图片发自App
Flipped classroom
Flipped classroom is an instructional strategy and a type of blended learning that reverses the traditional learning environment by delivering instructional content, often online, outside of the classroom. It moves activities, including those that may have traditionally been considered homework, into the classroom. In a flipped classroom, students watch online lectures, collaborate in online discussions, or carry out research at home and engage in concepts in the classroom with the guidance of a mentor.
In the traditional model of classroom instruction, the teacher is typically the central focus of a lesson and the primary disseminator of information during the class period. The teacher responds to questions while students defer directly to the teacher for guidance and feedback. In a classroom with a traditional style of instruction, individual lessons may be focused on an explanation of content utilizing a lecture-style. Student engagement in the traditional model may be limited to activities in which students work independently or in small groups on an application task designed by the teacher. Class discussions are typically centered on the teacher, who controls the flow of the conversation.[1] Typically, this pattern of teaching also involves giving students the task of reading from a textbook or practicing a concept by working on a problem set, for example, outside school.[2]
The flipped classroom intentionally shifts instruction to a learner-centered model in which class time explores topics in greater depth and creates meaningful learning opportunities, while educational technologies such as online videos are used to deliver content outside of the classroom. In a flipped classroom, content delivery may take a variety of forms. Often, video lessons prepared by the teacher or third parties are used to deliver content, although online collaborative discussions, digital research, and text readings may be used.[3][4][5]
Flipped classrooms also redefine in-class activities. In-class lessons accompanying flipped classroom may include activity learning or more traditional homework problems, among other practices, to engage students in the content. Class activities vary but may include: using math manipulatives and emerging mathematical technologies, in-depth laboratory experiments, original document analysis, debate or speech presentation, current event discussions, peer reviewing, project-based learning, and skill development or concept practice[6][7] Because these types of active learning allow for highly differentiated instruction,[8] more time can be spent in class on higher-order thinking skills such as problem-finding, collaboration, design and problem solving as students tackle difficult problems, work in groups, research, and construct knowledge with the help of their teacher and peers.[9] Flipped classrooms have been implemented in both schools and colleges and been found to have varying differences in the method of implementation.[10]
A teacher's interaction with students in a flipped classroom can be more personalized and less didactic, and students are actively involved in knowledge acquisition and construction as they participate in and evaluate their learning.[3][11][12]
History
In 1993, Alison King published "From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side" In the article, King focuses on the importance of the use of class time for the construction of meaning rather than information transmission. While not directly illustrating the concept of "flipping" a classroom, King's work is often cited as an impetus for an inversion to allow for the educational space for active learning.[13]
Harvard professor Eric Mazur played a significant role in the development of concepts influencing flipped teaching through the development of an instructional strategy he called peer instruction. Mazur published a book in 1997 outlining the strategy, entitled Peer Instruction: A User's Manual. He found that his approach, which moved information transfer out of the classroom and information assimilation into the classroom, allowed him to coach students in their learning instead of lecture.[14][15]
Lage, Platt and Treglia published a paper entitled "Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment" (2000), which discusses their research on flipped classrooms at the college level. In their research focusing on two college economics courses, Lage, Platt, and Treglia assert that one can leverage the class time that becomes available from the inversion of the classroom (moving information presentation via lecture out of the classroom to media such as computers or VCRs) to meet the needs of students with a wide variety of learning styles.[16] The University of Wisconsin-Madison deployed software to replace lectures in large lecture-based computer science course with streaming video of the lecturer and coordinated slides.[17]
Perhaps the most recognizable contributor to the flipped classroom is Salman Khan. In 2004, Khan began recording videos at the request of a younger cousin he was tutoring because she felt that recorded lessons would let her skip segments she had mastered and replay parts that were troubling her.[18][19] Salman Khan founded Khan Academy based on this model. For some, Khan Academy has become synonymous with the flipped classroom, however, these videos are only one form of the flipped classroom strategy.[20]
The Wisconsin Collaboratory for Enhanced Learning has built two centers to focus on flipped and blended learning. The classroom structure houses technology and collaboration-friendly learning spaces, and emphasis for those involved in the program is placed on individualized learning through non-traditional teaching strategies such as flipped classroom.[21]
