previous studies related to teaching and learning grammar
The next chapter will tackle the methodology of the study.
60
Chapter III
Methodology
61
Chapter III
The Methodology
This chapter contains the procedures followed throughout the study. It also introduces a
complete description of the methodology of the study, the population, the sample, the
instrumentation, the pilot study, a description of Jigsaw strategy used in the study and the research
design. Moreover, it introduces the statistical treatment of the study findings.
1. The research design:
The researcher adopted the experimental approach due to the nature of the research which aimed
at finding the effectiveness of Jigsaw strategy on the learning of grammar for the tenth grade .To
achieve the aim of this study , two groups were chosen , an experimental group and a control one.
The Jigsaw strategy was used in teaching the members of the experimental group, while the
traditional method was used with the control group members.
2. The Sample of the study:
The researcher used a purposive sample from Bait Lahia Basic School "A" for Boys, where the
researcher works as a teacher of English. The sample of the study consisted of (72) male students.
The researcher chose two classes of four ones which he was teaching: one class was as an
experimental group consisting of (36) students and the second one was as a control group
consisting of (36) students. The researcher himself administrated the experiment. Table (3.1) below
shows the distribution of the sample.
Table (3.1)
The distribution of the sample according to the groups
Group Experimental Control
Male 36 36
The participants were equivalent in their general achievement in accordance with the
statistical treatment of their results in the final exam of the school year (2012-2013). Furthermore,
they were equivalent in their English language achievement in accordance with the statistical
treatment of their results in the first term exam of the school year (2013-2014). Age variable of
the sample was also controlled before the experimental application.
3. The variables of the study:
The study independent variables included the teaching methods which included the jigsaw
strategy and the traditional method. They also included the students' general ability of English
language (i.e. high achievers and low achievers). However, the dependent variable was
represented by the students' learning of English grammar.
62
4. The instrumentation:
To achieve the aims of the study, the researcher used an achievement test as a main tool of
the study. Following is more elaboration on this instrument.
4.1. Achievement test:
An achievement test prepared by the researcher to measure the participants’ achievement
was used as a pre-test applied before the experiment and as a post-test applied after the experiment
(See Appendix 2).
4.1.1. The general aims of the test:
The test aimed at measuring the effect of using Jigsaw strategy on learning English
grammar among tenth grades. It was designed and built in accordance with the criteria of the test
specifications illustrated in Table (3.2).
Table (3.2)
Table of specifications
Marks
Analysis
Q4 (D)
25%
Application
Q3 (C)
25 %
Comprehension
Q2 (B)
25 %
Knowledge
Q1 (A)
25 %
Bloom level
Skill weight
8 Ms 2 items 2 items 2 items 2 items Present tenses active
25 %
8 Ms 2 items 2 items 2 items 2 items Present tenses passive
25 %
8 Ms 2 items 2 items 2 items 2 items Past tenses active
25 %
8Ms 2 items 2 items 2 items 2 items Past tenses passive
25 %
32 Ms 8 items 8 items 8 items 8 items
Total
100%
63
4.1.2. Description of the test items:
The total number of the achievement test questions was (4) with (32) items. Each question
consisted of (8) items and every item had one mark. Therefore, the total mark given to the test
was (32).
The eight grammar lessons tested were as follows: Present simple active, present perfect
active, present simple passive, present perfect passive, past simple active, past continuous active,
past simple passive and past continuous passive.
Question (1) consisted of eight multiple-choice questions: Item A1 examining present simple
active; item A3 examining present perfect active; Item A4 examining present simple passive; item
A5 examining present perfect passive; item A7 examining past simple active; item A6 examining
past continuous active; item A2 examining past simple passive and item A8 examining past
continuous passive.
Question (2) consisted of eight sentences. In each one, there was a grammar mistake and
the students had to correct it.: Item B8 examining present simple active; item B2 examining
present perfect active; Item B3 examining present simple passive; item B6 examining present
perfect passive; item B5 examining past simple active; item B4 examining past continuous active;
item B1 examining past simple passive and item B7 examining past continuous passive.
Question (3) consisted of eight sentences. The students had to do each one as required
between brackets. Item C4 examining present simple active; item C2 examining present perfect
active; Item C7 examining present simple passive; item C8 examining present perfect passive;
item C1 examining past simple active; item C6 examining past continuous active; item C5
examining past simple passive and item C3 examining past continuous passive.
Question (4) consisted of eight sentences. The students had to analyze each one correctly:
Item D8 examining present simple active; item D6 examining present perfect active; Item D2
examining present simple passive; item D1 examining present perfect passive; item D4 examining
past simple active; item D3 examining past continuous active; item D7 examining past simple
passive and item D5 examining past continuous passive.
4.1.3. The items of the test:
The items of the test fell into four domains:
A- Knowledge:
The knowledge domain included eight items that measured students’ knowledge and the
students had to read the sentences and to choose one of the correct answers (a, b or c).
B- Comprehension:
The comprehension domain included eight items that measure students’ comprehension.
Students had to correct the underlined words if necessary.
64
C- Application:
The application domain included eight items that measure students’ comprehension and
understanding. Students had to use the words between brackets and to form a new sentence.
D- Analysis:
The analysis domain included eight items that measured students’ knowledge and
comprehension. Students had to analyze the sentences to demonstrate their understanding.
4.1.4. The pilot study:
The test was conducted (as a pilot test) on 38 male students who had similar characteristics of
the target, control and experimental. These 38 male students studied at the same school, Bait Lahia
Basic School "A" for Boys in Gaza and were from the same cultural and environmental
background. The results were recorded and statistically analyzed to measure the test validity and
reliability. The items of the test were modified in the light of the statistical results.
4.1.5. The validity of the test:
Al Agha (2004) states that a valid test is the test that measures what it is designed to measure.
The researcher used the referee validity and the internal consistency validity in order to measure the
validity of the test .
(A) The referee validity:
The test was introduced to a jury of specialists in English language and methodology in Gaza
universities, Ministry of Education and experienced supervisors and teachers in UNRWA and
Governmental schools. The items of the test were modified in the light of their recommendations.
(B) The internal consistency validity:
Al Agha (2004) indicates that the internal consistency validity indicates the correlation of the
degree of each item with the total degree of the test. It also indicates the correlation of the average
of each scope with the total degree. This validity was calculated by using Pearson Formula.
According to tables (3.3), (3.4), (3.5) and (3.6) the coefficient correlation of each item
within its domain was significant at levels (0.01) and (0.05). Table (3.7) shows the correlation
coefficient of each domain with the whole test. According to the following tables, it can be
concluded that the test is highly consistent and valid as a tool for the study.
65
Table (3.3)
Correlation coefficient of knowledge items
Items Pearson
correlation Sig. level
A1 0.753 sig. at 0.01
A2 0.437 sig. at 0.01
A3 0.730 sig. at 0.01
A4 0.477 sig. at 0.01
A5 0.708 sig. at 0.01
A6 0.572 sig. at 0.01
A7 0.412 sig. at 0.01
A8 0.660 sig. at 0.01
r table value at df (38) and sig. level (0.05) = 0.304
r table value at df (38) and sig. level (0.01) = 0.393
Table (3.4)
Correlation coefficient of comprehension items
Items Pearson
correlation Sig. level
B1 0.797 sig. at 0.01
B2 0.577 sig. at 0.01
B3 0.735 sig. at 0.01
B4 0.675 sig. at 0.01
B5 0.541 sig. at 0.01
B6 0.493 sig. at 0.01
B7 0.747 sig. at 0.01
B8 0.454 sig. at 0.01
r table value at df (38) and sig. level (0.05) = 0.304
r table value at df (38) and sig. level (0.01) = 0.393
66
Table (3.5)
Correlation coefficient of application items
Items Pearson
correlation Sig. level
C1 0.751 sig. at 0.01
C2 0.629 sig. at 0.01
C3 0.703 sig. at 0.01
C4 0.719 sig. at 0.01
C5 0.615 sig. at 0.01
C6 0.760 sig. at 0.01
C7 0.792 sig. at 0.01
C8 0.698 sig. at 0.01
r table value at df (38) and sig. level (0.05) = 0.304
r table value at df (38) and sig. level (0.01) = 0.393
Table (3.6)
Correlation coefficient of analysis items
Items Pearson
correlation Sig. level
D1 0.876 sig. at 0.01
D2 0.758 sig. at 0.01
D3 0.865 sig. at 0.01
D4 0.788 sig. at 0.01
D5 0.815 sig. at 0.01
D6 0.776 sig. at 0.01
D7 0.841 sig. at 0.01
D8 0.817 sig. at 0.01
r table value at df (38) and sig. level (0.05) = 0.304
r table value at df (38) and sig. level (0.01) = 0.393
67
Table (3.7)
Correlation coefficient of the scopes with the test
Domain
Total Knowledge Understanding Application Analysis
Knowledge 0.747 1
Comprehension 0.835 0.434 1
Application 0.895 0.499 0.873 1
Analysis 0.977 0.689 0.753 0.829 1
r table value at df (38) and sig. level (0.05) = 0.304
r table value at df (38) and sig. level (0.01) = 0.393
4.1.6. Reliability of the test:
The test is reliable when it gives the same results if it is reapplied in the same conditions.
The reliability of the test was measured by Kuder-Richardson (K-R20) and the Spilt-half
technique.
According to tables (3.8) and (3.9), the test proved to be reliable. Richardson (K-R20)
coefficient is (0.938) and the Spilt- half coefficient is (0.924)
Table (3.8)
(K_R21) Coefficients for the Test Domains
(K_R20)
Coefficient TOTAL DOMAIN
0.739 8 Knowledge
0.747 8 Comprehension
0.849 8 Applying
0.928 8 Analyzing
0.938 32 Total
68
Table (3.9)
Reliability coefficient by Spilt –half Technique
DOMAIN TOTAL Reliability
coefficient
Knowledge 8 0.761
Comprehension 8 0.728
Application 8 0.827
Analysis 8 0.919
Total 32 0.924
4.1.7. The experimentation of the test:
In fact, in order to examine the suitability and appropriateness of the test in terms of time,
difficulty and discrimination coefficient, the test was conducted (as a pilot test) on 38 male
students who had similar characteristics of the target, control and experimental. These 38 male
students studied at the same school, Bait Lahia Basic School "A" for Boys in Gaza and were from
the same cultural and environmental background. The researcher used the following equation to
compute the test time
Test time =
After applying the equation on the pilot study results, the researcher found that the time needed
for the pre-test to be applied was 50 minutes.
4.1.7.1. Difficulty Coefficient:
Difficulty Coefficient is measured by finding out the percentage of the wrong answers
of each item made by the students. Difficulty Coefficient of each item was calculated
according to the following formula:
Difficulty Coefficient =
The time needed for the 1st student + The time needed for the last student
2
No. of the students who gave wrong answers X 100
The total number of the students
69
Table (3.10) shows the difficulty coefficient for each items of the test:
Table (3.10)
Difficulty coefficient for each items of the test
Table (3.10) shows that the difficulty coefficient varied between (0.27–0.73) with a
total average of (0.46); thus all items were acceptable or in the normal limit of difficulties
according to the viewpoint of assessment and evaluation specialists.
4.1.7.2. Discrimination coefficient:
Discrimination coefficient was calculated according to the following formula to
differentiate between the high achievers and the low achievers. Table (3.11) shows the
discrimination coefficient for each test item:
No. Difficulty
coefficient No.
Difficulty
coefficient
1 0.60 17 0.36
2 0.64 18 0.41
3 0.55 19 0.32
4 0.68 20 0.32
5 0.45 21 0.32
6 0.55 22 0.50
7 0.73 23 0.41
8 0.59 24 0.27
9 0.27 25 0.45
10 0.36 26 0.52
11 0.50 27 0.47
12 0.45 28 0.52
13 0.50 29 0.52
14 0.36 30 0.44
15 0.32 31 0.46
16 0.41 32 0.45
Total 0.46
Discrimination Coefficient =
No. of the students who have the
correct answer from the high
achievers -
No. of the students who have
the correct answer from the
low achievers
No. of high achievers students No. of low achievers students
70
Table (3.11)
Discrimination coefficient for each test item
No. Discrimination
coefficient No.
Discrimination
coefficient
1 0.64 17 0.55
2 0.36 18 0.64
3 0.55 19 0.45
4 0.27 20 0.64
5 0.55 21 0.45
6 0.73 22 0.64
7 0.55 23 0.45
8 0.64 24 0.55
9 0.55 25 0.67
10 0.55 26 0.67
11 0.64 27 0.64
12 0.36 28 0.67
13 0.64 29 0.67
14 0.36 30 0.39
15 0.64 31 0.56
16 0.64 32 0.55
Total 0.56
Table (3.11) shows that the discrimination coefficient varied between (0.27– 0.73) with
a total average of (0.56); thus all items are acceptable or in the normal limit of difficulties
according to the viewpoint of assessment and evaluation specialists. This means that each of the
items is acceptable or in the normal limit of discrimination according to the viewpoint of
assessment and evaluation specialists.
4.1.8. Description of the students:
The students participating in the experiment were all in grade ten, aged 15. Therefore, all
of them had a 9-year experience of learning English. Additionally, the majority was from a very
similar cultural, social and economical background.
4.1.9. Controlling the variables
To ensure the results accuracy and avoid any marginal interference, the researcher tried to
control some variables before the study.
71
4.1.9.1. The Teacher Variable:
Both groups were taught by the same teacher, the researcher. This was to prevent any other
factors related to the difference in the teachers from affecting the results.
4.1.9.2. Time Variable:
Both groups received a five-week instruction. The control group was taught traditionally
while the experimental group was taught through using Jigsaw strategy.
4.1.9.3. Age variable:
The researcher recorded the students’ ages from their school files at the beginning of the
school year (2013-2014).
4.1.9.4. English and general achievement variable:
T-test & Mann Whitney U test were used to measure the statistical differences between
the groups due to their English and general achievement. The participants' results in the first
term test of the school year (2013-2014) were recorded and analyzed.
