The Missing Pieces : A project about trying out and improving a jigsaw-style lesson in an ESL-setting

(1)

Subject Teacher Education for Upper Secondary

School, English and History or Religion, 300 credits

The Missing Pieces

A project about trying out and improving a jigsaw-style

lesson in an ESL-setting

English, 15 credits

(2)

(3)

1 Abstract

The aim of this project was to explore the jigsaw-method as a teaching tool in English as a Second Language-classrooms, and to design and evaluate a jigsaw-style lesson that aims to promote student activation and communication. To achieve this goal, we conducted a case study in which we designed and tried out a jigsaw-style lesson in two classes. We then evaluated the lessons through a survey which was analysed using thematic content analysis. The results of the survey showed that the negative aspects voiced by the participants belonged to the two main themes Perceived difficulty and Perceived lack of time. Additionally, the participants made several suggestions for improvements which were identified as belonging to the following three themes: Predetermined groups (Based on skill), More time for each step of

the lesson, and Pre-activity & Prior Knowledge. The results from the survey, in combination

with a review of literature on second language teaching and prior research, was used to propose several changes to the lesson format as it was used in the case study. For example, we proposed the addition of a pre-reading exercise aimed at giving prior knowledge and activating schemas, as well as the addition of graphic organisers to help provide a clear focus to the different stages of the lesson. The proposed changes were aimed at alleviating the difficulties voiced by the participants in the case study. The changes were then applied to the case study lesson as an example.

(4)

(5)

3

1. Introduction

There are many different approaches to teaching, and throughout our teaching practice periods we have encountered teachers who have different views on the nature of good teaching. Some view teaching in a teacher centred way. The teacher, in such an approach, is viewed as an expert who shares their knowledge with the students, often through presentations and teacher centred activities. At its most extreme, students in a teacher-centred classroom are viewed simply as receptors of the teacher’s knowledge. In contrast, others view teaching in a student-centred way. In their view, the teacher is a facilitator who provides the students with learning situations in which they are actively engaged in learning through, for example, communication, cooperation, problem solving and discussions. Prior studies show that such student-centred and active ways of teaching can have positive effects on student knowledge acquisition and motivation in comparison to more traditional teacher centred approaches (Tornet, 2011; Wieman, 2014). Of course, these descriptions represent simplified dichotomies of approaches to teaching, and many teachers may find that they are positioned somewhere between these two approaches, while others stand firmly in one camp or the other. Seeing that prior studies suggest that a student centred approach to teaching is more effective than a teacher centred one (a view that is also in line with what we have learned during our university studies), we have chosen to focus on a student centred approach to teaching in this research project.

One way of working with a focus on student activity is to have the students work in groups, and to have them solve a variety of tasks and problems through cooperation. However, such an approach may have a few downsides. For example, in regular group work, students may choose not to participate in the activity and let their group members do all the work. In addition to this, it may prove difficult for the teacher to ascertain which student has contributed each part of the group work. A teaching method that aims to address these issues is the jigsaw-method, which is a cooperative teaching method that uses information gaps and interdependence between the students to make sure that each student actively participates.

In this project, we explore the jigsaw-method as a way of teaching English as a Second Language. To achieve this, we designed a jigsaw-style lesson, tried it out in two different classes and then evaluated the students’ thoughts on the lesson format through a questionnaire. After the initial analysis of the results of that questionnaire, we proposed a redesigned version of the original lesson format which is based on our results, prior studies and literature on second language teaching.

(8)

6 The project is presented below in the following way. First, we present a theoretical background on the historical development of language teaching from the Grammar-translation method to The Communicative approach to language teaching. In the background, we also include a section on the jigsaw-method specifically, followed by a section on prior studies on the jigsaw-method. Next, we include a description of, as well as the results from, our case study. This is in turn followed by a discussion on which changes we propose could be made to the lesson format as it was carried out in the case study. Lastly, we summarize and discuss our final thoughts on the project.

1.1 Aim & research question

The aim of this project is to explore the jigsaw-method as a teaching tool in English as a Second Language-classrooms, and to design and evaluate a jigsaw-style lesson that aims to promote student activation and communication.

We asked the following three research questions at the start of this project: • What are the possible benefits of the jigsaw-method in an ESL-setting?

• What did the students/participants think about the jigsaw lesson format when we tried it out in their classes?

• How can the lesson format, as we used it, be improved?

The first question pertains to the literature review in this project and is answered through that chapter. The second question relates to the case study, and the third question is answered though a combination of the results of the case study and the literature review.

(9)

7

2. Background and Literature

In this chapter, an overview of the development of different approaches to language teaching is provided, along with an overview of the jigsaw-method and previous studies on that method.

2.1 The development of second language teaching

In the following section, a short overview of a selection of teaching approaches and methods is provided. Our use of the terms approach and method is based on the descriptions provided by Harmer (2015, p. 54) and Richards (2015, pp. 58-59). They state that an approach is a description of language and learning theory at a generic level, that, in turn, can be applied in different ways to lesson design and classroom activities. A method, on the other hand, is more specific in terms of objectives, teacher and learner roles, as well as the activities and how they are used in the classroom. Even though the authors make this distinction between methods and approaches, they both seem to use the terms interchangeably in some contexts. For example, they both describe Grammar-translation as a method or collection of methods, even though it could probably fit the description of an approach. Despite this, we have chosen to use the same terminology as they do in the following chapter. Also, even though the different approaches and methods described below are presented in a chronological order, they have not necessarily replaced each other in that manner, as they can be used alongside one another. The description of the development of second language teaching described below is included to provide a historical context to how language teaching has changed over the years. This is to show that the focus of language teaching has moved from a focus on explicit instruction on grammar, translation, and specific language forms, to developing communication in the target language. In other words, the focus has shifted from learning about the language to learning about how the language is used holistically. Even though several other approaches and methods are mentioned in this chapter, special interest has been placed on the communicative approach to language teaching since the jigsaw-method (which is the focus of this project) is a communicative teaching method.

