An internal meta-analysis across the five experiments estimated the jigsaw effect on learning at ES = 0.00, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.09]¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 Pooling the five experiments, the overall effect of jigsaw on learning outcomes was essentially zero and did not include the hypothesized d = 0.40. → Arnaud Stanczak 2022

Evidence¶

Arnaud Stanczak 2022¶

Arnaud Stanczak, Céline Darnon, Anaïs Robert, Marie Demolliens, Camille Sanrey, Pascal Bressoux, Pascal Huguet, Céline Buchs, Fabrizio Butera, and PROFAN Consortium. (2022). Do Jigsaw classrooms improve learning outcomes? Five experiments and an internal meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114 (6), pp.1461-1476. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000730

q3 · i0 · causal · r3

Internal mini meta-analysis combining the five experiments' estimates, conducted following Goh et al. recommendations to synthesize the article's own studies. The pooled estimate was ES = 0.00 with 95% CI [-0.10, 0.09], showing the intervention "did not produce the expected positive effects on learning".

"Internal meta-analytic estimates (ES = 0.00, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.09]) showed that, overall, the jigsaw intervention did not produce the expected positive effects on learning."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• With scrambled randomization and novel material, jigsaw produced no difference versus individualistic learning on a life-sciences test — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• In a two-hour randomized experiment, sixth graders in a jigsaw condition did not outperform those in an individualistic condition on a mathematics learning test — a narrower finding that bears on this claim