A: The two groups:
Table (3.12)
T-test results of controlling general achievement variable
Domain Group N Mean Std.
Deviation t
Sig.
value
sig.
level
English
achievement
experimental 36 20.500 11.994 0.202
0.840
not sig.
Control 36 19.972 10.078
“t” table value at (70) d f. at (0.05) sig. level equal 1.99
“t” table value at (70) d f. at (0.01) sig. level equal 2.64
72
b: The high and low achievers:
Table (3.13)
Mann-Whitney Test results of controlling English achievement variable
Scope Groups N Mean
Rank
Sum of
Ranks
Mann-
Whitne
y U
Z Sig.
value
Sig.
level
General
achievement
high achievers in
experimental 10 11.850 118.500
36.500
1.022
0.307
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 9.150 91.500
General
achievement
low achievers in
experimental 10 9.550 95.500
40.500
0.734
0.463
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 11.450 114.500
Table (3.13) shows that there were no statistically significant differences at (0.05) between
the experimental and the control participants due to the English achievement variable.
4.1.9.5. Previous learning English variable:
To make sure that the sample participants were equivalent in their previous English
language achievement, the researcher applied the pre-achievement test. The results of the subjects
were recorded and statistically analyzed using T-test. Table (3.14) shows the mean and the
standard deviation of each group in English previous learning.
A: The two groups:
A/1) Bloom levels:
Table (3-14)
T. test results of controlling previous learning in English variable
Domain Group N Mean Std. t Sig.
value
sig.
level
Knowledge experimental 36 3.528 1.558 1.534
0.130
not sig.
Control 36 3.028 1.183
Comprehension experimental 36 0.861 1.099 0.112
0.911
not sig.
Control 36 0.833 1.000
Application experimental 36 0.889 1.166 0.748
0.457
not sig.
Control 36 0.694 1.037
Analysis experimental 36 6.889 4.207 0.446
0.657
not sig.
Control 36 6.472 3.707
Total experimental 36 15.361 6.439 0.798
0.428
not sig.
Control 36 11.888 5.644
“t” table value at (70) d f. at (0.05) sig. level equal 1.99
“t” table value at (70) d f. at (0.01) sig. level equal 2.64
73
A/2) Content of the test:
Table (3-15)
T. test results of controlling previous learning in English variable
Domain Group N Mean Std. t Sig.
value
sig.
level
Present
simple active
experimental 36 1.417 1.180 0.290
0.772
not sig.
Control 36 1.500 1.254
Present
perfect active
experimental 36 1.222 1.045 0.808
0.422
not sig.
Control 36 1.417 0.996
Present
simple passive
experimental 36 1.583 0.806 1.150
0.254
not sig.
Control 36 1.361 0.833
Present
perfect
passive
experimental 36 1.306 0.889 1.111
0.270
not sig.
Control 36 1.083 0.806
Past simple
active
experimental 36 2.167 1.363 0.947
0.347
not sig.
Control 36 1.861 1.376
Past
continuous
active
experimental 36 1.889 1.563 0.314
0.754
not sig.
Control 36 1.778 1.436
Past simple
passive
experimental 36 1.611 1.178 1.259
0.212
not sig.
Control 36 1.306 0.856
Past
continuous
passive
experimental 36 0.944 1.013 1.009
0.316
not sig.
Control 36 0.722 0.849
SUM experimental 36 15.361 6.439 0.798
0.428
not sig.
Control 36 11.888 5.644
“t” table value at (70) d f. at (0.05) sig. level equal 1.99
“t” table value at (70) d f. at (0.01) sig. level equal 2.64
74
B: The high and low achievers:
B/1) Bloom levels:
Table (3.16)
Mann-Whitney Test results of controlling previous learning in English variable
Domain Groups N Mean
Rank
Sum of
Ranks
Mann-
Whitney U Z
Sig.
value
Sig.
level
Knowledge
high achievers in
experimental 10 12.650 126.500 28.500
1.655
0.098
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 8.350 83.500
low achievers in
experimental 10 9.300 93.000 38.000
0.935
0.350
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 11.700 117.000
Comprehension
high achievers in
experimental 10 12.850 128.500 26.500
1.893
0.058
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 8.150 81.500
low achievers in
experimental 10 8.400 84.000 29.000
1.757
0.079
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 12.600 126.000
Application
high achievers in
experimental 10 12.450 124.500 30.500
1.583
0.113
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 8.550 85.500
low achievers in
experimental 10 9.200 92.000 37.000
1.215
0.224
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 11.800 118.000
Analysis
high achievers in
experimental 10 11.300 113.000 42.000
0.614
0.539
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 9.700 97.000
low achievers in
experimental 10 11.250 112.500 42.500
0.571
0.568
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 9.750 97.500
SUM
high achievers in
experimental 10 12.650 126.500 28.500
1.630
0.103
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 8.350 83.500
low achievers in
experimental 10 9.950 99.500 44.500
-
0.417
0.677
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 11.050 110.500
75
B/2) Content of the test:
Table (3.17)
Mann-Whitney Test results of controlling previous learning in English variable
Domain Groups N Mean
Rank
Sum of
Ranks
Mann
Whitney U Z
Sig.
value
Sig.
level
Present simple
active
high achievers in
experimental 10 11.750 117.500 37.500
0.986
0.324
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 9.250 92.500
low achievers in
experimental 10 8.250 82.500
27.500
1.786
0.074
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 12.750 127.500
Present
perfect active
high achievers in
experimental 10 10.700 107.000 48.000
0.157
0.875
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 10.300 103.000
low achievers in
experimental 10 9.200 92.000
37.000
1.030
0.303
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 11.800 118.000
Present simple
passive
high achievers in
experimental 10 12.600 126.000 29.000
1.730
0.084
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 8.400 84.000
low achievers in
experimental 10 10.800 108.000
47.000
0.247
0.805
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 10.200 102.000
Present
perfect passive
high achievers in
experimental 10 11.500 115.000 40.000
0.803
0.422
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 9.500 95.000
low achievers in
experimental 10 11.400 114.000
41.000
0.736
0.461
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 9.600 96.000
Past simple
active
high achievers in
experimental 10 12.800 128.000 27.000
1.842
0.065
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 8.200 82.000
low achievers in
experimental 10 10.350 103.500
48.500
0.116
0.908
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 10.650 106.500
76
Domain Groups N Mean
Rank
Sum of
Ranks
Mann
Whitney U Z
Sig.
value
Sig.
level
Past
continuous
active
high achievers in
experimental 10 11.950 119.500 35.500
1.126
0.260
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 9.050 90.500
low achievers in
experimental 10 9.150 91.500
36.500
1.047
0.295
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 11.850 118.500
Past simple
passive
high achievers in
experimental 10 12.750 127.500 27.500
1.820
0.069
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 8.250 82.500
low achievers in
experimental 10 10.000 100.000
45.000
0.398
0.690
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 11.000 110.000
Past
continuous
passive
high achievers in
experimental 10 11.400 114.000 41.000
0.734
0.463
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 9.600 96.000
low achievers in
experimental 10 12.000 120.000
35.000
1.264
0.206
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 9.000 90.000
SUM
high achievers in
experimental 10 12.650 126.500 28.500
1.630
0.103
not
sig. high achievers in
control 10 8.350 83.500
low achievers in
experimental 10 9.950 99.500
44.500
0.417
0.677
not
sig.
low achievers in
control 10 11.050 110.500
Table (3-17) shows that there were no statistical differences at (0.05) between the experimental
and the control subjects due to the pre-test of English variable.
77
5. The statistical analysis:
- The data were collected and computed by using (SPSS) Statistical Package for Social
Science, Spearman correlation, Alpha Cronbach Technique and Spilt –half Technique
were used to confirm the test validity and reliability.
- On the other hand, T-test was used to measure the statistical differences in means between
the experimental and the control groups due to the teaching method.
- Mann-Whitney Test used to measure the statistical differences in mean rank between the
low and high achievers in the experimental and control groups.
- Eta square was used to calculate the effect size.
6. Procedures of the study:
The study is progressing according to the following steps:
1. Reviewing literature and previous studies help the researcher to benefit from their
procedures, tools, results and recommendations.
2. Preparing theoretical framework through reviewing the literature concerned.
3. Deciding on the instrument of the study: An achievement test. (See Appendix 2)
4. Identifying the grammar to be learnt in the experiment appropriate for the tenth graders.
5. Designing a checklist of the grammar to be learnt in the experiment and introducing it to
specialists, including professors of teaching methodology, supervisors of English language
and old experienced teachers who have long experience in teaching tenth graders to decide
the suitability of these skills to tenth graders.(See Limitations of the study, page 7)
6. Preparing table of specifications and introducing it to specialists, including professors of
teaching methodology, supervisor of English language and old experienced teachers who
have long experience and specialists in evaluation and measurement.
7. Preparing the pre-post test ,worksheets and quizzes and also introducing them to specialists,
including professors of teaching methodology, supervisor of English language and old
experienced teachers who have long experience. (See Appendix 2&9)
8. Obtaining a permission from the Islamic University of Gaza, the Ministry of Education and
North-Gaza Directorate to help the researcher conduct the study (See Appendix 15,16&17).
9. Designing an observation card and a reflection log card ,then introducing them to specialists,
including professors of teaching methodology, supervisor of English language and old
experienced teachers who have long experience. (See Appendix 4 &6)
10. Checking the validity and the reliability of the test.
11. Checking the validity and the reliability of the observation card and the reflection log.
12. Choosing the sample of the study that includes the experimental group and the control one.
13. Applying the pre-test on the sample of the study and computing the results.
78
14. Dividing the experimental group consisting of 36 male students into 6 equal heterogeneous
groups (home groups), then assigning one leader for each one who has the ability to teach,
follow and lead his group and these 6 leaders work together in one group which is called
experts' group. (See Appendix 8)
15. Implementing the experiment using Jigsaw strategy according to the plan on the experimental
group while the control one was taught by the traditional one. (See Appendix 12)
16. Applying the post-test on the sample of the study and computing the results.
17. Observing the experimental group through the researcher and some other colleagues and
recording their notes on an observation card.(See Appendix 4)
18. Asking the experimental group students ,at the end of the experiment, to give their opinions
about the strategy on a reflection log card distributed to them. .(See Appendix 6)
19. Analyzing the collected data and giving interpretations.
20. Presenting the suggestion and giving recommendations in the light of study findings.
7.Summary :
This chapter presented the procedures followed throughout the study. It also introduced a
complete description of the methodology of the study, the population, the sample, the
instrumentation, the pilot study, a description of jigsaw strategy used in the study and the research
design. Moreover, it introduced the statistical treatment of the study findings.
79
Chapter IV
Results & Data Analysis
80
Chapter IV
Results & Data Analysis
This chapter presents the findings of the study regarding the research hypotheses. These
findings resulted from the analysis process which involved using T-test and Mann-Whitney Test
in addition to means, standard deviations, "t" value, and Eta square "η2". Tables followed by
interpretations were also used to tabulate the data analysis.
1. Data analysis
Data analysis will be presented in relation to the study different hypotheses.
1.1. Data analysis of the first hypothesis findings:
The first hypothesis of the current study was stated as follows: There are no statistically
significant differences at (α ≤ 0.05) level between learning English grammar by using Jigsaw
strategy in the mean scores of the experimental group and learning English grammar by the
traditional method in the scores mean of the control one.
To test this hypothesis, the means and standard deviations of the experimental and the
control groups' results on the post- achievement grammar test were computed. The researcher
used Independent Samples T-test to measure the significant statistical differences between the
experimental and control groups in the post grammar test. Table (4.1) shows the results of
differences between the results of the experimental and the control groups concerning the four
different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Table (4-1)
T. test results of differences between experimental and control groups in Bloom levels
Domain Group N Mean Std.
Deviation t
Sig.
value
sig.
level
Knowledge
experimental 36 6.389 1.248 5.142
0.000
sig. at
0.01 Control 36 4.917 1.180
Comprehension
experimental 36 3.556 2.311 4.758
0.000
sig. at
0.01
Control 36 1.333 1.586
Application
experimental 36 3.750 2.511 4.466
0.000
sig. at
0.01
Control 36 1.472 1.748
Analysis
experimental 36 16.278 5.969 4.872
0.000
sig. at
0.01
Control 36 9.500 5.833
Total
experimental 36 29.527 9.783 5.747
0.000
sig. at
0.01 Control 36 17.972 9.153
“t” table value at (70) d f. at (0.05) sig. level equal 1.99
“t” table value at (70) d f. at (0.01) sig. level equal 2.64
81
Table (4.1) shows that there were statistically significant differences between the experimental
group participants and their counterparts in the control one in favor of the experimental group in
all four levels of Bloom taxonomy due to the use of jigsaw strategy. The table shows that the "t"
computed value is larger than "t" table value in all scopes and the total degree. The total mean of
the experimental group (29.527) is larger than the total mean of the control group (17.972),
whereas the total standard deviation of the experimental group (9.783) is larger than the total
standard deviation of the control group (9.153). This means that Jigsaw strategy had a good effect
on improving the cognitive skills of the experimental group.
To calculate the effect size between the two groups, the researcher used Eta square "η2”
using the following equation:
t2
= η
2
t2 + df
Also the researcher calculated "d" value by using the following equation:
2t = D
df
Table (4.2)
Levels of size effect (η 2) and (d)
Test Effect Size
Small Medium Large
η 2
0.01 0.06 0.14
D 0.2 0.5 0.8
Table (4.3)
"t" value, eta square "η2", and "d" for each domain and the total degree
Domain t value η2 d
Effect
Size
Knowledge 5.142 0.274 1.229 Large
Comprehension 4.758 0.244 1.137 Large
Application 4.466 0.222 1.068 Large
Analysis 4.872 0.253 1.165 Large
Total 5.747 0.321 1.374 Large
82
Table (4.3) shows that there was a large effect size of Jigsaw strategy on the four levels of
Bloom taxonomy. Thus the suggested strategy had a large effect and improved the skills for the
experimental group participants when compared with their counterparts in the control group.