Our description of the development begins with the grammar-translation method, in which the primary focus was on studying individual points of grammar and on translating short texts that contained examples of those grammar points. The translation could be done both from the target language to the students’ first language, or the other way around (Harmer, 2015, p. 56). According to Harmer (2015, pp. 56-57), language was usually treated on a sentence level and longer texts were rarely studied in classrooms where the method was used. As the

(10)

8 focus in grammar-translation was on practicing for accuracy in reading and writing skills, the spoken language was rarely of interest either. According to Richards (2015), this lack of interest in the spoken language was connected to the fact that most students had little practical use of speaking foreign languages at the time before widespread global travel. In other words, there was a correlation between what the students were taught and how the students were expected to use the target language. As people started to travel more at the end of the 19th century, there was an increased need for spoken language fluency, which in time created a demand for alternative teaching methods (p. 60). Even though the grammar translation method has mostly fallen out of fashion, it is still used today in some countries. From our own observations, for example, it seems as if the method is still used in some Swedish classrooms today.

Following the long ‘rule’ of the grammar translation method, teaching stood witness to a reform movement near the end of the 19th_{century. This gave rise to the direct method which} is described by Richards (2015, p. 61) as one of the first oral-based teaching methods. Rather than simply translating language, students were encouraged to communicate with their teacher in the target language and to relate the relevant grammatical forms to objects in their surroundings (Harmer, 2015, p. 56). In this way, new language items were taught without the use of the learners’ first language through careful presentation, demonstration, and by relating the relevant language to pictures and objects. Consequently, the direct method is an inductive teaching method, in which the grammatical forms and functions are derived and understood from the use of, and exposure to, the target language. Much of this was later adopted by Krashen in his natural approach, which will be described later.

Following the outbreak of the second world war, it became apparent that a different and more efficient approach to language teaching was necessary. The need for previously less common language studies arose. To tackle this, linguists and the U.S army came up with an intensive oral-based teaching method that built on grammatical knowledge through extensive oral practice. After the world war, the success of this oral intensive method had made it apparent that language teaching had a lot of room for improvement. Drawing upon the success of the so called ‘army method’ mentioned above, as well as developments within the fields of psychology and linguistics, linguists came up with audiolingualism: a method built on the belief that language learning should be based on the spoken language. The method drills the learners in the basics of the target language through repetition, and it does so through speaking and listening. It is assumed that a learner acquires a language through the building of a

(11)

9 repertoire of sentences and patterns – that can then be applied to the appropriate situation and context (Richards, 2015, pp. 63-65).

Based on similar principles as audiolingualism, Situational Language Teaching (SLT) became the standard British method for language teaching in the 1950s. In SLT, language is taught through spoken language first, and written forms are introduced later in the learning process. As such, a main feature of SLT is that it is exclusively the target language that is used in the classroom. Also, new language forms are introduced in situations, rather than by focusing on them in isolation (Richards, 2015 p. 66). According to Richards (2015), situational language teaching-lessons often followed a three-phase structure called PPP, which stands for Presentation-Practice-Production. In other words, new language forms are first introduced by the teacher. They are then practiced in a controlled setting and are finally used by the students in a less controlled context, which is aimed at helping develop their fluency. Even though the PPP-structure, and modified versions of it, are still used today, situational language teaching (and audiolinguism) began to fall out of favour during the 1970s. According to Richards, this was because of a change in both language theory and language-learning theory:

Language was no longer viewed as a set of fixed patterns and rules to be learned by exposure and imitation, but was seen to draw on cognitive processing that enabled learners to build up their linguistic competence through exposure and interaction. (Richards, 2015 p. 67).

As situational language teaching started to lose its popularity, and as the theories on language learning started to change, a new “communicative” approach to language teaching entered the stage.

2.2 The Communicative Approach

The communicative approach to language teaching started to appear and gain in popularity in the 1970s and 80s. Harmer (2015, pp. 57-62) states that defining the communicative approach can be problematic since it is not a single clearly defined method. Rather, it may mean different things to different people, and there are several approaches to communicative language teaching. Below, we will provide a short overview of some of the defining features of communicative teaching and what sets it apart from other more traditional approaches to language teaching.

(12)

10 According to Harmer (2015, pp. 57-62), one of the defining features of communicative language teaching is that the focus is shifted from learning about how language is formed to learning what language is used for. Furthermore, a central belief in communicative language teaching, according to Harmer (2015), is that “… ‘if language is communication’, then students should be involved in meaning-focused communicative tasks so that ‘language learning will take care of itself” (p. 57). A defining feature of communicative language teaching, then, is that the students are involved in activities that centre on authentic communication. In other words, the idea is that the students learn the language by using it in meaningful communication (Richards, 2015, p. 71). In contrast to more traditional approaches to language teaching, in the communicative approach there is a larger focus on developing fluency in communication, rather than developing accuracy in grammar and vocabulary.

One could assume that if there is too large a focus on fluency, then accuracy may suffer. According to Richards (2015), though, the widespread use of communicative language teaching has not meant that grammar-based syllabuses have been abandoned. Rather, grammar is “…integrated with the communicative practice and linked to communicative outcomes” (p. 70). Harmer (2015, p. 57) points out that there are different ways to view ‘traditional’ and ‘communicative’ approaches to language teaching, and that teachers may combine communicative approaches with explicit language study and traditional methods. This view seems to be shared by Richards (2015). Of course, accuracy focused activities can be taught in a communicative way as well.

The above overview has been focusing on the core ideas of communicative language teaching. Below, we will discuss one approach within communicative language teaching, namely the “natural approach”.

The natural approach is an approach to language teaching developed by Steven Krashen and Tracy Terrel in the 1980s. At the centre of the approach is Krashen’s language acquisition theory, the main features of which are described by Richards (2015) as the following five hypotheses:

• The acquisition/learning hypothesis: Learning and acquisition are described as two contrasting ways of language development. Acquisition is an unconscious process in which language is developed through the understanding of language input and through using language in meaningful communication. Learning, on the other hand, is a conscious process that involves explicit knowledge about language forms.

