Jigsaw II instruction produced a statistically significant pre-to-post achievement gain in the control group¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The control group taught with Jigsaw II showed a statistically significant increase from pre-test (mean 6.20) to post-test (mean 7.95). → Turkmen 2015
Evidence¶
Turkmen 2015¶
Turkmen, H. & Buyukaltay, D. (2015). Which one is better? Jigsaw II versus Jigsaw IV on the subject of the building blocks of matter and atom. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 1(2), 88-94. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1105340
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Dependent-group t-test on the 24-student control group taught with Jigsaw II; pre-test mean 6.20 (SD 2.14), post-test mean 7.95 (SD 1.92), t = -3.095, p = 0.005. The article reports the difference "occurred in favor of the post-test".
"A statistically significance level of 0.05 was found in the dependent group t -test carried out for achievement pre-test and post -test of the control group. This difference occurred in favor of the post-test."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Jigsaw IV instruction produced a statistically significant pre-to-post achievement gain in the experiment group — related
- No statistically significant post-test difference was found between the Jigsaw IV and Jigsaw II groups — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.