Concerning the content domains of the test, the means and standard deviations of the
experimental and the control groups' results on the post- achievement grammar test were
computed. The researcher also used Independent Samples T-test to measure the significant
statistical differences between the experimental and control groups in the post grammar test.
Table (4.4) shows the results of differences between the results of the experimental and the
control groups.
Table (4-4)
T. test results of differences between experimental and control groups in contents of the test
Domain group N Mean Std.
Deviation t
Sig.
value
sig.
level
Present
simple
active
experimental 36 3.944 1.655 3.833
0.000
sig. at
0.01
control 36 2.500 1.540
Present
perfect
active
experimental 36 3.972 1.576 4.478
0.000
sig. at
0.01
control 36 2.389 1.420
Present
simple
passive
experimental 36 3.556 1.501 4.301
0.000
sig. at
0.01
control 36 2.083 1.402
Present
perfect
passive
experimental 36 3.000 1.373 4.206
0.000
sig. at
0.01
control 36 1.806 1.009
Past simple
active
experimental 36 4.083 1.519 4.533
0.000
sig. at
0.01
control 36 2.500 1.444
Past
continuous
active
experimental 36 4.194 1.451 3.990
0.000
sig. at
0.01
control 36 2.556 1.992
Past simple
passive
experimental 36 3.778 1.658 5.156
0.000
sig. at
0.01
control 36 1.833 1.540
Past
continuous
passive
experimental 36 3.528 1.665 5.681
0.000
sig. at
0.01
control 36 1.556 1.252
SUM
experimental 36 29.527 9.783 5.747
0.000
sig. at
0.01
control 36 17.972 9.153
“t” table value at (70) d f. at (0.05) sig. level equal 1.99
“t” table value at (70) d f. at (0.01) sig. level equal 2.64
83
Table (4.4) shows that there were statistically significant differences between the
experimental group and their counterparts in the control one in favor of the experimental
group in all the contents of the syllabus. This means that the Jigsaw strategy had a good effect
on improving the achievement of the experimental group.
To calculate the effect size, the researcher used Eta square "η2” of the method using the
following equation:
t2
= η
2
t2 + df
Also the researcher calculated "d" value by using the following equation:
2t = D
df
Table (4.5)
"t" value, eta square " η 2 " , and "d" for each scope and the total degree
Domain t value η2 d
Effect
Size
Present simple active 3.833 0.174 0.916 Large
Present perfect active 4.478 0.223 1.070 Large
Present simple passive 4.301 0.209 1.028 Large
Present perfect passive 4.206 0.202 1.005 Large
Past simple active 4.533 0.227 1.084 Large
Past continuous active 3.990 0.185 0.954 Large
Past simple passive 5.156 0.275 1.232 Large
Past continuous passive 5.681 0.316 1.358 Large
Total 5.747 0.321 1.374 Large
Table (4.5) shows that there were statistically significant differences between the
experimental group participants and their counterparts in the control one in favor of the
experimental group in most of the content areas of the test and the total degree due to the use of
the Jigsaw strategy. This means that the Jigsaw strategy had a good effect on improving the
experimental group participants’ mastery of the passive voice of the tenses being tested in the
experiment when compared with that of their counterparts in the control group.
84
1.2.Data analysis of the second hypothesis findings:
The second hypothesis of the current study was stated as follows: There are no statistically
significant differences at (α ≤ 0.05) level in learning English grammar between the mean scores of
the high achievers in the experimental group and their counterparts in the control one.
To test the second hypothesis, the researcher used Mann-Whitney U test. The following table
shows that:
Table (4.6)
Mann-Whitney U test of differences of learning in English variable
Level Groups N Mean
Rank
Sum of
Ranks
Mann-
Whitney U Z
Sig.
value
Sig.
level
Knowledge
high achievers in
experimental group 10 14.150 141.500
13.500
2.831
0.005
sig. at
0.01 high achievers in
control group 10 6.850 68.500
Comprehension
high achievers in
experimental group 10 14.700 147.000
8.000
3.228
0.001
sig. at
0.01 high achievers in
control group 10 6.300 63.000
Application
high achievers in
experimental group 10 14.600 146.000
9.000
3.153
0.002
sig. at
0.01 high achievers in
control group 10 6.400 64.000
Analysis
high achievers in
experimental group 10 14.900 149.000
6.000
3.348
0.001
sig. at
0.01 high achievers in
control group 10 6.100 61.000
SUM
high achievers in
experimental group 10 14.700 147.000
8.000
3.183
0.001
sig. at
0.01 high achievers in
control group 10 6.300 63.000
Table (4.6) shows that there were statistically significant differences between the high
achievers in the experimental group and their counterparts in the control one in favor of the
high achievers in the experimental group in all Bloom four levels and the total degree of the
test. This proves that the jigsaw strategy had a positive effect on improving the achievement
of the experimental group.
85
Table (4.7) shows the effect size (η2) and (d) of three levels, namely small, medium and
large.
Table (4.7)
Levels of effect size (η2) and (d)
Test Effect Size
Small Medium Large
η2
0.01 0.06 0.14
D 0.2 0.5 0.8
As shown in Table (4.8), the researcher utilized "η2”
and "d" effect size by using the
equation below in order to calculate the effect size for each domain and the total degree.
Z2
= η2
Z2 + 4
Table (4.8)
"Z" value, eta square "η2", for each domain and the total degree
Level Z Z2
Z2 + 4
η2
Effect
Size
Knowledge
2.831 8.017 12.017 0.667 Large
Comprehension 3.228 10.417 14.417 0.723 Large
Application
3.153 9.942 13.942 0.713 Large
Analysis
3.348 11.206 15.206 0.737 Large
SUM
3.183 10.133 14.133 0.717 Large
Table (4-8) shows that there was a large effect size of Jigsaw strategy in four of Bloom
levels. Thus, the Jigsaw strategy has a large effect on improving the higher order thinking skills of
the experimental group when compared with their counterparts in the control group.
86
b) Content of the test:
Table (4.9)
Mann-Whitney U of differences of learning in English variable
Domain Groups N Mean
Rank
Sum of
Ranks
Mann
Whitney
U
Z Sig.
value
Sig.
level
Present
simple
active
high achievers in
experimental group 10 14.000 140.000 15.000
2.797
0.005
sig. at
0.01
high achievers in
control group 10 7.000 70.000
Present
perfect
active
high achievers in
experimental group 10 13.950 139.500 15.500
2.657
0.008
sig. at
0.01
high achievers in
control group 10 7.050 70.500
Present
simple
passive
high achievers in
experimental group 10 14.750 147.500 7.500
3.280
0.001
sig. at
0.01
high achievers in
control group 10 6.250 62.500
Present
perfect
passive
high achievers in
experimental group 10 15.100 151.000
4.000
3.551
0.000
sig. at
0.01
high achievers in
control group 10 5.900 59.000
Past simple
active
high achievers in
experimental group 10 14.100 141.000
14.000
2.820
0.005
sig. at
0.01
high achievers in
control group 10 6.900 69.000
Past continuous
active
high achievers in
experimental group 10 13.800 138.000 17.000
2.632
0.008
sig. at
0.01
high achievers in
control group 10 7.200 72.000
Past simple
passive
high achievers in
experimental group 10 14.350 143.500 11.500
3.025
0.002
sig. at
0.01
high achievers in
control group 10 6.650 66.500
Past
continuous
passive
high achievers in
experimental group 10 14.800 148.000 7.000
3.320
0.001
sig. at
0.01
high achievers in
control group 10 6.200 62.000
SUM
high achievers in
experimental group 10 14.700 147.000
8.000
3.183
0.001
sig. at
0.01
high achievers in
control group 10 6.300 63.000
Table (4.9) shows that there were statistically significant differences between the high
achievers in the experimental group and their counterparts in the control one in favor of the
high achievers in the experimental group in all the content of the test and the total degree.
Thus it can be noticed that the Jigsaw strategy had a good effect on improving the
experimental group high achievers’ mastery of both active and passive voice tenses.
87
As shown in Table (4.10), the researcher utilized "η2”
and "d" effect size by using the
equation below, in order to calculate the effect size of each domain and the total degree.
Z2
= η2
Z2 + 4
Table (4.10)
"Z" value, eta square "η2", for each domain and the total degree
Domain Z Z2 Z
2 + 4 η
2
Size
effect
Present simple active 2.797 7.824 11.824 0.662 Large
Present perfect active 2.657 7.062 11.062 0.638 Large
Present simple passive 3.280 10.758 14.758 0.729 Large
Present perfect passive 3.551 12.613 16.613 0.759 Large
Past simple active 2.820 7.950 11.950 0.665 Large
Past continuous active 2.632 6.926 10.926 0.634 Large
Past simple passive 3.025 9.151 13.151 0.696 Large
Past continuous passive 3.320 11.021 15.021 0.734 Large
Total 3.183 10.133 14.133 0.717 Large
Table (4.10) shows that there was a large effect size of Jigsaw strategy in most of the
content domains of the test. Thus, the Jigsaw strategy had a large effect on improving the
achievement of the experimental group when compared with their counterparts in the control
group.
88
1.3. Data analysis of the third hypothesis findings:
The third hypothesis of the current study is stated as follows: There are no statistically
significant differences at (α ≤ 0.05) level in learning English grammar between the mean scores of
the low achievers in the experimental group and their counterparts in the control one.
To test the third hypothesis, the researcher used Mann-Whitney U test. The following
table shows that:
Table (4.11)
Mann-Whitney U of differences of learning in English variable
Level Groups N Mean
Rank
Sum of
Ranks
Mann
Whitney
U
Z Sig.
value
Sig.
level
Knowledge
low achievers in
experimental group 10 14.150 141.500
13.500
2.805
0.005
sig. at
0.05 low achievers in
control group 10 6.850 68.500
Comprehension
low achievers in
experimental group 10 14.050 140.500
14.500
2.753
0.006
not
sig.
low achievers in
control group 10 6.950 69.500
Application
low achievers in
experimental group 10 15.200 152.000
3.000
3.675
0.000
sig. at
0.01
low achievers in
control group 10 5.800 58.000
Analysis
low achievers in
experimental group 10 14.550 145.500
9.500
3.077
0.002
not
sig.
low achievers in
control group 10 6.450 64.500
Total
low achievers in
experimental group 10 15.400 154.000
1.000
3.715
0.000
sig. at
0.05
low achievers in
control group 10 5.600 56.000
Table (4.11) shows that there were statistically significant differences between the low
achievers in the experimental group and their counterparts in the control in favor of the low
achievers in the experimental group in all the Bloom levels and the total degrees, except for
two levels in Bloom levels (comprehension and analysis) where there were no statistically
significant differences between the two groups.
89
Thus, the jigsaw strategy had a positive effect on improving the skills of the low
experimental group in all Bloom four levels and the total degree of the test except for the
levels of comprehension and analysis. The researcher attributed this result to the nature of low
achievers being unserious students especially if they know that they are not competing against
others. Low achievers of both groups seem not to have exerted enough effort in the tests.
As shown in Table (4.12), the researcher utilized "η2”
and "d" effect size by using the
equation below in order to calculate the effect size for each domain and the total degree.
Z2
= η2
Z2 + 4
Table (4.12)
"Z" value, eta square "η2", for each domain and the total degree
Level Z Z2 Z
2 + 4 η
2
Effect
Size
Knowledge
2.805 7.867 11.867 0.663 Large
Comprehension 2.753 7.577 11.577 0.655 Large
Application
3.675 13.506 17.506 0.772 Large
Analysis
3.077 9.465 13.465 0.703 Large
SUM 3.715 13.803 17.803 0.775 Large
Table (4.12) shows that there was a large effect size of Jigsaw strategy in most of Bloom
domains. Thus, the Jigsaw strategy had a large effect on improving the Bloom thinking skills of
the experimental group low achievers when compared with their counterparts in the control
group.
90
b) Content of the test:
Table (4.13)
Mann-Whitney U of differences of learning in English variable
Domain Groups N Mean
Rank
Sum of
Ranks
Mann
Whitney
U
Z Sig.
value
Sig.
level
Present simple
active
low achievers in
experimental group 10 13.950 139.500
15.500
2.666
0.008
sig. at
0.01 low achievers in
control group 10 7.050 70.500
Present
perfect active
low achievers in
experimental group 10 14.100 141.000
14.000
2.858
0.004
sig. at
0.01 low achievers in
control group 10 6.900 69.000
Present simple
passive
low achievers in
experimental group 10 13.650 136.500
18.500
2.561
0.010
sig. at
0.05 low achievers in
control group 10 7.350 73.500
Present
perfect
passive
low achievers in
experimental group 10 13.900 139.000
16.000
2.713
0.007
sig. at
0.01 low achievers in
control group 10 7.100 71.000
Past simple
active
low achievers in
experimental group 10 14.350 143.500
11.500
2.996
0.003
sig. at
0.01 low achievers in
control group 10 6.650 66.500
Past
continuous
active
low achievers in
experimental group 10 14.200 142.000
13.000
2.860
0.004
sig. at
0.01 low achievers in
control group 10 6.800 68.000
Past simple
passive
low achievers in
experimental group 10 15.400 154.000
1.000
3.890
0.000
sig. at
0.01 low achievers in
control group 10 5.600 56.000
Past
continuous
passive
low achievers in
experimental group 10 14.050 140.500
14.500
2.769
0.006
sig. at
0.01 low achievers in
control group 10 6.950 69.500
91
Domain Groups N Mean
Rank
Sum of
Ranks
Mann
Whitney
U
Z Sig.
value
Sig.
level
Total
low achievers in
experimental group 10 15.400 154.000
1.000
3.715
0.000
sig. at
0.01 low achievers in
control group 10 5.600 56.000
Table (4.13) shows that there were statistically significant differences between the low
achievers in the experimental group and their counterparts in the control one in favor of the
low achievers in the experimental group in all the content items of the test and the total
degree. Thus, the Jigsaw strategy had a good effect on improving the skills of the low
achievers in the experimental group.
As shown in Table (4.14), the researcher utilized "η2”
and "d" effect size by using the
equation below in order to calculate the effect size for each domain and the total degree.