In practice
Woodland Park High School chemistry teachers Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams became driving forces in flipped teaching at the high school level when, in 2007, they recorded their lectures and posted them online in order to accommodate students who missed their classes. Bergmann and Sams note that one person cannot be credited with having invented the inverted or flipped classroom. Furthermore, they assert that there is no one 'right' way to flip a classroom as approaches and teaching styles are diverse, as are needs of schools.[6]
In 2011 educators in Michigan's Clintondale High School flipped every classroom. Principal Greg Green led the effort to help teachers develop plans for flipped classrooms. He worked with social studies teacher, Andy Scheel, to run two classes with identical material and assignments, one flipped and one conventional. The flipped class had many students who had already failed the class—some multiple times. After 20 weeks, students in the flipped classroom were outperforming students in the traditional classrooms. Further, no students in the flipped classrooms scored lower than a C+. The previous semester 13 percent had failed. The traditional classroom showed no change.[22]
Clintondale had been designated as among the state's worst 5 percent. The next year when teachers used a flipped model in the 9th grade, the English failure rate dropped from 52 percent to 19 percent; in math, from 44 percent to 13 percent; in science, from 41 percent to 19 percent; and in social studies, from 28 percent to 9 percent. After 2011 the now-flipped school's failure rate dropped from 30 to 10 percent. Graduation rates soared above 90 percent. College attendance went from 63 percent in 2010 to 80 percent in 2012. Results on standardized tests went up in 2012 and then dropped, although complicated by student body changes.[22]
Clintondale teachers found that shorter videos (3–6 minutes) were the most effective for students. The school uses audio files, readings and videos from the Khan Academy, TED and other sources. Students favored the changes. Students unable to watch the videos at home watch the videos in school.[22]
In 2014, MEF University, a non-profit private university located in Istanbul, Turkey, admitted its first students. MEF University is the first university in the world that has adopted the "flipped classroom" educational model university-wide. MEF is a university that keeps entrepreneurship, innovative thinking and creativity in the foreground and has the ability to create global and local value-added with its distinct educational model. In 2016, Emerald published "The Flipped Approach to Higher Education: Designing Universities for Today's Knowledge Economies and Societies".[23] This book was written by MEF University President, Muhammed Şahin, and the Director of the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, Caroline Fell Kurban.
While flipped classroom have proven to be effective in secondary schools for quite some time, recent work has shown that flipped methods could be equally effective in improving student learning at the community college level as well. The flipped classroom model allows faculty to engage students in innovative ways, both inside and outside the classroom, and to employ a range of modern teaching tools and approaches. This proves advantageous for diverse classroom environments with students who have different learning preferences.[24]
On June 27, 2016, Jonathan Bergmann, one of the originators of flipped learning, launched the Flipped Learning Global Initiative, led by Errol St.Clair Smith, Director of Global Development.[25]
The inaugural Flipped Learning Research Fellows include:
Dr. Raul Santiago Campion, Ph.D., Professor of Didactics and Pedagogy at University of La Rioja, Spain
Dr. Victor Der-Long Fang, Professor, Department of Education National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan
Dr. Caroline Fell Kurban, Director Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) MEF University, Istanbul[26]
Professor Roger Hadgraft, Director, Educational Innovation & Research, Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Dr. Dominick J. Casadonte, Jr., Minnie Stevens Piper Professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Texas Tech University
BaoHui Zhang, Ph.D., Qujiang Scholar Professor, Shaanxi Normal University, China
Cathy Box, Ph.D., Associate Professor in Education at Lubbock Christian University
Ken Bauer, Associate Professor, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico
Assoc. Prof. Carl Reidsema, Ph.D., Director of Teaching and Learning (Engineering), Director, Centre for eLearning Innovations and Partnerships in Science and Engineering – eLIPSE, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Maurizio Maglioni, President of FLIPNET, the Italian Association for the Sponsorship of Flipped Learning
Robert Talbert, Associate Professor of Mathematics, Grand Valley State University
Helaine W. Marshall, Professor of Education at Long Island University[27]
Giorgio Asquini, Associate Professor of Educational Research at Sapienza, University of Rome, Italy
Gwo-Jen Hwang, Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, Chair Professor, Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
Irma Brasseur-Hock, Ph.D. University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning Department of Special Education
Professor Dr. Javier Tourón, Vice-chancelor of Innovation and Educational Development at the Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), Spain.
Chung Kwan LO is an EdD student of the Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong. His main research interests are flipped learning, collaborative learning, and computer-supported teaching.
