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¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i0negligible
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Design limits · Arnaud Stanczak 2022: groups were assigned but students were analysed as independent (read from the study by two models, 2026-10-25)
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.
q3 i0 Sixth graders taught mathematics via the jigsaw procedure scored no higher than peers who studied the same material individually (d = -0.04). → 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 · r2
Experiment 1, a two-hour randomized lesson with 252 sixth graders assigned by class to jigsaw (n = 127) or individualistic (n = 125) conditions on the same mathematics material. The independent t-test showed "did not outperform" with d = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20].
"participants in the jigsaw condition (M = 10.83, SD = 4.28) did not outperform participants in the individualistic condition (M = 11.01, SD = 4.13), t(250) < 1, p = .628¸ d = -0.04, 95 % CI [-0.29, 0.20]"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- An internal meta-analysis across the five experiments estimated the jigsaw effect on learning at ES = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.10, 0.09) — a broader claim this one bears on
- With scrambled randomization and novel material, jigsaw produced no difference versus individualistic learning on a life-sciences test — related
- In a semester-long crossover experiment with a real teacher, learning scores under jigsaw were not higher than under teaching-as-usual in physics and chemistry — related
- Small-group learning improves undergraduate STEM achievement — related
- Cooperative storytelling tasks outperformed individual tasks across performance, autonomy, anxiety, and emotion measures — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
jigsaw-vs-individualistic-null-math-e1 |
title |
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 |
description |
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 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2022 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-25 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — arnaud-stanczak-2022 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.