Z2
= η2
Z2 + 4
Table (4.14)
"Z" value, eta square "η2", for each domain and the total degree
Domain Z Z2 Z
2 + 4 η
2
Effect
Size
Present simple active 2.666 7.106 11.106 0.640 Large
Present perfect active 2.858 8.167 12.167 0.671 Large
Present simple passive 2.561 6.557 10.557 0.621 Large
Present perfect passive 2.713 7.358 11.358 0.648 Large
Past simple active 2.996 8.976 12.976 0.692 Large
Past continuous active 2.860 8.180 12.180 0.672 Large
Past simple passive 3.890 15.131 19.131 0.791 Large
Past continuous passive 2.769 7.668 11.668 0.657 Large
Total 3.715 13.803 17.803 0.775 Large
Table (4.14) shows that there was a large effect size of Jigsaw strategy in most of Test
domains and the total degree. Thus the suggested strategy had a large effect and improved the
skills of the experimental group when compared with their counterparts in the control group.
92
2. Summary:
Chapter four dealt with data analysis and its results. The results of each hypothesis were
analyzed statistically using different statistical techniques. The results of the first hypothesis
showed differences of statistical significance between the experimental group and the control one
in favor of the experimental group due to the teaching method (jigsaw strategy). The results of the
second hypothesis indicated significant differences between the two groups in favor of the
experimental group high achievers. The results of the third hypothesis showed differences of
statistical significance between the experimental group and the control one in favor of the
experimental group low achievers except in the comprehension and analysis levels.
To sum up, the use of the Jigsaw strategy in learning English grammar can be a good
solution to all students and to their lack of cooperation, interaction and motivation in English
classes.
In the next chapter, the researcher will discuss and interpret the results before drawing
conclusions and putting forward some suggestions and recommendations.
93
Chapter V
Discussion of Findings, Conclusions
& Recommendations
94
Chapter V
Discussion of Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations
1.Findings:
This chapter deals with the discussion of the study findings of the study presented in
chapter four which were as follows:
1. There were statistically significant differences in learning English grammar between the mean
scores of the experimental group and their counterparts in the control one in favor of the
experimental group due to using jigsaw strategy.
2. There were statistically significant differences in learning English grammar between the mean
scores of the high achievers in the experimental group and their counterparts in the control
one in favor of the experimental group due to using jigsaw strategy.
3. There were statistically significant differences in learning English grammar between the mean
scores of the low achievers in the experimental group and their counterparts in the control one
in favor of the low achievers in the experimental group due to using jigsaw strategy.
In the light of the discussion of the findings, the chapter will present the drawn
conclusions and suggested recommendations.
2. Discussion of study findings:
2.1. Discussion of the first hypothesis findings:
Findings of the first hypothesis showed that there were statistically significant differences
at (α ≤ 0.05) level between learning English grammar by using Jigsaw strategy in the mean scores
of the experimental group and learning English grammar by the traditional method in the mean
scores of the control one, and consequently the null hypothesis is rejected.
These findings of the study were limited to the experiment "Jigsaw strategy" since all
variables such as age, general achievement and general achievement in English language were
controlled before the experiment. It can be concluded that the students in the experimental group
improved their grammar achievement at the end of the study compared with the students in the
control group. It was found out that the use of the Jigsaw strategy positively influenced the
grammar achievement of the experimental group students.
The researcher attributes this result to the nature of the cooperative learning made available
by Jigsaw strategy as it presents the intended grammar in an attractive and colorful way. Students
of the experimental group liked learning cooperatively and were able to learn the grammar easier
and faster. The researcher also noticed that students of the experimental group liked learning
English grammar via the Jigsaw strategy as they were waiting for the English class passionately.
95
They quickly got ready for the lesson and asked the teacher to begin the English class. They were
eager for the next lesson.
Moreover, the experimental group students were asked to interact and learn cooperatively
with each other through working out some activities which provided them with immediate
feedback about their answers instead of the traditional way which students do not like as such
activities may cause boredom and embarrassment for them. Likewise, the learning environment
brought to the classroom as a result of using the Jigsaw strategy in learning grammar heightened
students' motivation and their willingness to learn grammar cooperatively; it also lowered their
affective filter and anxiety. Thus students learned English grammar in a relaxed learning
atmosphere, which directly and positively affected their achievement in grammar as the results of
the first hypothesis reveal.
The results of the first hypothesis are in agreement with those reported in some other
related studies such as those of Al-Motawak (2013), Ula (2010), Younis (2011), Alzu’bi (2008),
Thabet (2008), Al-Haila (2007), Al-Ghariby (2006), Ghina (2005), Chin (2004), Jeanie and David
(2003), Ross, Seaborn and Wilson (2002), Holliday (2002b), which indicated positive effect of
using Jigsaw strategy on students' achievement. All of these studies demonstrated that Jigsaw
strategy could improve students’ achievement in grammar and other English skills.
1.2.2. Discussion of the second hypothesis findings:
There are no statistically significant differences at ( ≤ 0.05) level in learning English
grammar between the mean scores of the high achievers in the experimental group and learning
English grammar by the traditional way in the control one.
Mann-Whitney test results showed that there were statistically significant differences in
favor of the experimental high achievers in four levels of Bloom's taxonomy. According to "d"
and "η2" values, it was observed that the effect size of Jigsaw strategy was large on all the levels,
and consequently the null hypothesis was rejected.
It can be concluded that the results of the second hypothesis proved the effectiveness of
using Jigsaw strategy on developing students' achievement in English grammar. In other words,
the high achievers in the experimental group improved their achievement in English grammar
more than those in the control group. This means that the implementation of the Jigsaw strategy
had a positive effect on the grammar achievement of the experimental high achievers. Moreover,
this result can be attributed to both the features of the Jigsaw strategy as a cooperative learning
technique and its benefits when they both are used in an English class.
96
The researcher also attributes this result to the following reasons:
Using jigsaw strategy facilitated learning the English grammar for experimental group
students (high achievers) as they can learn grammar in an interesting, attractive and
cooperative manner.
The nature of the jigsaw strategy used throughout the experiment created a relaxed learning
environment free of any tension. The researcher noticed that, unlike the control group
students, the experimental group students felt comfortable and highly motivated to learn
English grammar.
Unlike the control group students, who were asked to answer traditional paper and pencil
activities, the experimental group students liked interacting and learning cooperatively with
each other and learning from their own mistakes.
The result of the second hypothesis is in consistent with the results of Al-Motawak (2013),
Ula (2010), Younis (2011), Alzu’bi (2008), Thabet (2008), Al-Haila (2007), Al-Ghariby (2006),
Ghina (2005), Chin (2004), Jeanie and David (2003), Ross, Seaborn & Wilson (2002), Holliday
(2002b), which indicated a positive effect of using Jigsaw strategy on the high achievers in
achievement and in cognitive processing of knowledge.
2.3. Discussion of the third hypothesis findings:
There are no statistically significant differences at ( ≤ 0.05) in learning English grammar
between the mean scores of the low achievers in the experimental group and learning English
grammar by the traditional way in the control one.
Mann-Whitney test results showed that there were statistically significant differences
between the low achievers in the experimental group and their counterparts in the control group in
favor of the low achievers in the experimental group in all the Bloom's taxonomy and the total
degree, except two levels (Comprehension and analysis) where there were no statistically
significant differences between the two groups. Thus, the Jigsaw strategy had a positive effect on
improving the skills for the low achievers in the experimental group Bloom's levels, and
consequently the null hypothesis was rejected.
Thus, the results of the third hypothesis proved that the use of the jigsaw strategy has a
large effect on improving low achievers’ motivation towards learning. This result can be
attributed to the cooperation learning environment students were involved in. Every student
worked with his home group where he could discuss and interact actively. Thus, the low achievers
were more self-confident and interested. This was clearly evident through the smiles on their
faces and the active participation as soon as they begin with the lesson.
97
The result of the third hypothesis is in harmony with the results of many researchers such as
Al-Motawak (2013), Ula (2010), Younis (2011), Alzu’bi (2008), Thabet (2008), Al-Haila (2007),
Al-Ghariby, (2006), Ghina, (2005), Chin (2004), Jeanie & David (2003), Ross, Seaborn and
Wilson (2002), Holliday (2002a), Holliday (2002b), which indicated positive effect of using
Jigsaw strategy on the low achievers’ achievement and cognitive processing of knowledge and
which proved the effectiveness of using this strategy on developing low achievers' motivation
towards learning English language cooperatively.
From the observations and notes of the researcher and some other colleagues from the
beginning till the end of the experiment (see Appendix 4&5), it was noticed that jigsaw strategy
had a great effect on the students, especially the low achievers. The researcher and colleagues
noticed that the experimental group low achievers liked being involved in the learning process
more than their counterparts in the control group. They were not shy as before. They liked
learning cooperatively through the jigsaw strategy.
Many students told the researcher that they grew to like English more than any other
subject. The great enhancement of low achievers towards learning English can also be attributed
to the nature of the jigsaw strategy because learning by using this strategy was very motivating,
helpful and fascinating for them.
Likewise, the learning environment brought to the classroom as a result of using the
Jigsaw strategy in learning grammar heightened students' motivation and their willingness to learn
grammar cooperatively; it also lowered their affective filter and anxiety.
It appears from the observations and notes of the researcher and colleagues that the students
acquired experience with regular practice of the strategy mechanism. In addition, the strategy
achieved a good level of social interaction through cooperative learning. It was observed that the
students were excited, motivated and happy. They persisted to get the information they wanted.
Furthermore, the students were asked , at the end of the experiment , to give their opinions
about the effectiveness of jigsaw strategy on a reflection log card distributed to them.
(See Appendix 6&7).
The results of their given opinions about the effectiveness of jigsaw strategy were amazing
and surprising. Their tendency and acceptance to the strategy were great and this makes sure that
jigsaw strategy is a very beneficial and successful when compared with the traditional one
To sum up, the researcher , colleagues (the seven observers) and the students believed that
jigsaw strategy could be a promising alternative to the conventional methods of learning English
language in general and English grammar in particular.
98
3. Conclusions:
Based on the findings of this study, many insightful implications and substantial gains can be
briefly concluded below:
1. Jigsaw strategy has superiority over the traditional method in learning English grammar.
2. Jigsaw strategy provides the students with a better learning environment, which affected their
achievement and performance of English language.
3. Jigsaw strategy helps participants build a sense of leadership because groups always have
leaders.
4. Jigsaw strategy provides participants with a sense of ownership and authority which promote
participants' responsibility for their learning.
5. Jigsaw strategy also allows students to reflect on their own misunderstanding and take
ownership of their learning.
6. Jigsaw strategy adds variety to the range of learning situations.
7. Jigsaw strategy stimulates students towards an independent practice of English language
instead of direct instruction.
8. Jigsaw strategy increases student-student communication, which provides fluency practice
and reduces the dominance of the class.
9. Jigsaw strategy provides students with enjoyment, pleasure, enthusiasm and variation which
are significant enough to affect the students' achievement positively.
10. Jigsaw strategy strengthens the relationship between the students, makes them closer to each
other and facilitates the process of teaching and learning.
11. Jigsaw strategy gives the students the chance to play several roles such as communicators,
observers, thinkers, problem-solvers, decision makers and analysts. These various roles help
them acquire and employ English language in different situations more easily. Also, by
practicing these roles students' characters can be formed in an effective way, which reflects
positively on our society.
12. Jigsaw strategy develops cooperative learning within the same group.
13. Jigsaw strategy is very effective in motivating shy students towards participation and
interaction.
99
4. Recommendations:
In accordance with the given findings and conclusions of the study, the following
recommendations are put forward for different parties involved in the learning-teaching process.
4.1. Curriculum designers and decision makers are recommended to:
develop and enrich the Teacher's Guide with approaches and techniques that increase and
enhance teaching and learning grammar such as jigsaw strategy.
support schools with all effective facilities such as computers, LCD televisions, videos, the
internet and all kinds of boards. These aids help teachers to activate and employ Jigsaw
strategy and other effective techniques.
enhance cooperative learning techniques such as Jigsaw strategy in English for Palestine. Give
enough space for practice and acting by providing a variety of tasks.
enhance the Palestinian curriculum with cooperative learning techniques such as Jigsaw
strategy that tackle different aspects and tenses in English grammar.
develop head teachers' technical competences to help them give constructive feedback to their
teachers.
increase English language periods to give the teachers suitable opportunities to concentrate on
learning quality.
4.2. Supervisors are recommended to:
develop teachers' abilities to implement cooperative learning methods by organizing in-
service training programs, workshops and short courses.
encourage teachers to exchange experiences and class visits by organizing training and
demonstrative lessons.
emphasize the fact that Jigsaw strategy should be used with all English language skills and
other school subjects.
conduct workshops and training that aim at familiarizing teachers of how to use Jigsaw
strategy in all English language skills.
prepare and distribute instructional materials that increase teachers 'awareness of Jigsaw
strategy importance and necessity of utilizing this strategy in teaching and learning English
grammar.
4.3. Teachers are recommended to:
keep in touch with the latest trends in the field of TEFL and benefit from the findings of the
educational research. Teachers can adopt innovative methods and conduct action research to
explore the effectiveness of such methods on the students in Palestine.
be aware of the goals of Jigsaw strategy they are conducting in their classes and if and how
those goals are achieved by learners.
100
understand the theory behind using cooperative learning and the elements required for its
appropriate implementation.
be ready to deal with the difficulties that may face them during the experiment.
shift from the traditional teaching methods to the communicative approach that is based on the
students' real involvement in the teaching-learning process.
join websites designed for them. They can discuss problems, share ideas and experiences in a
way that can contribute to their professional development.
use Jigsaw strategy to create an appropriate learning environment.
help learners use English language in "Life-like" situations.
consider learners' individual differences and learning styles while using Jigsaw strategy.
4.4. Recommendations for further studies:
It is recommended that much larger studies tracking the use of cooperative learning
techniques such as Jigsaw strategy in EFL classes are needed. Long term studies on larger
populations of students will strengthen the case for the inclusion of cooperative learning
techniques such as Jigsaw strategy and to add to the growing body of research on as an
important and effective strategy for English language learning.