Flipped mastery
In traditional schools, each topic in class receives a fixed amount of time for all students. Flipped mastery classrooms apply a mastery learning model that requires each student to master a topic before moving to the next one.[28]
Mastery learning was briefly popular in the 1920s, and was revived by Benjamin Bloom in 1968. While it is difficult to implement in large, traditional classrooms, it has shown dramatic success in improving student learning.[29][30] The mastery model allows teachers to provide the materials, tools and support for learning while students set goals and manage their time.[28]
Mastery rewards students for displaying competence. Students who initially turn in shoddy work must correct it before moving on. Before flipping, mastery learning was impractical in most schools. It was not possible to give different lectures for different groups of students. Testing was also impractical, because fast-learning students could reveal the test to those who followed.[28]
In a flipped mastery classroom, students view each lecture and work on each exercise or project when they have mastered the precursors.[31]
Tim Kelly, winner of the Presidential Award for Mathematics and Science Teaching, adopted flipped mastery with his colleagues Corey Sullivan and Mike Brust. Sullivan estimated that 40 to 60 hours of work outside school for each of 12 units per course were required the first year. Another Presidential Award winner, Spencer Bean, converted after his daughter went through Kelly's class.[28]
Flipped mastery eliminates two other out-of-class routines: daily lesson planning and grading papers. The latter happens in class and in person. Replacing lectures with group and individual activities increases in-class activity. Every student has something to do throughout the class. In some classes, students choose how to demonstrate mastery—testing, writing, speaking, debating and even designing a related game. Learning Management Systems such as Moodle or ILIAS provide ways to manage the testing process. They create a different test for each student from a pool of questions. Advocates claim that its efficiency allows most students to do a year's work in much less time. Advanced students work on independent projects while slower learners get more personalized instruction. Some students might not get through the year's material, but demonstrated competence on the parts they did complete.[28]
Limitations and criticisms
Critics argue the flipped classroom model has some drawbacks for both students and teachers.
For students, there exists a 'digital divide'. Not all families are from the same socio-economic background, and thus access to computers or video-viewing technology outside of the school environment is not possible for all students. This model of instruction may put undue pressure on some families as they attempt to gain access to videos outside of school hours[32]
Additionally, some students may struggle due to their developing personal responsibility. In a self-directed, home learning environment students who are not at the developmental stage required to keep on-task with independent learning may fall rapidly behind their peers[32][33][34]
Others argue that the flipped classroom leads to increased computer time in an era where adolescents already spend too much time in front of computer screens. Inverted models that rely on computerized videos do contribute to this challenge, particularly if videos are long.[32]
Additionally, flipped classrooms that rely on videos to deliver instruction suffer some of the same challenges as traditional classrooms. Students may not learn best by listening to a lecture, and watching instructional videos at home is still representative of a more traditional form of teaching. Critics argue a constructivist approach would be more beneficial.[32]
Teachers may find challenges with this model as well. Increased preparation time is initially likely needed, as creating high quality videos requires teachers to contribute significant time and effort outside of regular teaching responsibilities.[6] Additional funding may also be required to procure training for teachers to navigate computer technologies involved in the successful implementation the inverted model.[7]
With other educational approaches
Flipped learning + Peer instruction
Interactive method based on collaborative work that has proven effective in areas such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (Dumont, 2014). Specifically consists of sharing with other students a different response to their own and explain the reasons that support the same to learn from each other. In this process the reasoning beyond the answers is analyzed.
Flipped mastery learning
When the invested learning model is applied in a more advanced way. Educators begin by organizing content around specific goals. Students work on course content at their own pace and upon reaching the end of each unit, they must show mastery of learning objectives before moving on to the next topic and so on (Bergmann and Sams, 2013). Students can show evidence of their learning through videos, worksheets, experimental stories, programs, projects, examples, among others. There are two challenges in the flipped-mastery model: the first is to deliver instruction to students when they have different levels of learning and understanding of the subjects. The second challenge is to carry out summative assessment when the student has to be evaluated more than once.
Flipped adaptive learning
The combination of inverted learning and other pedagogical approaches such as adaptive learning can help educators obtain information from the areas of learning that dominate their students and those in which they still have deficiencies or need to improve. This knowledge can support the teacher in determining how to organize and manage class time in order to maximize student learning (Yilmaz-tuzun, 2008).