(13)

11 • The monitor hypothesis: This hypothesis states that the learners consciously learned language systems can only act as a monitor of the output from unconsciously acquired systems. In other words, the monitor checks for and corrects errors in the language output. For it to work properly, there needs to be enough time, there needs to be a focus on form/correctness, and the language user needs to know the appropriate rules. • The natural order hypothesis: Grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable

order, regardless of language. Note that this refers to acquisition, not learning.

• The input hypothesis: This explains the relationship between a language learner’s exposure to language input and their language acquisition. Language learners acquire language skills the best when the input is at a slightly higher level than the learner’s current level. This is described as input+1. Most of the time, if there is enough comprehensible input, in other words language input that the language learner can understand through for example context, input +1 is usually provided automatically. As such, as much comprehensible input as possible is needed in the classroom to promote language acquisition.

• The affective filter hypothesis: The learner´s emotional state or attitude is described as a filter that can pass or block incoming input, which in turn affects acquisition. A low affective filter is desirable since that will block less of the needed input. A relaxed classroom atmosphere, and a focus on meaningful communication and interesting input are some ways teachers can lower the students´ affective filter

(Richards, 2015, pp. 73-74).

As Richards points out, these five hypotheses have several implications on how language teaching may be conducted. For example, teachers need to provide as much comprehensible input as possible, language knowledge should be acquired through participation in meaningful communicative tasks, and teachers need to be aware of and try to affect their students´ affective filters. One of the affective factors that is important to keep in mind in this regard is student motivation. In the following section, we will briefly explore what motivation is, what affects motivation and some of the things teachers can do to help motivate learners.

In regards to language learning, Richards describes motivation as “… the learner´s attitude, desire, interest, and willingness to invest effort in learning a second language” (2015, p. 149). Another definition can be found in Arnold’s book Meaningful Action from 2013 (cited in Harmer, 2015) which describes motivation as “…wanting to do something enough to put out the effort necessary to achieve it” (p. 89). According to Harmer (2015, pp. 90-91), there are

(14)

12 two different kinds of motivation – extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation. He describes extrinsic motivation as the external form of motivation, which is triggered by circumstances outside the learner. An example can be the wish or need to pass an exam or to reach a certain level of language proficiency before a trip. In contrast to extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation is described as the internal form of motivation. It is also called the ‘passion for learning’ and a ‘sense of competence while performing challenging tasks’. In other words, it is connected to a sense of accomplishment and success. Students with intrinsic motivation are driven by a strong will to succeed in class, and by the class content itself. Thus, Harmer states that teachers have a much stronger influence over the intrinsic motivation of students in comparison to their extrinsic motivations, it is easier to alter the contents of the classroom than the external factors of each student’s life (Harmer, 2015, p. 90). In addition to this, the strength of the motivation depends on how much value the person places on the desired outcome of what they are doing. Also, there is a connection between motivation and a person’s emotional state and self-esteem (Harmer, 2015, p. 90). In that way, there is a connection between a person’s motivation and their affective filters.

Communicative language teaching is an approach to language teaching that aims to have the students learn the target language by working together to complete tasks that require them to communicate with each other. For this to work properly, the task at hand needs to be designed in such a way that it requires the students to communicate, and the students need to be motivated to communicate with each other. In order to design a task that motivates students to communicate, it is necessary to look at what may affect motivation, and what teachers can do to motivate their students.

There are countless things that may affect students’ motivation. Some of them can be affected by the teacher, while others are more difficult to address. For example, Harmer (2015, p. 91) mentions family attitude towards foreign languages as a factor that has a large impact. In a family that views foreign languages as important, the student will likely share such attitudes. Similarly, the attitude of peers may also impact a student’s motivation and feelings towards studies. Sakui and Cowie (2012, p. 207) mention several other things that may affect motivation negatively, and that are mostly outside of the teacher’s control, such as big class sizes, the compulsory nature of learning, and the nature of the school system. Regarding young learners, Harmer (2015, p. 91) mentions that motivation oftentimes occurs naturally and that they often have an intrinsic sense of curiosity and willingness to learn. However, he also states that older students often lose that very motivation as a result of corrosive experiences with learning in the past.

(15)

13 In their book Motivational Practice, Henry et.al (2019, p. 66) refer to Dörnyei’s taxonomy with diverse methods and approaches to language teaching that can enhance or create student motivation. This taxonomy is divided into four main categories and 35 ‘macro-strategies’ which in turn contain 100 specific strategies or practices. The four categories of the motivational sequence are Creating basic motivational conditions, Generating initial

motivation, Maintaining and protecting motivation, and Encouraging positive retrospective self-evaluation. According to Henry et.al (2019, p. 67), Dörnyei structured these categories as

well as the 35 strategies around three phases of motivation – the pre-actional phase, the actional phase, and the post-actional phase. Each of the 35 strategies focuses on certain classroom activities or ways to teach that can improve student motivation. Five of these strategies have a specific focus on language learning, which makes them interesting for the purposes of this project. These five strategies are:

• Promoting ‘integrative’ values. This strategy is about selecting activities and material with a sociocultural focus. The point of this is to give the students an opportunity to explore the target language communities. Also, the use of authentic material is advised because it helps the students develop interest in the cultural products of the target language and promotes contact with speakers and communities of the target language. • Making the teaching materials relevant. This is about showing a connection between

the activities and the world in which the students live. For example, the teaching material could be about recent events, student interests or about other topics the students can relate to.

• Making learning stimulating and enjoyable by increasing the attractiveness of tasks. Dörnyei stresses the importance of making the learning situation stimulating and enjoyable. He suggests that the following features may help increase the attractiveness of tasks: a challenging element, interesting content, variation, unpredictability, unique places and people, creativity and fantasy, a personal element, excitement through competition, a tangible outcome, and humour.

• Making learning stimulating and enjoyable by enlisting students as active participants. This strategy is about creating activities that are fun and encourage mental or physical involvement and engagement from all students.

• Actively promoting learner autonomy. This strategy is about student agency. In other words, it is about giving students real opportunities to make decisions about their learning, such as in choice of materials, topics, or type of classroom activities. Also,

(16)

14 the students should be given opportunities for self-study and project work to promote learner autonomy. (Henry, et al., 2019, pp. 67-69)

Dörnyei stresses that these strategies are by no means a guaranteed way of creating motivation in students, but rather a list of factors that language teachers should account for when planning activities (Henry, et al., 2019, pp. 69-70).