5. Suggested studies for future studies:
Investigating the effectiveness of using Jigsaw strategy on students' English achievement in
elementary and secondary schools.
Investigating the effectiveness of using Jigsaw strategy on students' attitude towards English.
Investigating the effectiveness of using Jigsaw strategy on all English language skills
(Listening, Reading, Writing and Speaking)
Investigating the effectiveness of using Jigsaw strategy on other school subjects.
Investigating the effectiveness of using Jigsaw strategy on developing students' critical
thinking.
The effect of using Jigsaw strategy on developing literacy activities.
The effect of Jigsaw strategy on the achievement and attitudes of prospective teachers.
101
References List:
HOLY Qur'an
Abu Jeld,R.(2004).Development Project based on teaching grammar, Educational Development
Centre, UNRWA, Gaza.
Abul-Khair, I.(2003). The effectiveness of Some Teaching Strategies on Developing the Skills of
Linguistic Creativity by Female Students. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, College of
Education, Al-Azhar University.
Abu Nada, M. Kh.(2008).The Effect Of Using Concepts Maps On Achieving English Grammar
Among Ninth Graders In Gaza Governorate. Unpublished Dissertation, The Islamic
University, Gaza Strip, Palestine.
Abu Seileek, F. (2009).The Effectiveness of Using Online-based Course on the Learning of
Sentence Types Inductively and Deductively .A published Dissertation in Technology,
Cambridge University, Britain.
Afana, E.& Al-Jeish,Y.(2008).Teaching and Learning by Brain's Two Sides, First edition, Gaza
,Palestine.
Afana,I.(2000). Effect Size and its Use in Investigating the Validity of Educational and
Psychological Researches Results .Journal of Palestinian Educational Researches and
Studies :Gaza Miqudad Press.1Vol(3).
Al Agha,I.& Al Ustaz,M.(2004).An Introduction To Educational Research Design ,First
Edition,Al Mequdad Press,Gaza.
Alzu’bi, M.(2008). The impact of Jigsaw Strategy on the King Saud University Students' Reading
Comprehension Achievement in English, King Saud University.
Al-Deeb, M.(2006).Contemporary Strategies in Cooperative Learning, Book's World, Cairo,
Egypt.
Al-Enazi, K. (2008). The Effect of Using Cooperative Learning in the Development of Some of the
Grammatical Skills of the Hearing Impaired Students at Tenth Grade Male Students in
Riyadh Schools. Riyadh.Saudia Arabia.
Alexander, G. L.(1990). English Grammar Practice , Longman, Britain.
Alexander, L.(1990). Longman English Grammar Practice for intermediate Students ,First
published Edition, Longman Group UK .
Al-Ghariby, Y. (2006). The Impact of using Jigsaw Strategy on The achievement of 1st Grade
Female Students in the Subject of the Holy Qur'an, Unpublished Thesis, College of
Education, University of King Saoud.
102
Al-Haila, M. (2007).The Impact of Cooperative Learning Based on Jigsaw Strategy on The
Achievement of The Educational Sciences College Students, Al-Manara Magazine, 13(4),
pp.176-198.
Ali,M. (2000)."The Effect of Using the Jigsaw Reading Technique on Egyptian EFL Pre-Service
Teachers' Reading Anxiety and Comprehension." Educational and Social Studies
Magazine,7(3), pp.293-323.
Al-Motawak,H.(2013). The Impact of Using Jigsaw Strategy on The Development of Critical
Thinking and The Trend Towards Science in the Eighth Grade Students in Gaza.
Unpublished Dissertation, The Islamic University, Gaza Strip, Palestine.
Al-Wadey,A.(2008). The effect of using Cooperative Learning Method in Arabic Grammar for
second secondary students Sana'a University, College of Education, Department of
Yemeni Language Education.
Andrew,S.(2007).Teacher language awareness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom.
Anderson,F.J.,&Palmer,J.(2001).The Jigsaw Approach :Students Motivating
Students.Education,109(1), pp.59-62.
Aronson ,E.(1978).The Jigsaw Classroom .Beverly Hills, CA : Sage Publication.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., Snapp, M. (1978) "The Jigsaw Classroom",
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Belchamber, R.(2007). The advantages of communicative language teaching. The internet TESL
Journal , vol. XIII,No.2. Retrieved in August 20,2010 from : http://iteslj.org/Articles/
Belchamber - CLT.html.
Beverly, A. H.(2007).The Role of Grammar in Improving Student's Writing.
From :http//www.salier-oxford.com/does/language/paper_chin.cfm.
Brinto ,L. J.(2000).The Structure Of Modern English :A Linguistic Introduction, John Benjamin,
Amsterdam. From :http://books.google.com
Brufee , K. (1993). Collaborative Learning : Higher Education, Interdependence and the
Authority of Knowledge. Baltimore ,MD :John Hopkins University Press.
Burnstein, E., McRae, A. (1962).Some effects of shared threat and prejudice in racially mixed
groups. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology 64 , pp.257-263.
Byrd ,P.(2004).Grammar in the Foreign language Classroom ;Making Principal choices, Grace
Stovall Burkart, Ed.; Washington , DC : For Applied Linguistics.
From :http//www.salier-oxford.com/does/language/paper_chin.cfm.
Chin , S. (2004). A study of the effects of cooperative learning strategies on student achievement
in English as a Foreign language in a Taiwan college. (online).
Available:http://proquest.umi.com:ID765275411.
103
Chomsky , Noam . (1986).Knowledge of Language :Its Nature , Origin , and Use. New York and
London :praeger.
Cohen ,B.& Cohen ,E.(1991),From Group Work among Children to R & D teams :
Interdependence, Interaction and Productivity .New York : Teachers College Press.
Cohen , E. (1994) . Designing Group Work : Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom . New
York : Teachers College Press.
Cook, S. & Pelfrey , M.(1985). Reactions to Being Helped in Cooperating International Groups
.A Context Effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,49(5),pp.1221-1245.
Cooper ,J. ;Prescott, S.& Cook ,I.(1984).Cooperative Learning and College (Instruction-Effective
Use of Student Learning Teams. California State University Foundation Publication.
Corder,S.(1988). Pedagogic grammar. In W. Rutherford &M Starwood-Smith (Eds.) , Grammar
and second language teaching. New York :Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
Costa, A. & O'Leary ,P.(1992).The Cooperative Development of the Intellect. In Davidson and
Worsham (eds). Enhancing Thinking Through Cooperative Learning. New York :
Teachers College Press.
Davis, R. B., Maher, C.A., Noddings, N. (Eds) (1990) "Constructivist views on the teaching and
learning of mathematics" Journal for Research in Mathematics Education by National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Deutsch, M. (1975) .Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the
basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues 31,pp.137-149.
Doff, A.(1988).Teach English :A training course for teachers, the press syndicate of the
university of Cambridge, Britain.
Doff, A.(2000).Teach English :A training course for teachers (14th ed.). Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press.
Dumas, A.(2003). Cooperative Learning. Response to Diversity .Available
:http://www.cde.ca.gov/iasa/coo/prng.[Accessed 16th March 2006]
Edwards, K.S. & Devries, D.L., (1974).The effects of Teams-Games-Tournaments and two
structural variations on classroom process, student attitudes and student achievement.
Report #172, Center for Social organization of Schools", The Johns Hopkins University
Edwards, K.J., DeVries, D.L., Snyder, J.P., (1972). Games and teams :A winning combination.
Simulations and Games 3,pp.247-269.
Efe, &Efe, M. (2011). The effects of cooperative learning method of students’ teams-achievement
divisions and team assisted individualization instructions on students’ attitudes,
achievement and motivation at primary 7th grade ‘statistics and probability’ units on
mathematics course. Unpublished master thesis. Mustafa Kemal University Institute of
Social Sciences, Hatay.
104
Eyres, I.(2000):Developing Subject Knowledge; Primary English ,Paul Chapman, London.
Finegan,E.(1998):Language Its Structure and Use, Second Edition , Harcourt Brace College,
USA.
Felder, R.M., (1997). e-mail communication from [email protected] WWW page
http://ww2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/rmf.html
Garcia ,G.G. (2003) :English Learners :Reaching The Highest level Of English Literary,
International Reading Association ,New Jersey.
Ghina (2005).The Effect of Jigsaw2 versus Whole Class Instruction on EFL Students 'Reading
Motivation and Achievement. Thesis. American University ,Beirut.
Halt, L. (1992). Cooperative Learning in Action .National Middle School Association. In
ERIC,ED381242
Hamdan,J.(1991). Communicative Language Teaching .UNRWA, Amman.
Harmer, J.(2001). The practice of English language learning (3rd end). Pearson Education
limited ,Essex, England.
Hertz-Lazarowltz, R.; Kikus, V.& Miller, N. (1992). An Overview of the Theoretical Anatomy of
Cooperation in the Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hismanglu, M. (2000). Language learning strategies in foreign language learning and teaching.
The internet TESL, vol. VI,No.8. Retrieved in June 24,2010 from : http://iteslj.org/
Hismanglu- strategies.html.
Holliday,D.(2002a).Jigsaw IV: Using Student/Teacher Concerns to Improve Jigsaw III. In
ERIC,ED447045.
Holliday,D.(2002b).Jigsaw IV: Using Student/Teacher Concerns to Improve Jigsaw III. In
ERIC,ED465687.
Houston, L.S. (1991).Collaborative learning: Preparing for industry, a no-lecture method of
teaching English. ATEA Journal Dec-Jan 1991-92
Hussein, H.(2004). Using simple poems to teach grammar. The internet TESL Journal, vol.
X,No.5. Retrieved in June 15,2010 from : http://iteslj.org/ Hussein - poems.html
Ishtawi,H. (2011).The Effect of Game Strategy on the Learning of English Grammar for the
Twelfth Grade Students . Unpublished Dissertation, The Islamic University, Gaza Strip,
Palestine.
Jeane,A.& David, C.(2003). Cooperative Small Group Instruction Combined with Advanced
Organizers and their Relationships to Self concept and Social Studies Achievement of
Elementary School Students. Available :http://search.looksmart.com/ [Accessed 22nd
March 2006]
Jespersen ,O.(1969).Essentials Of English Grammar, George Allen and Unwin Ltd,London.
105
Johnson ,D.; Johnson, R. & Holubec , E.(1988). Advanced Cooperative Learning. Edina,
Minnesota :Interaction Book Co.
Johnson ,D. & Johnson, R. (1998).Learning Together and Alone. New Jersey ;Prentice Hall.
Johnson, R. & Johnson ,D. (2001). Cooperative learning. Available
:http//www.dcrc.com/pages/cl.htm.[Accessed 13th May 2006]
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E.J., (1984). Cooperation in the Classroom. Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Co.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T.., Roy, P., Zaidman, B., (1985) .Oral interaction in cooperative
learning groups: Speaking, listening and the nature of statements made by high, medium
and low-achieving students. Journal of Psychology 119, pp.303-321.
Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W. (1989).Cooperation and Competition Theory and Research.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Johnson, R.; Johnson, D.& Smith, C. (1989). Cooperation and Competition. Theory and
Research. Edina: Interaction Book Co.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-
analysis . Retrieved January 5, 2008, from http://www.cooperation.org/pages/cl-
methods.html.
Kagan, S.(1986). Cooperative learning and Sociological Factors in Schooling in Beyond
Language Minority Students. Los Angeles, CA: California State. University Evaluation
and Assessment Center.
Kailani,T.and Muqattash,L (1995): ELT Methodology 2. Al-Quds Open Univ.Pub.
Kailani,T.and Muqattach,L (2003). ELT :methodology (1), Al-Quds Open University
,Amman,Jordan.
Kessler,R.& McCleod,J.(1985).Social Support and Mental Health in Community Samples .In
Cohn and Syme (eds). Social Support and Health. New York Academic Press.
Kessler, R., Price, R., Wortman,C. (1985). Social factors in psychopathology: Stress, social
support and coping processes. Annual Review of Psychology 36, pp.351-372.
Kohli , A.L.(1999).Techniques of Teaching English ,For B. Ed. Students, Fifteen Edition,
Dhanpat Rai Publishing Company (p) Ltd, New Delhi.
Larkefjord, B. (2007). Teaching Swedish student at upper secondary level.[online] Unpublished
undergraduate thesis, faculty of arts and education .Karlstad University. Retrieved in Dec
18,2007,from :http:www.diva-portal.org!kau/abstract.xsgl?dbid623
Leech ,G. and et.al (1982):English Grammar For Today ;A New Introduction, The Macmillan
Press In Conjunction With The English Association, London.
Longman (2001) .Dictionary of Contemporary English, Pearson Education Limited,
Essex,England.
106
Lock, G. (1996). Functional English Grammar :An introduction For Second Language Teachers,
Cambridge University Press , UK.
Lock, G. (2002). Functional English Grammar :An introduction For Second Language Teachers,
Cambridge University Press , UK.
Maden, S.(2011). Effect of Jigsaw I Technique on Achievement in Written Expression Skill
.Cumhuriyet University, College of Education, Department of Turkish Language
Education.
Marzano,R .(1992).The Many Faces of Cooperation across the Dimension of Learning. In
Davidson and Worsham (eds). Enhancing Thinking Through Cooperative Learning. New
York : Teachers College Press.
Mengduo, Q..& Xiaoling,J.(2010.Jigsaw Strategy as A cooperative Learning Technique
:Focusing on The Language Learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistic.33(4),
pp.113-125.
Meteetham,P.(2001).Case Study of Cooperative Learning by Using Jigsaw Techniques with
Second-Year English Major Students at Naresuan University .M.A. Dissertation ,Mahidol
University.
Midkiff,R. (1993). A Practical Approach to Using Learning Styles in Maths Instruction.
Sprigfield:Charles Thomas Publications.
Millrood, R. (2001).Teaching Grammar Modular Course in ELT Methodology.
Montagu, A. (1995). The Human Revolution. New York: World Publication Co.
Neer, M.R. (1987).The development of an instrument to measure classroom apprehension.