Flipped learning + gamification
A step forward in the flipped-mastery model would be to include gamification elements in the learning process. Gamification is the application of game mechanisms in situations not directly related to games. The basic idea is to identify what motivates a game and see how it can be applied in the teaching-learning model (in this case it would be Flipped-Mastery). The results of the Fun Theory research showed that fun can significantly change people's behavior in a positive sense, the same effect it has on education (Volkswagen, 2009).
Flipped learning + cooperative learning
There may also be a symbiosis or complementation between the flipped classroom technique and cooperative learning. Schoolwork, also commonly known as "homework", is done jointly and in cooperation with the group as the teacher moves the time spent explaining the subject to the flipped classroom method. In this way, the student has to assimilate and understand the content of more theoretical weight at home, through the recordings made by the teacher, and the time in class is dedicated to the development of tasks and problem solving and / or doubts through cooperative learning (Fortanet, González, Mira Pastor and López Ramón, 2013).
Flipped learning + challenge-based learning
Challenge-based learning (CBL) is an initiative introduced by Apple for use in higher education. It is a structured model of the course that has a basis in inductive methodological strategies. Instead of presenting students with a problem to solve, the CBL offers general concepts from which students get the challenges they will have to address. In addition, the CBL encourages the use of web and mobile technologies, such as tools and collaborative wikis, which are available to students but are not often used in courses. This model is often interdisciplinary in its approach, and encourages projects that involve the community at large. The combination of allowing students to choose their challenge and linking these challenges to community interaction increases students' investment in a productive outcome. It encourages students to take advantage of the technology they use in their daily lives to solve real-world problems. Its essence is collaborative and requires students to work with other students, their teachers and experts in their communities around the world to develop a deeper understanding of the subjects they are studying. To assume and solve the challenges, to act, to share their experience, is an important part of its didactic essence and all taking advantage of the ubiquitous possibilities of the technologies in a flipped classroom environment.
2. Jigsaw (teaching technique)
The jigsaw technique is a method of organizing classroom activity that makes students dependent on each other to succeed. It breaks classes into groups and breaks assignments into pieces that the group assembles to complete the (jigsaw) puzzle. It was designed by social psychologist Elliot Aronson to help weaken racial cliques in forcibly integrated schools.[1][2][3]
The technique splits classes into mixed groups to work on small problems that the group collates into a final outcome.[1] For example, an in-class assignment is divided into topics. Students are then split into groups with one member assigned to each topic. Working individually, each student learns about his or her topic and presents it to their group. Next, students gather into groups divided by topic. Each member presents again to the topic group. In same-topic groups, students reconcile points of view and synthesize information. They create a final report. Finally, the original groups reconvene and listen to presentations from each member. The final presentations provide all group members with an understanding of their own material, as well as the findings that have emerged from topic-specific group discussion.
History
In the late 1950s, America was going through desegregation of public schools. In 1954, the Brown v. Board of Education decision of the Supreme Court of the United States created a legal requirement for integration of public schools by ruling that separating schools made them inherently unequal. Actual integration was a painful process, taking years.
Schools were plagued with fights, discrimination, and hate crimes. White supremacist groups and hateful white students terrorized new students. This prevented students from feeling safe in their schools and harmed all their learning abilities. Students often could hardly sit in the same room together without incident, much less work together. This created a problem for teachers, students, parents, communities, and the country alike, as an entire generation of students were distracted from learning by rampant hatred and discrimination.
It was at this time that psychologists were pulled in to advise schools on what to do to correct this problem. In 1971, Dr. Elliot Aronson was hired to advise an Austin, Texas school district on how to defuse the problems of hostile classrooms and distrust between the students. Aronson was a psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin at the time, and took a psychological approach to help fix the problems in the classrooms. Competition among students had become extremely high. It was quickly realized that the competitive nature of the classroom encouraged students to taunt each other and discriminate against those different than them, so that they might vault themselves higher in status. In order to counter this problem, students were placed in diversified groups so that they would be required to work together and reduce the competitive atmosphere. Students were having difficulty adjusting to the mixing of ethnicity in the classroom. Aronson created an atmosphere for increased collaboration and reduction of the resistance to work with one another. Aronson created assignments that made every member of the group equally important. The students had to pay attention and obtain much information from other group members. This allows for each member of the group to add a small piece of the larger picture so that they are all important to the group. This teaches the students to rely on each other and reduces their competitive attitudes toward each other because they need everyone in their group to do well because their grade depends on the other students.[1]
Research findings
Students in jigsaw classrooms ("jigsaws") showed a decrease in prejudice and stereotyping, liked in-group and out-group members more, showed higher levels of self-esteem, performed better on standardized exams, liked school more, reduced absenteeism, and mixed with students of other races in areas other than the classroom compared to students in traditional classrooms ("trads").