As described above, Communicative language teaching is an approach to language teaching in which the target language is taught through activities that require the learners to participate in meaningful communication. Again, it is important to note that the communicative approach to language teaching is not a specific prescribed teaching method, but rather a way of thinking about teaching language. At its core, though, the communicative approach is about having the learners use the target language in meaningful ways in order to solve tasks that are designed to elicit certain language use from the learners. One thing that is important to keep in mind when working in a communicative setting is that the teacher needs to be aware of the students’ affective filters. This may relate to making sure that the teaching environment is a place where the students feel safe, relaxed, and where learning can be fun and stress free, as well as a place where the students are motivated to communicate and learn together. As we have briefly explored above, there are several strategies that the teacher can use in order to affect the students’ affective filters and motivation. Additionally, the teacher can use different strategies to make the students’ learning experience more efficient and enjoyable, for example regarding the way they sequence their lessons or introduce new material. If we use reading as an example, the teacher should probably not just hand out a text and ask the students to read it. Instead, before the reading starts, the teacher could include a warm-up exercise of some kind aimed at engaging the students’ interest and activating their prior knowledge about the subject. Harmer (2015), Richards (2015) and Nunan (1989) all discuss the importance of activating prior knowledge before reading. Richards (2015) for example, argues that new learning is built on existing knowledge. This knowledge can be described as schemas, which are mental models that represent a person’s generalized knowledge and experience (Richards, 2015, p. 35). According to Richards (2015, p. 450), if a student cannot activate any schema during reading, the text may be impossible to understand. Nunan (1989, p. 33), adds to this that relevant schemas are especially important for second language learners because many texts cannot be properly understood if the learner lacks the needed cultural knowledge. By engaging the students’ interest, giving them the necessary background knowledge and activating any

(17)

15 existing schemas at the start of the lesson, the teacher can provide good conditions for learning and to set the students up for success.

Another factor that is important regarding the communicative approach is the design of the tasks. Since the communicative approach to language learning is about teaching language through meaningful communication in the target language, tasks need to be designed in such a way that they provide learners with opportunities for meaningful communication. One type of task that achieves this goal is the information gap task. In such tasks, the information about a subject/topic has been split into several parts. Each student only gets direct access to one part of the information needed to complete the task. Since no one student has access to all the information needed for the task, they must ask others for help to complete it. In this way, the design of the task produces a context in which students need to use the target language to get the information they need to solve the task at hand (Nunan, 1989, p. 66). The jigsaw-method, which is the main focus of this project, is a communicative teaching method that is based on the principles of information gap. In the following section, we provide an overview of the jigsaw-method and its history, as well as an overview on previous studies on the jigsaw-method and its effects on learning.

2.3 The jigsaw-method

The jigsaw-method is a cooperative teaching strategy in which the learning material of a lesson is divided into several parts which are then distributed between the group members. Each group member is then responsible for teaching their part of the material to the other group members. A lesson following a basic jigsaw structure would look something like this:

• First, the class is divided into home-groups. Beforehand, the learning material is divided into as many parts as there are members in each home group. Each member of the home group is then assigned one piece of the learning material to read and learn about.

• Next, the students are divided into expert groups with students from the other home groups who have also been assigned the same part of the learning material. The idea is that while in the expert groups, the students can work together to develop their understanding of the learning material. At the same time, they can work on how they will present their part of the learning material to their home group once they return there.

(18)

16 • Next, the students return to their home groups and tell/teach each other about their

part of the learning material.

• At the end of the jigsaw-activity, the students use their combined knowledge on the learning material to solve a task of some kind. They could for example answer a quiz on the material, make a timeline or fill in blanks in a graphic organiser. This part of the jigsaw-activity may be done individually or in groups.

The jigsaw-method, as it is described above, was first introduced in the 1970’s by the American psychologist Elliot Aronson and his students. At the time, the schools in Austin, Texas, where Aronson and his students were working, had recently been desegregated. This meant that students of different ethnic backgrounds that had previously gone to separate segregated schools were now going to school together. According to Aronson this led to ethnic tensions in the classrooms. At the same time, Aronson noticed that a competitive attitude was prevalent among the students (Aronson, 2002, pp. 209-210).

To combat both the ethnic tensions and the competitive attitudes among students, Aronson and his university students designed the jigsaw-method. Their original aim was to design a teaching-method which promoted cooperation between the students, regardless of their ability or ethnic background. They aimed to achieve this by making each student´s part of the jigsaw-activity essential. As Aronson puts it “If each student´s part is essential, then each student is essential…” (Aronson, 2002, p. 215). The idea is that by making each student responsible for teaching the others about one part of the learning material, a certain level of interdependence is created between the students - the only way for John to learn about Victoria´s part of the jigsaw is to listen to her account of it, and vice versa. According to Aronson this interdependence between the students promotes cooperation in the classroom. In extension, Aronson claims that use of the jigsaw-method can lead to an increase in student empathy while at the same time being an effective way to mediate the learning material (Aronson, 2002, p. 216).

(19)

17

2.3.1 Previous studies on the Jigsaw method

Even if the jigsaw-method was originally created with American social issues in mind, the method has been shown to also be an effective teaching method outside of that original context. Walker & Crogan (1998, pp. 391-392) showed that use of the jigsaw-method could lead to improved academic achievement and improved attitudes towards classmates, as well as a decrease in prejudice between students. They also showed that the interdependence that is created by the jigsaw-method was more important to the positive effects that they found than the cooperation itself.

In a study from 1983, Moskowitz et. al. list a set of studies that have shown that the jigsaw-method has positive effects on students’ academic achievement, confidence and attitude towards school and peers (Moskowitz, et al., 1983, p. 688). However, the results from their own study showed that use of the jigsaw-method had limited affective effects. At the same time, the students in the study reported that they perceived the jigsaw lessons as less competitive and more cooperative. The students working with the jigsaw-method also showed an increased attendance rate (Moskowitz, et al., 1983, p. 693). Moskowitz et. al. (1983) also commented on the fact that only three of the eight teachers that were trained in the jigsaw-method for their study actually used the jigsaw-method correctly, which may have affected their results (pp. 693-694).