Communication Education 36, pp.154-166.
Nelson,L.S.(1992). Children' Instrumental Help Seeking. It's Role in the Social Acquisition and
Construction of Knowledge. In lazarowitz (eds).Interaction in Cooperative Groups:
Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Nordquist, R. (2010). Grammar and Composition : What is Grammar ? (Forum) About.com.
Retrieved in July 31,2010 from : http://grammar.about.com/od/ basicsentence
grammar/a/grammarintro.html.
Obaid,O.(2010). The Effectiveness of Three Grammar Teaching Approaches on the Achievement
of Secondary School Students ,Unpublished Dissertation, The Islamic University, Gaza
Strip, Palestine.
O'Donnell,A. & Dansereanu, D. (1992). Scripted Cooperation in Students Dyads :A Method for
Analyzing and Enhancing Academic Learning and Performance. New York : Cambridge
University Press.
Oludipe, D., & Awokoy, J.O. (2010). Effect of cooperative learning teaching strategy on the
reduction of students’ anxiety for learning chemistry. Journal of Turkish Science
Education, 7(1).
107
Podgorski, N.(2008).The role of Grammar in Language Teaching .GRIN Verlag.
Palmer, F.(1971).Grammar, Penguin Books, England.
Purpura ,J.E.(2004):Assessing Grammar , Cambridge University, United Kingdom.
Rego,S. & Moledo, D. (2005). Promoting Interculturality in Spain: Assessing The Use of the
Jigsaw Classroom Method, Intercultural Education , Vol. 16, Issue 3. Spain.
Resnich,L.(1987).Educational and Learning to Think. Washinton, DC :National Academy Press.
Ridout, R. and Clarke,W. (1970):A Reference Book Of English ;A General Guide For Foreign
Students Of English , Macmillan, London.
Richards, J. (2007). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching (2nd
end),Cambridge
University Press, London.
Robins, R.H. (1980). General Linguistics, An Introductory Survey, Longman, London.
Ross,M.; Seaborn, A.& Wilson, E.(2002). Is Cooperative Learning a Valuable Instructional
Method for Teaching Social Studies to Urban African Students? In ERIC,ED 480458.
Sandberg, K. (1995). Affective and Cognitive Features of Collaborative Learning in Review of
Research and Developmental Education. Boone, NC: Appalachian State University.
Sandell, L. (2007). A study of Opinions on Using Fiction in Grammar Teaching.[online]
Unpublished undergraduate thesis, faculty of Education and Communication ,Jonkping
University. Retrieved in Dec 18,2007,from :http:www.diva-
portal.org/hi/abstract.xsgl?dbid806
Saricoban, A. and Metin, E. (2000).Songs, verse and games for teaching grammar. The internet
TESL Journal, vol. VI,No.10. Retrieved in June 15,2010 from :
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/ Saricoban - Songs.html
Schwartz, D.L., Black, J.B., Strange, J., (1991).Dyads have fourfold advantage over individuals
inducing abstract rules.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Assn. Chicago, Il
Sharan, Y., Sharan, C., (1976).Small Group Teaching. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall
Shavin,M. (1990). Students 'Support through Cooperative Learning .Baltimore: Paul Brookers
Publication Co.
Slavin, R. (1990).Cooperative Learning :Theory ,Research and Practice. Boston :Allyn and
Bacon.
Slavin, R. (1992).When and Why does Cooperative Learning Increase Achievement? Theoretical
and Empirical Perspective. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Slavin, R. E. (1986). Using Student Team Learning. Baltimore , MD : Center for research on
elementary and middle schools, John Hopkins University , School of Education .
108
Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M. B., and Madden, N. A. (1986). Team Accelerated Instruction:
Mathematics. Watertown , MA : Charlesbridge
Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N., (1981) .Cognitive and affective outcomes of an intensive student team
learning experience. Journal of Experimental Education 50, pp.29-35.
Snowman, B.,(1997). Psychology Applied to Teaching. Houghton : Miffin Co.
Stahl, R. & Vansticle, R. (1992). Cooperative learning in the Social Studies Classrooms: An
Orientation to Social Study . Washington :National Council for Social Studies.
Swing, S., Peterson, P., (1982).The relationship of student ability and small group interaction to
student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19 , pp.259-274.
Sysoyev, P.(1999).Integrative L2 Grammar Teaching: Exploration and Expression. The internet
TESL Journal, vol. V,No.6. Retrieved in July 22,2010 from : http://iteslj.org/Articles/
Sysoyev - Integrative.html
Tannenberg, J. (1995).Using Cooperative Learning in the Undergraduate Computer Science
Classroom. Available at :http//phoenixisub-edu/josk/coop/papers/html. [Accessed 15th
January 2006 ]
Taylor, J. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford University Press, UK.
Thabet, R.(2008).The effect of Using The Jigsaw and Learning Together Techniques on
Developing the Reading and Listening Comprehension Skills of Eight Grade Students,
M.A. Thesis, Al-Azhar University , Gaza, Palestine.
Thornbury, S. (2004). How to Teach Grammar, Longman, England.
Ula,H. (2009) A Comparative Study on Teaching of Punctuation Marks Using The Jigsaw
Technique, Faculty of Education, University of Ataturk, , Turkey. Vygosky , L.(1978).Mind in Society .In Cole, M. et al. (eds) The Development of Higher
Psychology Process. Cambridge :Harvard University Press.
Weatherford, J. (1997). Issues in the Teaching of Grammar in a Foreign Language ,Georgia,
Southern University.
Webb, N. (1982) .Group Composition , Group Interaction and Achievement in Small Group.
British Journal of Education and Psychology, 74(4), pp.475-489.
Webb, (1982).Group composition, group interaction and achievement in small groups. J 74(4),
pp475-484. Journal of Educational Psychology
Williams, J. D. (2005). The teachers' Grammar Book, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jeresy
.From :http://books.google.com
Wlodkowski, R.J., (1985).Enhancing Motivation to Learn. San Francisco: Josey-Bass
Woods, E. (1995). Introducing Grammar, Penguin Books, USA.
109
Wooley,S., Switzer,T., Foster, G., Landes,N., Robertson,W., (1990).BSCS Cooperative learning
and science program. Cooperative Learning 11(3).
Younis ,I. (2010).The effectiveness of Using Jigsaw Strategy in Teaching Social Studies for The
5th
Grade in Acquiring the Geographical Concepts and Their Attitudes Towards Group
Work,11th
Conference of The Egyptian Association, The Egyptian Association for
Scientific Education.
Yu, S.(2005).The effects of Games on the Acquisition of Some Grammatical Features of L2
German on Students 'Motivation and on Classroom Atmosphere.[online]Unpublished PhD
thesis, Faculty of Education ,Catholic University, Australia.
Retrieved in Dec 18,2007,from :http://dlibrary.acu. edu.au/digital
thesis/published%DacuvP98:29052006
Ziegler, N.(2007). Task Based Assessment: Evaluation Communication in the Real World.[online]
unpublished M.A. thesis, the University of Toledo. Retrieved in July 31,2010,from
:http://etd.ohiolink.edu/sendpdf.cgi/Ziegler%20Nathan20%E.pdf?toledo 1192757581
110
Appendix ( 1 )
The Islamic University - Gaza
Deanery of Graduate Studies
Faculty of Education
Department of Curriculum and
Teaching Methods
An Invitation to Referee a Pre-post Test
Dear referee /…………………………………
The researcher is conducting a study entitled " The effectiveness of Using Jigsaw Strategy on
Palestinian Tenth Graders’ English Grammar Learning" to obtain the Master's Degree in curriculum
and instruction.
As the aim of the study is to examine the effect of using jigsaw strategy in learning
English grammar on tenth graders in Gaza, the researcher has designed a pre-post test in the light
of the table of specifications. The test consists of four different questions with fifty items covering
four grammar topics: present tenses active, past tenses active, present tenses passive, and past
tenses passive.
Because of the importance of your opinion and experience, you are kindly requested to
referee the attached test and show the appropriateness of its different items by ticking (√) the
appropriate box in checklist below.
Your notes and responses will be highly appreciated and will remain confidential.
The Test Refereeing Checklist
All your contributions are highly valued. If you have any comments, please write them down in
the space below.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thanks for your kind help and cooperation
The Researcher/ Samir M.I. Saker
Mobile: 0599575408
No. Item High Average Low
1 The test items reflect the study objectives.
2 There is coherence between the test items and the
table of specifications.
3 The layout is acceptable.
4 The rubrics are clear.
5 The questions suit tenth graders' level.
6 The allocated time is suitable.
111
Appendix ( 2 )
Pre-Post Test /After refereeing
Bait Lahia Basic School for Boys (A)
Name:……………………… Grade: 10th
Time:……………………… 32 Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer: (8 marks)
1- She always ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ the 5 o'clock bus.
a. catch b. catches c. caught
2- Many houses ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ last year.
a. build b. were built c. are being built
3- We ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ to New York three times so far.
a. have been b. was c. be
4- Children ــــــــــــــــــــــــ by their parents.
a. brought up b. bring up c. are brought up
5- The water pollution problems have ــــــــــــــــــــــــ since 1999.
a. solved b. solving c. been solved
6- Adnan ــــــــــــــــــــــــ his bike when he had the accident.
a. ride b. rode c. was riding
7- Yesterday Salwa ــــــــــــــــــــــــ the police.
a. calls b. called c. was calling
8- While the exam ــــــــــــــــــــــــ by the students, the head teacher came.
a. was answering b. answered c. was being answered
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary : (8 marks)
1. The Dome of the Rock build by the Caliph.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2. She just cook dinner.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
3. The late students usually punish by the head-teacher.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
4. While Ahmad watch a match on TV, The doorbell rang.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
5. My brother start his job in 1994.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
112
6. The computer never use by Ahmad.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
7. A letter write by Samir when the light went off.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
8. Umama is preferring to e-mail people.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets: (8 marks)
1-My mother cooked some cakes last night. (Use: not )
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2- Have you ever eaten caviar? (Use: never)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
3- Samir and his brothers were watching action films. (Begin with: Action films)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
4. Maryam sometimes cleans the room. (Make: Yes/No question)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
5. Did Hani visit Majed? (Begin with: Was)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
6. While Ramy was going to the shop, he met his friend. (Use: when)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
7. Samira writes letters every week. (Use: by)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
8. Adel has already watched T.V. (Begin with: T.V.)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :- (8 marks)
1. The thieves haven’t been caught yet.
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Receiver of action: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
The function of "yet" is: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. object b. subject c. key word
2. The tree is often climbed by Belal.
The function of "The tree" is: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. doer of action. b. receiver of action.
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
3. While we were watching T.V, my father came.
Connector: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Past continuous: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Past simple: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
113
4. Anas went to school late three days ago.
Past simple: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the past: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Type of the verb: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. regular b. irregular
5. The flowers were being watered by Inaam when the doorbell rang.
Past simple: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ connector: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
The underlined sentence is: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. an active sentence b. a passive sentence c. a question
6. Mohammad has lived in Jerusalem for seven years.
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Use of tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. finished action b. unfinished action c. continuous action
7. Money was found by Belal yesterday.
The function of "Belal" is: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. receiver of action. b. doer of action
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
8. The earth moves around the sun.
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Verb: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Use of tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. fact b. habit
114
Appendix ( 3 )
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
The Islamic University - Gaza
Deanery of Graduate Studies
Faculty of Education
Department of Curriculum and
Teaching Methods
An Invitation to Referee an Observation Card
and a Reflection Log Card
Dear referee/…………………………………………………………………
The researcher is conducting a study entitled " The effectiveness of Using Jigsaw Strategy on
Palestinian Tenth Graders’ English Grammar Learning " to obtain the Master's Degree in curriculum
and instruction.
I would be grateful if you could referee the attached observation card and reflection log, which
aims at assessing tenth graders' achievement when learning English grammar by using the Jigsaw strategy.
The gathered information will be used for research purposes. Because of the importance of your
opinion, valuable experience and creditable feedback, you are kindly requested to look carefully at the
items of the observation card to determine if they are acceptable or unacceptable, relevant or irrelevant.
Please tick (√) the appropriate column. You are kindly invited to add, change, or even omit
irrelevant items according to your fair judgment and respected perspectives.
Thanks a lot for your co-operation.