Bridgeman
Diane Bridgeman demonstrated that jigsaws displayed greater empathy than trads. She assessed fifth-graders.
Half of her subjects had spent two months in a jigsaw classroom while the other half were in a traditional classroom. The children viewed cartoons to assess their empathy. Trads displayed lower empathy than jigsaws.
Geffner
Geffner assessed fifth-graders' attitudes about themselves, school, and other students. He worked in the Santa Cruz County, California, school district which had a ratio of 50% Caucasian students to 50% Hispanic students. He assessed trads, jigsaws and students in classrooms that used a cooperative technique that did not rely on interdependence ("coops"). He used a modified version of Blaney's questionnaire and a modified version of the Pictorial Concept Scale for Children. This scale placed cartoon stick figures in various situations, including five self-esteem dimensions: athletic abilities, scholastic abilities, physical appearance, family interactions and social interactions. These measures were used as pre- and post-intervention measures. Interventions lasted eight weeks.
Coops and jigsaws improved or maintained positive attitudes about themselves, school, peers and academic abilities and self-esteem. Trads demonstrated poorer attitudes about peers, themselves, and academic abilities.
Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield, Aronson and Sikes
The first experiment with the jigsaw classroom was by Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield, Aronson, and Sikes in 1977. The technique was assessed in ten fifth grade classes across seven schools.
Three fifth grade classes from each school were the controls. Trad teachers were peer-rated as good teachers. The experimental classes worked in jigsaw groups for 45 minutes a day, three days a week, for six weeks. Both groups used similar curricula. The jigsaw groups contained members from all ethnic groups. Student questionnaires assessed attitudes about themselves, school and toward peer teaching, cooperation and attitudes towards group members other students in the class. These measures were used as pre- and post-intervention.
Significant increases were seen in jigsaw self-esteem accompanied by a decrease in trad self-esteem. Jigsaw students liked school more, (Caucasians generally, Mexican-Americans slightly, but not African-Americans.) Trad students liked school less (Caucasians generally, not Mexican-Americans, and African-Americans significantly.) The authors contribute this to the fact that Mexican-American jigsaws may have felt forced to participate in peer teaching. Two other questions produced significant results. Competitiveness among jigsaws decreased and increased among trads. Jigsaws felt they could learn more from other students while trads did not. Students reported increase liking of their group members, but they also increased their liking of other students in the class.[1]
Hänze and Berger
Hänze and Berger assessed 12th-grade physics classes in 2007. They took eight 12th-grade classes and randomly assigned them to either the jigsaw technique or direct instruction. Students were assessed for academic performance and completed a questionnaire looking at personality variables (goal orientation, self-concept, and uncertainty orientation). The topics (motion of electrons and electromagnetic oscillations and waves) were introduced through direct instruction in both branches. Students completed the learning experience questionnaire after the instruction as a pretest measure. Jigsaws were given the learning experience questionnaire after working in the expert group and after working in the jigsaw group. Trads were given the learning experience questionnaire at the end of the lesson.
Academic performance was reasessed a few days after the learning unit. Clear difference emerged in the learning experience, but not in academic performances. Jigsaws showed higher achievement in their "expert" areas, but trads scored better on areas that jigsaws learned from their peers. Jigsaws had a more favorable view of the learning experience, stronger intrinsic motivation, greater interest in the topic and more cognitive activation and involvement than trads. Jigsaws were more involved and more interested in the material and were seen as more competent, more socially related to other students and more autonomous. Indirect effects on performance were implied because students viewed themselves as more competent, but without direct impact on achievement.[4]
Perkins and Saris
Perkins and Saris assessed an undergraduate statistics course in 2001. They noted that a part of class instruction was doing worksheets. Worksheets give immediate feedback, allow for repeated practice, make students active rather than passive learners and allow students to ask for help from the instructor. Drawbacks include students' uneven readiness the substantial time required to complete.