Hänze & Berger compared student achievement in the teaching of physics in classrooms where the jigsaw-method was used to those where traditional instruction methods were used. The study did not find any difference in the academic achievement between the two instruction methods. The results did, however, show that the jigsaw-method had positive effects on the students’ cognitive activation, motivation, and interest, as well as an increase in students’ feeling of competence. The positive effects were especially noticeable among students with low academic self-concept, which Hänze & Berger link to how cooperative instruction can affect students’ feeling of competence (Hänze & Berger, 2007, pp. 38-39).

In an Iranian study, Namaziandost et. al. (2020) investigated whether the jigsaw-method had any effect on English as a Foreign Language (EFL)-learners’ reading comprehension. Fifty students were selected to participate in the study. Over twenty sessions during a semester, half of the students were taught using the jigsaw-method, while the other half of the students acted as a control group and were taught through traditional teacher centred instruction. Before the implementation of the jigsaw-method, all students participated in a test which aimed to gauge their reading comprehension. In this pre-test, Namaziandost et. al. (2020,

(20)

18 pp. 9-11) could not find any significant difference in reading comprehension results between the two groups. After the implementation of the jigsaw-method, a new reading comprehension test was conducted. In the post-intervention test, the authors found that the group which had been instructed through the jigsaw-method performed better than the control group who received traditional instruction. Namaziandost et. al. (2020, p. 11) concluded that the implementation of the jigsaw-method in the classroom can be beneficial to EFL-learners, that the method can facilitate English learning, and that the method can produce positive results as it is a method that can immerse students in learning English.

In a 2015 Jordanian study, Al-Salkhi investigated if the jigsaw-method had any effect on students´ achievement and learning motivation. A sample of 53 female 7th_{grade students} were selected, 27 of which were taught using a revised version of the jigsaw-method and 26 acted as a control group. When comparing the achievement and learning motivation results between the jigsaw-group and the control group, Al-Salkhi (2015, pp. 116-117) found that implementation of the jigsaw-method had a positive effect on both students’ achievement and learning motivation. Al-Salkhi’s (2015, p. 117) results also showed a positive relationship between the students’ achievement and their learning motivation, which means that when the students´ motivation went up, so did their test results.

2.3.2 The jigsaw-method and the Swedish curriculum for English

According the Swedish curriculum for English as a subject in upper secondary school, the aim of the subject is to have the students develop their language skills and knowledge about the world around them “… so that they have the ability, desire and confidence to use English in different situations and for different purposes” (Skolverket, 2011, p. 1). Also, the students should be given the opportunity to develop a holistic communicative ability through use of the target language. This means that the students should be given the opportunity to develop their abilities in receptive skills such as reading and listening, and productive skills such as speaking and writing, as well as to develop different strategies for communication in the target language. Within every major language skill, the students should also be given opportunities to develop related micro skills and strategies. In English 7, for example, the students should be given the opportunity to work with different genres of text, such as older and contemporary literature, fiction, in-depth articles, and scientific texts. They should also develop the ability to read for different purposes as well as strategies to work with and structure information in larger amounts of text (Skolverket, 2011, p. 11). This shows that the focus in the curriculum for English in Swedish schools is on the different uses of the language, and on practicing it to be able to use

(21)

19 the language in different kinds of communication, and in interaction with a variety of texts for a variety of reasons.

As the curriculum is focused on practicing and developing all the major language skills, and their related micro skills, the jigsaw-method may be a suitable tool for teachers of English as a second language. By design, the different stages of the jigsaw-method incorporate the use of at least three of the four major language skills (reading, listening, and speaking). Depending on the focus of the lesson in which it is used, it can also be adjusted to help the students develop any of the micro skills, strategies, and language systems related to the major language skills. For example, in the reading stage, the students could be given the opportunity to practice reading for gist, skimming, scanning or to do extensive detail focused reading. This relates to the knowledge requirements for English 7, which state that the students should be able to understand both the whole and the details of a given text, and that they should be able to show their understanding by giving accounts of, discussing, and drawing conclusions from what they have read. In the home-group and expert group stages, the students can be given opportunities to do this, while also practicing their fluency in oral communication, their ability to express themselves, and to adapt their language to the recipient and the purpose of the situation. These are all skills that are represented in some way in the knowledge requirements of the curriculum for English 7 (Skolverket, 2011, p. 14), and that can be practiced through the jigsaw-method.

(22)

20

3. Method

The goal of this project was to explore the jigsaw-method as a teaching tool in English as a Second Language-classrooms, and to design and evaluate a jigsaw-style lesson that aims to promote student activation and communication. As a part of our final teaching practice period, we designed and carried out a small case study in which we designed and tried out a jigsaw-style lesson in two classes: one class of eleven students in upper secondary school (English 7), and one class of six learners attending folk high school (folkhögskola), which is a form of adult education. The result of this case study was used as a starting point in this project. Below, we describe how the case study was designed, what method was used to collect data from the participants, how that data was analysed, and how that data can be used in combination with prior studies to improve on the lesson format as we used it.

The purpose of designing and implementing a Jigsaw lesson was to give the participants a chance to try it out for themselves, to give them a solid notion of how Jigsaw works, and to allow them to establish their thoughts on the method. At the same time, it allowed us to perform and actively observe a Jigsaw-style lesson. Before we continue to describe how the lesson was designed, we feel it is necessary to contextualize it. The lesson in question was a part of a module on British colonial history, and the topic for the day was the Mahdist war. The reason this topic was being taught in English class was because, apart from giving students opportunities to develop their language and communication skills, the teaching of English in Swedish schools should also give the students opportunities to develop knowledge of living conditions, social issues and cultural features in parts of the world were English is spoken (Skolverket, 2011, p. 1). In English 7, for example, this is reflected in the core content of the curriculum in that the content of the communication in class should, among other things, cover “Societal issues, cultural, historical, political and social conditions … in different contexts and parts of the world where English is used” (Skolverket, 2011, p. 11). Again, this shows that a topic such as British colonial history could be a suitable topic to teach in English classes in Swedish upper secondary schools in general, and in English 7 specifically. While this shows that the topic is suitable, we want to point out that the topic of the lesson is not necessarily important to the purpose of this project. The lesson on the Mahdist war is used as an example repeatedly throughout this project, since that was the lesson that was performed during the case study. However, the main interest of this project is the lesson format itself, not the topic of the lesson. Still, it is useful to have a concrete lesson to use as an example as we feel that makes the description of the lesson format more tangible.