Researcher,
Samir M.I. Saker
Mobile: 0599575408
115
Appendix ( 4 )
The observation card/After refereeing (In English)
Note :The observation card is filled with the opinions of all observers
(7 teachers of different school subject)
NO. Domains & items of the observation card
Str
on
gly
agre
e
Agre
e
Aver
age
Dis
agre
e
Str
on
gly
dis
agre
e
First Domain: Home group: The Learners __________:
1. accept their group expert. 7
2. are so motivated to learn. 3 4
3. cooperate with each other effectively. 3 4
4. seek to achieve their goals. 2 4 1
5. express themselves by discussion and dialogue. 4 3
6. are clearly flexible while learning. 6 1
7. take the initiative to do the assigned activity. 3 2 2
8. like being involved in learning the assigned activity cooperatively. 4 3
9. feel happy to learn cooperatively. 7
10. are impatiently waiting for the next task in the following week . 2 4 1
11. mainly depend on their leaders rather than on the teacher. 3 2 2
12. listen carefully to the leaders. 5 2
13. have confidence and trust in their leaders. 4 2 1
14. do their best to make their group successful. 6 1
15. do not feel shy in asking their leaders about something unclear. 3 3 1
16. feel absolutely relaxed towards their leaders. 6 1
Second Domain: Experts’ group: Leaders ________
17. are keen on finishing the assigned task in the allocated time. 4 2 1
18. seek to teach home group correctly. 6 1
19. listen carefully to their home groups. 5 2
20. activate the learners in various ways. 5 2
21. make their explanations and directions understandable to the learners. 5 2
22. play the roles facilitator and motivator well. 4 3
23. take into account the individual differences among the learners. 2 3 1 1
24. consult with their teacher if they face obstacles. 2 3 1 1
25. feel themselves responsible for their missions. 7
26. read all directions to their home group. 6 1
27. lead the discussions. 4 3
28. monitor other team members to make sure they do their own jobs. 2 3 1 1 29. are waiting impatiently for the next task in the following week. 4 3 30. give other group members immediate feedback and reinforcement. 3 2 1 1
31. explain the lessons to the learners in their own way. 4 2 1
32. discuss the difficult and important points with the group members. 4 2 1
Strongly agree = 5 / Agree = 4 / Average = 3 / Disagree = 2 / Strongly disagree = 1
116
Appendix ( 5 )
The observation card/After refereeing (In Arabic)
# (ؼ حخصصبث خخفت ( 7االدظت ؼبؤة بآساء جغ االدظ بطبلت : يالحظت#
أعارض بشدة
أعارضال أدري
أوافق أوافق انزقى يجاالث و بود انالحظت بشدة
---------------------- انتعهو : (انتعهو )انجوعاث انزئست :انجال الول 1 .خمبى لبدة جىػبحه 7
2 .ذه دافؼت خؼ 3 4
3 .خؼبوى غ بؼضه ابؼض ػ ذى فؼبي 3 4
4 .غؼى خذمك أهذافه 2 4 1
5 ؼبشو ػ أفغه خالي ابلشت و اذىاس 4 3
6 خغى ببشوت بشى واضخ أثبء ػت اخؼ 6 1
7 ؤخزو صب اببدسة مب ببشبط اىو اه 3 2 2
8 ذبى االغبط ف حؼ اشبط اىو اه بشى حؼبو 4 3
9 شؼشو ببغؼبدة أثبء اخؼ بشى حؼبو 7
10 خظشو بفبسؽ اصبش مب ببهت امبدت ف األعبىع اخب 2 4 1
11 ؼخذو بشى أعبع ػ لبدة جىػبحه و ظ ػ اؼ 3 2 2
12 غخؼى بؼبت ا لبدة جىػبحه 5 2
13 ذه ثمت ف لبدة جىػبحه 4 2 1
14 بزى لصبسي جهذه جؼ جىػخه بجذت 6 1
15 ال خذشجى ف عئاي امبدة ػ شء غش واضخ 3 3 1
16 شؼشو ببالسحبح اطك مبدة 6 1
------ ---------قادة انجوعاث : (قادة انجوعاث )يجوعت انخبزاء : انجال انثا
17 ذشصى ػ االخهبء اهت اىوت اه ف اىلج اخصص 4 2 1
18 غؼى ا حؼ جىػبحه بشى صذخ 6 1
19 غخؼى بؼبت ا ب مذه أػضبء جىػبحه 5 2
20 ؼى ػ حفؼ اخؼ ف جىػبحه بطشق خخفت 5 2
21 ؼى ػ جؼ حفغشاحه واسشبداحه فهىت خؼ 5 2
22 مىى بذوسه بخغه اهب خؼ و حذفضه ػ أو وجه 4 3
23 ؤخزو بؼ االػخببس افشوق افشدت ب اخؼ 2 3 1 1
24 خشبوسو غ ؼه ارا وبىا ىاجهى ػمببث 2 3 1 1
25 شؼشو أفغه أه غئىى ػ هبحه 7
26 مشإو اإلسشبداث و اخؼبث جىػبحه 6 1
27 ذه امذسة ػ لبدة ابلشبث 4 3
28 مىى بشالبت و أػضبء اجىػت 2 3 1 1
29 خظشو بفبسؽ اصبش امب ببهت امبدت ف األعبىع اخب 4 3
30 مذى ألػضبء اجىػت اخؼضض و اخغزت اشاجؼت افىست 3 2 1 1
31 مىى بششح اذسط طالة بطشمخه خؼ 4 2 1
32 بلشى امبط اخؼت اهت غ أػضبء اجىػت 4 2 1
بشدةأعارض =1 أوافق بشدة = 5 / أوافق = 4 / ال أدري = 3 / أعارض = 2 /
117
Appendix ( 6 )
Reflection log card /After refereeing (In English)
Learners 'perceptions of jigsaw strategy
Note : ( The reflection log card is filled with the opinions of all experimental
group (36) students )
NO. Reflection log card /
Students 'opinions about Jigsaw strategy
Str
on
gly
agre
e
Agre
e
Aver
age
Dis
agre
e
Str
on
gly
dis
agre
e
The effectiveness of Jigsaw strategy : Jigsaw strategy--------------------------
1. develops the student's motivation towards learning. 35 1
2. makes learning student-centered. 30 6
3. gives a clear interest in students 'individual differences. 33 2 1
4. develops listening and speaking skills by the students. 32 4
5. should be employed in all school subjects. 33 3
6. is a strategy through which the students feel absolutely happy and
relaxed while learning cooperatively. 32 4
7. reinforces confidence and trust by the students in themselves . 31 4 1
8. Increases students 'achievement in English grammar. 33 3
9. enables the students to be responsible for learning. 30 6
10. improves the students 'ability to keep and remember the data . 34 2
11. generates positive attitudes towards the English language. 29 6 1
12. provides active learning effectively. 31 5
13. gives the student more time for learning 25 9 1 1
14. decreases depression and anxiety among the students. 34 2
15. reinforces the spirit of belonging to the learning group 31 4 1
16. reinforces the communication skills among the students. 32 3 1
17. provides the students with immediate feedback. 24 11 1
18. provides the students with an appropriate learning atmosphere. 32 4
19. gives the chance to exchange experiences among the group members. 34 2
20. encourages to develop good habits like cooperation, interaction and
leadership etc.. 36
21. Help the students get rid of bad habits such as shyness and laziness. 35 1
22. Strengthens students 'social relations. 33 3
Strongly agree = 5 / Agree = 4 / Average = 3 / Disagree = 2 / Strongly disagree = 1
118
Appendix ( 7 )
Reflection log card /After refereeing (In Arabic)
Learners 'perceptions of jigsaw strategy
–"ججسو"آراء انطالب ع فعانت إستزاتجت– سجم اعكاس –
"ججسو"إستزاتجت " : ججسو"فعانت إستزاتجت أوافق بشدة
أعارض ال أدري أوافق أعارض بشدة
1 35 .تنم لدى الطالب الدافعة للتعلم 1
6 30 .تجعل التعلم مرتكزا على الطالب 2
1 2 33 .تعط اهتماما واضحا للفروق الفردة لدى الطالب 3
4 32 .تنم لدى الطالب مهارت االستماع و التحدث 4
3 33 .أؤد توظفها ف جمع المواد الدراسة 5
4 32 . من خاللها بالسعادة واالرتاح المطلق أثناء التعلم بشكل تعاونبشعر الطال 6
1 4 31 .تعزز مشاعر الذات و الثقة بالنفس 7
3 33 . تزد التحصل لدى الطالب ف قواعد اللغة اإلنجلزة 8
6 30 .تمكن الطالب من تحمل مسؤولة تعلمهم 9
2 34 .تحسن القدرة على االحتفاظ بالمعلومات و تذكرها 10
1 6 29 .تعمل على تولد اتجاهات إجابة نحو اللغة اإلنجلزة 11
5 31 .توفر التعلم النشط بشكل فعال 12
1 1 9 25 .تمنح الطالب المزد من الوقت من أجل التعلم 13
2 34 .تقلل من اإلحباط والقلق بن الطالب 14
1 4 31 .تعزز روح االنتماء لمجموعة التعلم 15
1 3 32 .تعمل على تعزز مهارات االتصال بن المتعلمن 16
1 11 24 .تزود الطالب بالتغذة الراجعة الفورة 17
4 32 .توفر بئة تعلمة مناسبة 18
2 34 .تؤدي إلى تبادل الخبرات بن أعضاء المجموعة 19
36 .تشجع على تطور العادات الجدة مثل التعاون و التفاعل و القادة، و الخ 20
1 35 .تساعد الطالب على التخلص من العادات السئة مثل الخجل ، والكسل ، الخ 21
3 33 .تقوي العالقات االجتماعة لدى الطالب 22
# طببب (36 )عج االؼىبط ؼبؤة بآساء جغ طالة اجىػت اخجشبت بطبلت : يالحظت#
بشدةأعارض =1 أوافق بشدة = 5 / أوافق = 4 / ال أدري = 3 / أعارض = 2 /
119
Appendix ( 8 )
Distribution of the experimental group
according to Jigsaw strategy
x x x
x x
x x x
x x
x
x
x
x x x
x x
x x x
x x
x x x
x x
x x x
x x
x x x x x x
Home groups (learners)
Experts' group (Leaders)
x x
x x
x
x
120
Appendix ( 9 )
All worksheets and quizzes
Bait Lahia Basic School (A) for Boys
Jigsaw Strategy-Present simple active
Worksheet #One#
Name:……………………… Class:………….
Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1- She sometimes ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ late.
a. comes b. come c. came
2- We always …………….. at 11.00 p.m.
a. slept b. sleeps c. sleep
3-……………he often watch T.V.?
a. Do b. Does c. Does
4- The parents……………… after their children.
a. look b. looked c. looks
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1- Ahmad is liking to play tennis.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2- Anas go to school early every day.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
3- Did Ahmad often play basketball?
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1- Samy usually writes letters. (Make: Yes/No question)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2- They speak English fluently. (Use: not )
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
3- The police catches the thief . (Make: Negative)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
4- They go to the market every week. (Make: Yes/No question)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1- The water boils at 100 C.
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Verb: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Use of tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. fact b. habit
121
2- Samy often writes letters.
The underlined sentence is: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. an active sentence b. a passive sentence c. a question
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
3- Adnan writes letters every week.
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Use of tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. fact b. habit
122
Quiz #One#
Name:……………………… Class:………….
Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1- We always …………….. at 11.00 p.m.
a. slept b. sleeps c. sleep
2- She sometimes ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ late.
a. comes b. come c. came
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1- Ahmad is wanting to play tennis.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2- Anas go to school early every day.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1- The police catches the thief . (Make: Negative)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2- Samy usually writes letters. (Make: Yes/No question)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1- Adnan writes letters every week.
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Use of tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. fact b. habit
123
Bait Lahia Basic School (A) for Boys
Jigsaw Strategy-Past simple active
Worksheet #Two#
Name:……………………… Class:………….
Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1- Yesterday I ــــــــــــــــــــــــ my uncle .
a. saw b. see c. sees
2-He ـــــــــــــــــــــــ his friend last week.
a. meet b. met c. meets
3-She ــــــــــــــــــــــ three days ago.
a. cooks b. cook c. cooked
4-Ahmad ـــــــــــــــــــــــ Cairo in 1999.
a. visited b. visit c. visits
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1. My brother find a new job in 2002.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2-Samir play tennis yesterday.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
3-Does Ali watch TV last night?
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1- The police talked to Anas yesterday. (Make: Negative)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2- The police talked to Anas yesterday. (Make: Yes/No question)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
3- They went to school late two days ago.. (Use: not )
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
4- Samy wrote letters last Sunday. (Make: Yes/No question)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1. The police talked to Anas yesterday.
Past simple: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the past: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Type of the verb: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. regular b. irregular
2. They went to school late two days ago.
Type of the verb: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. regular b. irregular
Key word of the tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
124
Quiz #Two#
Name:……………………… Class:………….
Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1-He ـــــــــــــــــــــــ his friend last week.
a. meet b. met c. meets
2-She ــــــــــــــــــــــ three days ago.
a. cooks b. cook c. cooked
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1-Samir play tennis yesterday.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2. My brother find a new job in 2002.
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ـ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1- The police talked to Anas yesterday. (Make: Yes/No question)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2- They went to school late two days ago.. (Use: not )
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1. The police talked to Anas last week.
Past simple: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the past: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Type of the verb: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. regular b. irregular
125
Bait Lahia Basic School (A) for Boys
Jigsaw Strategy-Past continuous active
Worksheet #Three#
Name:……………………… Class:………….
Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1- My father …………………………… while we were eating.
a. comes b. came c. was coming
2-While she ……………………,she lost her watch.
a. was playing b. plays c. played
3-It was raining when my mother …………….. the police.
a. was calling b. calls c. called
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1. While Ahmad watch an action film, his mother came.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2-He was reading when the bell ring.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1- While Samy was walking on the street, he met Adel. (Use: when)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2-When it rained , we were working. (Use: while)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1. When it rained , we were working. .
Connector: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Past continuous: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Past simple: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2- While Samy was walking on the street, he met Adel.
Connector: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Past continuous: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Past simple: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
126
Quiz #Three#
Name:……………………… Class:………….
Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1-It was raining when my mother …………….. the police.
a. was calling b. calls c. called
2-Whlie she ……………………,she lost her watch.
a. was playing b. plays c. played
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1. While Ahmad watch an action film, his mother came.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1- While Samy was walking on the street, he met Adel. (Use: when)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1- While Samy was walking on the street, he met Adel.
Connector: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Past continuous: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Past simple: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
127
Bait Lahia Basic School (A) for Boys
Jigsaw Strategy-Present perfect active
Worksheet #Four#
Name:………………………... Class:………….
Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1-They ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ three times so far.
a. have walked b. walked c. walk
2-My father ــــــــــــــــــــــــ in Germany for 14 years.
a. stayed b. has stayed c. stays
3- Maher …………….. in Jerusalem since 2000.
a. lived b. have lived c. has lived
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1. She already watch TV.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2-They just answer the letters.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1-Have you ever visited Cairo ? (Use: never)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2-She has never been in Jerusalem. (Use: ever)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1. Maha hasn’t cooked yet .
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Use of tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. finished action b. unfinished action
128
Quiz # Four #
Name:……………………… Class:………….
Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1- Samir …………….. in Jerusalem since 2000.
a. stayed b. has stayed c. stays
2-My uncle ــــــــــــــــــــــــ in Italy for 3 years.
a. lived b. have lived c. has lived
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
2-He just answer the letters.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1-Have you ever visited Germany? (Use: never)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1. Ahmad has already finished his homework. .
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Use of tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. finished action b. unfinished action
129
Bait Lahia Basic School (A) for Boys
Jigsaw Strategy-Present simple passive
Worksheet #Five#
Name:……………………… Class:………….
Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1- Cakes………………. by my mother every Sunday.
a. cooked b. cook c. are cooked
2-The children………………..after by their parents.
a. are looked b. look c. are looking
3-Every day, one thief…………………….by the police.
a. caught b. is caught c. catches
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1- Cairo sometimes visit by Anas.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2- Letters usually write by Salwa .
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1- Ali often watches TV. (Use: by)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2-Samy always opens the doors. (Passive)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
2. The trees are usually watered by Mohammad.
The function of "The trees" is: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. doer of action. b. receiver of action.
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
130
Quiz # Five #
Name:……………………… Class:………….
Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
3-Every day, two thieves…………………….by the police.
a. are caught b. is caught c. catches
2-The child ………………..after by their parents.
a. are looked b. is looked c. are looking
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1- Jerusalem sometimes visit by Salwa.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1-Samy usually closes the window. (Use: by)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
2. The questions are often answered by the students
The function of "The trees" is: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. doer of action. b. receiver of action.
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
131
Bait Lahia Basic School (A) for Boys
Jigsaw Strategy-Present simple passive
Worksheet #Six#
Name:……………………… Class:…………. Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1-A houseـــــــــــــــــــــــــ last year.
a. destroyed b. was destroyed c. is being destroyed
2-The pyramids…………………………..by a lot of people in 2001.
a. were visited b. visited c. were visiting
3-Cakes………………. by my mother yesterday.
a. cooked b. cook c. were cooked
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1. The Dome of the Rock build by Abdul Malik Ibn Marwan
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2-Two men kill by the murder three days ago.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1.Did Adel visit Jerusalem? (Begin with: Was)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2-Jamal wrote a letter yesterday. (Change into passive)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1. Questions were asked by the students last class.
The function of " the students " is: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. receiver of action. b. doer of action
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
132
Quiz # Six #
Name:……………………… Class:…………. Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1-Jordan…………………………..by Samy last year.
a. was visiting b. visited c. was visited
2-The food………………. by my sister three days ago.
a. cooked b. was cooked c. cook
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1-Wael punish by the teacher last week.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1.Did Jamal wrote a letter? (Begin with: Was)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1. The question was answered by Ramy yesterday.
The function of " Ramy " is: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a-receiver of action. b. doer of action
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Key word of the tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
133
Bait Lahia Basic School (A) for Boys
Jigsaw Strategy- Past continuous passive
Worksheet #Seven#
Name:……………………… Class:…………. Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1- My father came while the kitchen …………………………...by Salwa
a. was cleaning b. cleaned c. was being cleaned
2-While the letters ……………………by Adel, the bell rang.
a. was being written b. were witing c. were being written
3-The thief ………………..by the police when the light went out.
a. was being caught b. was catching c. caught
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1. While TV watch byAhmad, his mother came.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2-The gardens water by my father when the bell rang.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1- Anan was reading a book (Change into passive)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2-The students were answering the questions. (Begin with: The questions)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1.While the man was being killed by the murder , the police arrived .
Past simple: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ connector: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
The underlined sentence is: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. an active sentence b. a passive sentence c. a question
134
Quiz # Seven #
Name:……………………… Class:………….
Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1- When the light went out, the thief ………………..by the police.
a. was being caught b. was catching c. caught
2- While the kitchen …………………………...by Salwa, my father came
a. was cleaning b. cleaned c. was being cleaned
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1- When the bell rang ,the gardens water by my father.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1- Anan was writing a letter. (Change into passive)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1.While the questions were being answered by the students , the teacher came .
Past simple: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ connector: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
The underlined sentence is: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. an active sentence b. a passive sentence c. a question
135
Bait Lahia Basic School (A) for Boys
Jigsaw Strategy- Present perfect passive
Worksheet #Eight#
Name:……………………… Class:…………. Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1-Al-Aqsa mosque…………………… by Israel for a long time.
a. has occupied b. has been occupied c. occupied
2-The questions……………………… by the students yet.
a. haven’t been answered b. have answered c. have been answered
3- The cakes have ……………………………..since two o'clock .
a. cooked b. cooking c. been cooked
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1- Cairo never visit by Mariam.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2-This lesson explain by the teacher three times so far.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1- Samir has already visited Germany (Begin with: Germany)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2-The thief has just stolen the money. (Passive)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1. The problems haven’t been solved yet.
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Receiver of action: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
The function of "yet" is: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. object b. subject c. key word
136
Quiz # Eight #
Name:……………………… Class:………….
Date:……………….
A- Choose the correct answer:
1- The cakes have ……………………………..since two o'clock .
a. cooked b. cooking c. been cooked
2-Al-Aqsa mosque…………………… by Israel for a long time.
a. has occupied b. has been occupied c. occupied
B- Correct the underlined words(s) if necessary :
1- Football never play by my father.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
C- Rewrite the following sentences as required in brackets:
1-The thief has already stolen the money. (Begin with: The money)
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
D- Analyze the following sentences :-
1. The meeting has just been finished by the head teacher.
Tense: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Receiver of action: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
The function of " just " is: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
a. object b. subject c. key word
137
Appendix ( 10 )
Referee Committee
This list includes the names and titles of the referees who refereed the pre-post achievement
test , the observation card and the reflection log card , where (1) refers to those who refereed the
pre-post achievement test ,(2) refers to those who refereed the observation card and(3) refers to
those who refereed the reflection log card.
1-The pre-post achievement test's referees.
2- The observation card's referees.
3-Reflection log card 's referees/ Learners 'perceptions of jigsaw strategy's referees.
List of referees
3 2 1 Institution
Degree Field Name No.
√ √ IUG Ph.D. Faculty of
Education Prof. Izzo Afana 1-
√ √ √ IUG Ph.D. Faculty of
Education Prof. Awad Keshta 2-
√ √ √ Al-
Aqsa&QOU Ph.D.
Faculty of
Education Dr. Jaber Abu Shawiesh 3-
√ √ √ Al-Azhar U Ph.D. Faculty of
Education Dr. Basil Skeik 4-
√ √ Al-Azhar U Ph.D. Faculty of
Education Dr. Hassan Abu-Jarad 5-
√ √ √ QOU Ph.D. Faculty of
Education Dr. Ahmad El-Nakhala 6-
√ √ √ Al-Azhar U Ph.D. Faculty of
Education Dr. Sammar Abu-Shaban 7-
√ √ IUG Ph.D. Faculty of
Education Dr. Fathia El-lolou 8-
√ √ IUG Ph.D. Faculty of
Education Dr. Ibrahim Al-Astal 9-
√ √ IUG Ph.D. Faculty of
Education Dr. Abdel-Mouty El-
Agha 10-
√ √ IUG Ph.D. Faculty of
Education Dr.Dawoud Hilis 11-
√ √ QOU Ph.D. Faculty of
Education Dr. Ahmad Saleh 12-
√ √ QOU Ph.D. Lecturer Dr. Jalal Roumia 13-
√ √ Al-Azhar U Ph.D. Faculty of
Education Dr. Abdel Kareem
Lubbad 14-
138
3 2 1 Institution
Degree Field Name No.
√ √ QOU Ph.D. Lecturer Dr. Jalal Hamdan 15-
√ √ QOU Ph.D. Lecturer Dr. Hamdy Abu-Jarad 16-
√ √ MOEHE B.A. Head Teacher Mr. Abel Haleem Abu-
Jarad 17-
√ √ √ MOEHE M.A. Supervisor of
English Mr. Hani El-Helou 18-
√ √ √ MOEHE M.A. Supervisor of
English Mrs. Yousra El-Kahlout 19-
√ √ MOEHE M.A. Teacher Mr. Ahmad Abu-Zayda 20-
√ √ √ MOEHE M.A. Teacher of
English Mr. Fadi El-Najjarr 21-
√ √ √ UNRWA M.A. Teacher of
English Mr. Aasem Bahja 22-
√ √ √ QOU M.A. Faculty of
Education Mr. Jehad El-Mosalamy 23-
√ √ √ QOU M.A. Faculty of
Education Mr. Nashat El-Masry 24-
√ √ MOEHE M.A. Supervisor Mr. Mohammad Abu-
Nada 25-
√ √ UNRWA M.A. Teacher Mr. Awad Baraka 26-
√ √ MOEHE M.A. Supervisor Mr. Mousa Shhab 27-
√ √ √ MOEHE M.A. Teacher of
English Mr. Mazen Abu-Nada 28-
√ √ √ MOEHE M.A. Teacher of
English Mr. Husam Ishtawi 29-
√ √ √ MOEHE M.A. Teacher of
English Mr. Mohammad El-
Kahlout 30-
√ √ MOEHE B.A. Teacher Mr. Ala'a Ali 31-
√ √ MOEHE B.A. Teacher Mr. Jehad Khamis 32-
IUG stands for the Islamic University of Gaza
MOEHE stands for Ministry of Education and Higher Education
UNRWA stands for United Nations Relief and Work Agency
QOU stands for Quds Open University
139
Appendix ( 11 )
Curriculum Vitae
Samir Mohammad Ismaeil Saker
Beit lahia El-Mashrou,El-Qassam Street
Mobile \ 0599575408
Personal Information:
Name : Samir Mohammad Ismaeil Saker.
Gender: Male.
Date of Birth : 09\05\1969.
Place of Birth : Gaza\Palestine.
Marital Status : Married.
Nationality : Palestinian.
Education File :
General Certification of Education : 1987.
B.A. of English Language in 2006 ( Al-Quds Open University ).
Diploma of Education in 2013 ( Islamic University ).
M.A. of Methodology " The effectiveness of Using Jigsaw Strategy on Palestinian
Tenth Graders’ English Grammar Learning ".
Current job
A teacher for English language (10th
grade) at Abu- Obaida Ibn Al-Jarah Secondary
School for Boys.
Previous jobs :
A part-time teacher at Polytechnic of Palestine University.
A part-time teacher at Polytechnic of Palestine College.
A part-time teacher at Applied Future Polytechnic.
140
Courses attended :
120-hours course in Methodology and Class Management at continuing Education
of Islamic University .(taught by Dr. Sadek Firwana )
Curriculum taught by the researcher :
Headway (Pre-intermediate).
English for Secretary .
English for Culinary art.
Communication skills.
English for Palestine (4th
grade,5th
grade,7th
grade and 10th
grade ).
Interests:
-Politics.
-Educational subjects.
-Sport (Football-Tennis).
-Travel & Tourism.
Languages:
Arabic –English- German.
141
Appendix ( 12)
Some photos of the students during the experimentج
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
Appendix ( 13 )
Students 'names of the experimental group
أسماء طالب المجموعة التجربة الرقم أحمد جمال أحمد الكالن -1 أحمد محمود حسن أبوجاسر -2 أحمد نافذ محمود عطة -3 أشرف أسعد موسى الدعبلة -4 أمجد حسن محمد أبوحلوب -5 إبراهم نافذ إبراهم الدحنون -6 إسماعل عبد الجلل أبوراش -7 أنس امن مجدي ورش أغا -8 أنس وسف إبراهم فلفل -9
بالل إسماعل عل أبو سلطان -10 بالل طلعت محمد البدرساوي -11 جهاد جمعة عل المغرب -12 جواد محمود جواد أبوبنات -13 حذفة سام أحمد مصلح -14 حسان عل فهم البراوي -15 حسن حمودة شحادة أبوسلطان -16 رام مطع عبد الفتاح أبوجراد -17 رام حى عسى غالة -18 شعبان خالد عاش علان -19 عادل محمود عادل صبح -20 عبد الجبار وائل عبد الجبار عوده -21 عبد الحافظ شرف محمد العامودي -22 عبد هللا زاهر عبد هللا ورش أغا -23 عصام خضر محمود الرحل -24 عمر رفق محمد قاعود -25 قص رفق أحمد برهومة -26 مؤمن صقر مصطفى الشافع -27 محمد حاتم عبد رجب -28 محمد رفعت رببع المصري -29 محمد مازن محمد رجب -30 محمود عمار فتح بنات -31 محمود محمد أحمد قحمان -32 مسعود إبراهم حرب ورش أغا -33 معاذ جبر عبد الهادي سالم -34 معاذ جهاد حسن رجب -35 نور الدن معن عل قشطة -36
155
Appendix ( 14 )
Students 'names of the control group
أسماء طالب المجموعة الضابطة الرقم أحمد وائل صالح ابوشملخ -1 أمر كامل محمد ورش أغا -2 أسامة جمال أحمد رجب رجب -3 أسامة حسام محارب أبو حبل -4 باسم إبراهم حسن فلفل -5 باسم منصور إبراهم أبوشملخ -6 براء فرد خضر مسلم -7 جمال عبد الشاف جمال الدحنون -8 حسن عل حسن حمودة -9
سام رائد عبد القادر ورش أغا -10 عاهد أحمد عادل حمودة -11 فراس مازن رمضان كالن -12 فرح محمد مطر غبن -13 فضل حاتم محمد غبن -14 محمد أحمد مصطفى النجار -15 محمد جمل محمد ورش أغا -16 محمد جهاد حسن الدعبلة -17 محمد صبري عودة أبو عاش -18 محمد صالح حسن رجب -19 محمد عرفة عل ابوشملخ -20 محمد عمار الف ورش أغا -21 محمد محمد نمر حسونة -22 محمد نبل محمد م -23 محمد اسن سالم أبو ستة -24 محمد وسف عل ابودحل -25 محمود أمن محمود حمدونة -26 معاذ محمود محمد رجب -27 منتصر فاق محمد أبوعجنة -28 مهدي عمار صالح الرحل -29 مهدي محمد محمود الرحل -30 نائل خالد ونس البراوي -31 نضال ناهض إبراهم أبوخاطر -32 نور جهاد جمعة ونس -33 هثم باسل محمد عباس الرضع -34 وسم بشر زك أبوحمدة -35 زد حسن خلل ابودراب -36
156
Appendix ( 15 )
Permission received from The Islamic University of Gaza
157
Appendix ( 16 )
Permission received from Ministry of Education & Higher Education
158
Appendix ( 17 )
Permission received from Directorate of Education /North Gaza