(23)

21 The case study lesson was constructed in the following way:

• The subject matter, a six-page chronological story of the Mahdist war, which was fought in Sudan between 1881-1899, was divided into three parts. Each part of the story was about two pages long, and covered one third of the chronological story, its events, and characters. The texts are available in their entirety in appendix 1.

• The lesson began by dividing the students into homegroups consisting of three members each. Each member within the homegroup was assigned one part of the learning material.

• After each student read their assigned part, they gathered in ‘expert groups’ consisting of students from the other homegroups that had read the same part. Within each expert group, the students were tasked with discussing the material that had been read. This was done with the intent to develop a common understanding of the story within the expert group, as well as to have the students discuss which parts were important to retell to the homegroup.

• Upon finishing the discussion within the expert groups, the students returned to their homegroups where they retold their part of the story.

• The lesson was wrapped up with a quiz that consisted of a set of questions related to each part of the overarching story. In one of the lessons, each part of the jigsaw took longer than expected, which meant that the quiz could not be performed as planned. After the jigsaw-lesson was finished we conducted a survey with the students that participated during the lessons. All participants were above the age of 18 and consented to participating in the survey. When handing out the survey we made sure to tell the participants that their participation was anonymous and completely voluntary. Out of the eleven students in the upper secondary class, only six chose to participate in the survey. In the folk high school class, all 6 six students who participated in the lesson also answered the survey. The survey originally consisted of twelve questions of both a quantitative and qualitative nature. However, for the purpose of this project, we are only using eight of them as on reflection we decided that the remaining four questions were no longer relevant to the aim of this project (see appendix 2). These questions were constructed in three different ways; there were two multiple choice questions, three questions where the participants could express their level of agreement with different statements based on a linear scale of 1-10, and lastly, there were three open-ended

(24)

22 questions in which the participants were able to freely express their thoughts on the lesson with their own words. The open-ended questions allowed the students to comment on the positive and negative aspects of the lesson, as well as how they believed it could have been improved.

The purpose of the quantitative questions was to explore the students´ perceived optimal learning environment (such as individual work, group work, or just listening to the teacher), and if there were any connections between the students´ prior experience with, and their general attitude towards, the jigsaw-method.

In order to investigate the participants’ thoughts on the jigsaw-method, we analysed the open ended questions through the use of a thematic content analysis inspired by Braun and Clarkes method (Braun & Clarke, 2006). According to Braun & Clark (2006) the aim of thematic analysis is to identify, analyse and report patterns and themes in data. Braun & Clarke suggest a six phase approach to thematic analysis where the steps are as follow: familiarize yourself with the data, generate initial codes, search for themes, review themes, define and name the themes, and produce the report (2006, p. 35).

With Braun & Clarkes guidelines in mind, each of the participants’ answers were interpreted and assigned different codes based on their content. While assigning the codes, we also took note of how many times each code was identified across the answers. After the initial coding process, we began merging the identified codes into overarching themes when applicable.For example, two different codes pertaining to a certain issue could be merged into one theme, such as: participants expressing a lack of time and other participants claiming that they felt stressed would be assigned the codes ‘lack of time’ and ‘stress’, respectively. These two codes would then be merged into the theme ‘lack of time’ because our interpretation was that the stress was connected to a perceived lack of time. This was done in order to identify the main themes across all data.

Through the students’ feedback, and through our own observations during the lessons in question, several areas of improvement to the lesson plan were identified. In order to find ways to approach these areas of improvement, we turned to prior research and our course literature on second language acquisition. Based on our findings we propose several changes that could improve our lesson format. With these things in mind, we present a redesigned lesson format and discuss how the proposed changes could improve the lesson outcome. Originally, our plan was to try out this revised lesson format and compare the lesson outcome with the first lesson. However, due to external circumstances schools have been closed for onsite teaching the last couple of months. Because of this, we have been unable to follow our original plan. Instead, the proposed changes to the lesson format are discussed from a purely theoretical point

(25)

23 of view. A possible critique of this project could be the limited sample size of the case study. As mentioned above, the case study-lesson was performed once in two relatively small classes. Because of the limited sample size, our results cannot necessarily be generalized.

(26)

24

4. The Case Study

In this chapter, we review and analyse the results of our case study. This is followed by a chapter in which we use the results from the case study in combination with our literature review and prior studies to redesign the original lesson format.

The aim of the case study was to design, try out and evaluate a jigsaw-style lesson to investigate whether a group of students would perceive it as a useful teaching method. Ultimately, the goal was to try the jigsaw-method in class, and to receive feedback from the participants on their thoughts on the lesson format and how it could be improved. To fulfil this aim, we asked the following questions:

• What did the students/participants think about the jigsaw lesson format when we tried it out in their classes?

• What suggestions for improvements did the students give about the jigsaw-method, as it was performed in their class?

4.1 Findings and results

In the sections below, we review the findings and results of the case study. First, we present the results of the quantitative parts of the survey. This is then followed by an analysis of the qualitative results of the survey and a summary and conclusion of the case study.

4.1.1 What are the participants’ perceived best ways of learning?

Figure 1.

“What do you think is the best way for you to learn?”

18%

64% 9%

9%

What do you think is the best way for

you to learn?

Working in pairs Working in groups

(27)

25 In the survey, the participants were asked what they believe to be their best way of learning. Our results show that most of the participants (74.9%) believe they learn best by working with others – either through; groupwork (58.3%), working in pairs (8.3%) or in jigsaw-groups (8.3%). However, two of the participants (16.7%) prefer individual work, and one participant (8.3%) believes that he/she learns best by listening to teacher held presentations.

4.1.2 Participant impressions on working with the jigsaw-method

Figure 2.

“Did you consider the jigsaw-method to be a fun way of working in the classroom?”

The survey also contained a set of questions concerning the participants’ impressions on the jigsaw-method, as it was performed in their class. The results show that the majority of the participants were quite pleased with the lesson format. When the participants were asked to grade their thoughts on how fun the method was, 91.3 percent of them answered 6 or above on a scale of 1-10 (1 being less fun, 10 being fun). One participant, however, thought the method was less fun and answered 3.

0 0 1 0 0 1 3 3 1 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Did you consider the jigsaw-method to be a fun way of working in the classroom?

(28)

26 Figure 3.

“Were you under the impression that the jigsaw-method lead to an increase in engagement and participation from yourself and your peers?”

When asked about the perceived impact of the jigsaw-activity on student engagement and participation, the majority of the participants answered that the jigsaw-activity had either a neutral impact or a positive one. Each participant, barring one, answered 5 or above on a scale of 1-10 (1 being a decrease in engagement/participation, and 10 being an increase), this indicates that the method – at least to a certain degree – can be used to increase engagement and participation among students. One participant (8.3%), however, thought the method had a negative impact on their engagement and participation.

Figure 4.

“What is your impression of the jigsaw-method as a whole?”

The participants were also asked what their thoughts were on the lesson format as a whole. Following a pattern similar to the previous questions, the majority of the participants expressed

0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Were you under the impression that the jigsaw-method lead to an increase in engagement and

participation from yourself and your peers?

Reduced engagement 1 - 10 Increased engagement

0 0 1 0 0 1 3 3 1 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

What is your impression of the jigsaw-method as a whole?

(29)

27 positive thoughts regarding the lesson format. Of all the participants, 83.4 percent answered 7 or above on a scale of 1-10, suggesting that they thought it was a well-functioning lesson format. One participant (8.3%) was neutral and answered 5, and another (8.3%) answered 3 – suggesting that the participant was not a fan of this lesson format - especially considering that the same participant expressed a negative attitude on the previous questions as well.

4.1.3 Did the participant have prior experience with the jigsaw-method?

Figure 5.

“Have you worked with the jigsaw-method previously?”

When the participants were asked what their prior experience with the jigsaw-method was like, a third of the participants said they had never encountered it before (at least not in this form). Another third had experience with the method, and the last third was uncertain whether or not they had encountered it before.

4.1.4 Results and analysis of the open-ended questions

The survey offered the participants the chance to answer three open ended questions with their own words. These questions were asked with the goal of attaining qualitative data regarding the students’ thoughts on the jigsaw-method as it was performed in their class within three main fields:

• What they thought was good about the lesson format • What they thought was negative about the lesson format • What they believed could be improved about the lesson format

34%

33% 33%

Have you worked with the jigsaw-method previously?

(30)

28 In this section, the results of these open-ended questions are presented and analysed. Note that the answers have been translated from Swedish, and that words within brackets have been added for clarity. Also, in some cases the grammar has been changed slightly to aid readability.

4.1.4.1 What did the participants feel worked well during the lesson(s)?

Figure 6.

Positive aspects of the lesson format.

When analysing the participants’ answers on the question about what they felt was good about the lesson format, four codes were initially identified within the participants’ answers. These codes were: Student engagement & participation, Interdependence, Cooperation, and Summarizing & discussing the content.

Regarding the first code, Student engagement & participation, several participants noted that they experienced an increase in student engagement and activity in the classroom. Of the eleven answers that were analysed, seven explicitly stated that an increase in engagement and activity was a positive aspect of the lesson format. Stating things such as:

“It worked well because everyone was participating and actively listening to each other”

This was the most reoccurring code among the students’ answers.

The second code, Interdependence, was identified in one of the students’ replies which said:

“I was focused because I had to share it [my part of the lesson] with the others in the best way possible”.

Student engagement & participation

Summarizing & discussing the content

Interdependence Cooperation

Student engagement &

participation Cooperation Student engagement &

(31)

29 We interpreted this as a sign that the student wanted to perform well for the benefit of their group, and that this made the student more focused. Also, our interpretation was that the positive interdependence expressed by this student, not only led to an increase in focus, but also an increase in engagement and participation. Therefore, the second code, Interdependence, could be merged with the first code, Student engagement & participation, to create the overarching theme Student engagement & participation.

The third code, Summarizing & discussing the content, was identified through answers in which the students expressed that the lesson format allowed for healthy discussions, and that these discussions enabled the students to develop their explanatory skills. Examples of answers containing this sentiment were:

“Explaining things to each other and helping discussion in the group” “It [the lesson] created a good discussion and everyone participated”

Lastly, a fourth code was identified as Cooperation. Several students expressed that they were under the impression that the method encouraged a more cooperative approach. The participants mentioned that the structure created an environment in which they had to learn to cooperate in order to solve the task at hand. Examples of answers related to the code

Cooperation were:

“You had to learn to cooperate with others to summarise the text as a whole, as well as learn how to summarise the text yourself”

“The groups cooperation and engagement”

Our interpretation was that the third code, Summarizing & discussing the content, led to an increase in cooperation. Because of this, the third code, Summarizing & discussing the content, could be combined with the fourth code, Cooperation, to create the main theme Cooperation. This meant that the answers regarding what worked well in the lesson had been divided into two main themes: Student engagement & participation, and Cooperation. Following this, our interpretation was that the two main themes, Student engagement & participation, and

Cooperation, could be combined into one overarching theme: Student engagement & participation, since well-functioning cooperation within groupwork would require the students

to be active and engaged with the material. Consequently, Cooperation could be viewed as a part of the overarching theme Student engagement & participation (see figure 6 above).

(32)

30 4.1.4.3 What suggestions for improvements did the participants make?

Figure 8.

Suggestions for improvements

After asking the participants about their views on what worked well, and what did not work well during the lesson, the participants were asked to make suggestions about how the lesson could have been improved. When reading the participants’ suggestions for improvements, three main themes were identified: Predetermined groups (Based on skill), More time for each step

of the lesson, and Pre-activity & Prior Knowledge.

One of the participants suggested:

“To possibly divide the groups based on achievement level so they are made of students with similar knowledge-levels”

From this comment we identified the theme Predetermined groups (Based on skill), which is about how groups are put together in such a way that they are balanced, and that the students feel that they can learn from each other.

Secondly, two of the students suggested that a warmup activity aimed at giving them an introduction to the subject matter would have helped them understand the group discussions better. The students said:

“Some kind of prior presentation that would give the whole group some kind of insight on the subject so that you would understand better in the groups”

“More prior knowledge so you could relate the content to something …”

From these comments, the theme Pre-activity & Prior knowledge was identified. In other words, the students expressed that they could have used an introduction to the subject matter, and that prior knowledge about the subject would have helped them in their understanding of the group discussions.

More time for each step of the lesson

More time Less text More time for

discussions

Nothing

Pre-activity tasks & prior knowledge

Predetermined groups (Based on skill)

(33)

31 Three of the participants did not give any suggestions for improvements. Four of the participants noted, in different ways, that they felt that they needed more time to complete the different steps of the lesson. One student, for example, said:

“The time could have been longer, especially when we were supposed to tell the group what the text was about”

Another participant said:

“One should have plenty of time [to complete the activity]”

The different suggestions that were connected to a perceived lack of time were coded More

time, More time for discussions, and Less text. These three codes were then combined into the

theme More time for each step of the lesson.

To summarize, when reading the participants’ suggestions for improvements, three main themes were identified: Predetermined groups (Skill based), More time for each step of

the lesson, and Pre-activity & Prior Knowledge (See fig. nr 8 above). These three themes all

represent areas of improvement that need to be addressed when we redesign our lesson format later in this project. In the upcoming section, we will provide a summary and conclusion of the results that were presented in this section.

4.1.4.2 What did the participants feel did not work well during the lessons?

Figure 7.

Negative aspects of the lesson format.

During our analysis of the answers regarding the negative aspects of the lesson format, we identified six codes among them. These codes related to the following issues: Uneven groups

(Based on skill), Textual difficulty, Short notice / no preparation, Amount of text, Perceived lack of time, and Perceived stress.

Uneven groups

(Based on skill) Textual difficulty Amount of text Perceived stress

Perceived difficulty Perceived lack of time

Perceived lack of time

Short notice / no preparation

(34)

32 The first code, Uneven groups, was identified in one participant’s reply. The participant expressed a difficulty related to the language skill of the group members and believed the skill distribution among the groups to be too uneven. The participant said:

“The difference in experience and ability to understand the text among the group members [Was the negative aspect of the lesson format]”

This suggests that the uneven grouping made it difficult for the participant’s group to finish the tasks in an adequate manner, and that the participant believed that more balanced groups would have alleviated the issue.

Within the second code we identified, Short notice/No preparation, one participant expressed that there was no preparation and a very short notice prior to the lesson. The participant said:

“Some of us felt there was too short of a notice…”

Our interpretation was that the students were not used to this kind of task or way of working, and that the lack of preparation or notice made it difficult to get a hang of it in time. Also, while this code was only identified in one answer, the answer in and of itself suggests that this was something expressed by several students.

The third code, Textual difficulty, pertains to the participants’ view that the text was difficult to read and understand – this could be both due to the text’s level of language as well as the contents of the text. This code was identified within two answers, both within the answer above that stated: “… ability to understand the text….” as well as another answer, in which the student said:

“The text was difficult!”

These three codes were merged into the theme Perceived difficulty, due to our interpretation that each of them expressed different forms of perceived difficulty regarding the lesson format. We believe that the uneven groups created difficulty in solving the task due to the knowledge gaps it created among the group members. It is also our belief that the short notice led to a perceived difficulty due to a lack of preparation or lack of experience in working with jigsaw activities. Textual difficulty also expresses a perceived difficulty, due to the students’ difficulty understanding the text.

The fourth code, Amount of text, was identified within two of the participants’ answers. The participants expressed both that the amount of text was too great, and that the amount of text was not in line with the amount of time available. The participants said:

“The amount of information that had to be learnt and summarized in a short amount of time [was a negative aspect of the lesson] …”

(35)

33 “A lot of time was needed to read through and discuss the text”

In addition, A Perceived lack of time was identified as the fifth code within five of the participants’ answers. The participants expressed a perceived lack of time regarding both the entire lesson, as well as the different tasks therein. For example, they said:

“Not enough time”,

“There was too little time” “… a little short on time”

Lastly, we identified a sixth code, Perceived stress, among the answers. Two participants gave negative feedback about the lesson plan causing stress, mostly through time constraints and that it felt rushed. They said:

“It became a bit stressed…”

“It felt very stressful when you were retelling your text”

The second answer can be interpreted in two ways: it can either be stress caused by insecurity, and a sense of discomfort about talking to the peers - or it can be because of the time constraints within the lesson plan, and that each task therein had a strict timeframe. Our interpretation was that the participant experienced stress due to the time constraints, as we did not identify any clear communicative anxiety among the students during the lessons.

The three codes Amount of text, Perceived lack of time, and Perceived stress were merged into the theme Perceived lack of time. If the participants felt that the amount of text was too great, and that they did not have enough time for each step of the lesson, there would naturally be a certain degree of perceived stress and lack of time. It was our interpretation that each of these three codes concerned different aspects of a perceived lack of time. Consequently, they could be merged into the main theme Perceived lack of time.

The two main themes that we were able to establish, Perceived difficulty, and Perceived

lack of time, were left as is – as we were unable to identify any larger overarching theme or

tangible relations between the two. One could argue that the difficulty of the tasks or texts caused a sense of stress or lack of time, however, at that point we would be assigning meaning to the answers that was not there to begin with. Thus, the two main negative themes that we found were: Perceived difficulty and Perceived lack of time.

The Missing Pieces : A project about trying out and improving a jigsaw-style lesson in an ESL-setting

Subject Teacher Education for Upper Secondary

School, English and History or Religion, 300 credits