Students worked in groups on two separate occasions. In the first, four worksheets were supplied. Pairs of students were given the same worksheet and worked together to compute various statistical quantities. For the first study an example of the computation and interpretation were provided. After discussion, students received one of two worksheets that directed them through the steps for completing the procedures for one of the remaining designs with a partial solution for each step.
The handout also contained the next-to-last step for the other design. One group of students received step-by-step instruction and partial solutions for the second and a nearly complete solution for the third design and the other group received step-by-step information for the third design and the almost complete solution for the second. Students were instructed to work with a classmate holding a complementary handout. Students were then asked to rate the exercise on usefulness of getting help, giving help, working with classmates, providing an alternative to a lecture, saving time and understanding the statistical procedures.
Students perceived the jigsaw procedure as being very positive especially as an alternative learning experience. Jigsaws rated the technique as more useful for practical purposes than for interpersonal purposes such as working with others or giving/getting help. Students appreciated the technique as a time-saver and viewed it is a change of pace.[5]
Walker and Crogan
Walker and Crogan looked at the effects of a cooperative learning environment, the jigsaw method and traditional classes on academic performance, self-esteem, liking of school, liking of peers and racial prejudice in Australia. They looked at 103 students in grades 4–6 at one private and one public school. Cooperative learning was used as a baseline measure for the effects of cooperation.
The sixth-grade and fifth grade classes hosted coops and trads, respectively. The study was confounded by changes in procedures for the coops and the departure of the trad teacher, resulting in a shortened, four week schedule. The choice to designate the sixth grade class as "traditional cooperation" rather than "failed jigsaw" was criticized by Bratt. In the public school, a fourth-grade class experienced a three-week jigsaw program. The trad class was a split fourth/fifth-grade class. Each experimental branch had a same-school control.
For the private school, there were 31 students in the experimental group and 29 students in the control group. At the public school, there were 20 students and two teachers in the experimental group, with 23 students and only one teacher in the control group. Teachers were given a description of the program and the key facts were discussed with them.
Public school jigsaw groups balanced ethnicity, academic ability and sex evenly. "Best" friends and "worst" enemies were separated. Prior to implementation, jigsaws familiarized themselves with their group peers, practiced their roles as peer tutors and practiced relevant skills such as discussing main ideas, reading for meaning, listening and quizzing peers on important information.
At the private school, students in the experimental class received the cooperative learning program for 90 minutes each day, twice a week, for four weeks. At the public school, students in the experimental class received the Jigsaw program for an hour a day, five days a week, for three weeks. Measures were taken pre- and post-intervention. Academic performance data was available only from the public school. Self-esteem was measured by the Piers-Harris Children's Self-concept Scale (CSCS). Students rated their classmates according to how much they would like to work and play with them. Racial prejudice measures were assessed students’ attitudes to Asian-Australians, Aborigines and European-Australians using one measure of social distance and one of stereotyping.
Academic performance improved for those in the Jigsaw group. Jigsaw self-esteem increased at both schools compared to trads, for liking of school and for playing with peers but the gains were not significant. Jigsaws increased their ratings in working with peers when compared to their relative control group. Coops were not motivated by the prospect of working cooperatively.
Jigsaws liked ingroup and outgroup peers more in work-oriented relationships, but not for coops. Social distance ratings for Asian-Australian and European-Australian children decreased across the program, but European-Australian ratings increased. Jigsaws attributed fewer negative traits to Asian- and European-Australians. Coops showed an increase in stereotyping. The study demonstrated that the Jigsaw method is effective in Australian social conditions in producing positive change in academic performance, attitudes to peers and prejudice. Cooperative learning on the other hand produced generally negative results. Interdependence seemed to be more important than cooperation.[6]
Bratt
Bratt presented two studies on Jigsaw, one in grade 6 (Study 1), one in grades 8 to 10 (Study 2). Bratt focused on the claimed effectiveness of Jigsaw to reduce prejudice. The first study gave similar findings as Walker and Crogan, but Bratt stressed that the data could not be interpreted as establishing positive Jigsaw effects. Bratt’s Study 1 included two schools, with one Jigsaw class and one control class at each school. The experiment covered seven weeks. The analysis focused on ethnic Norwegian children (n = 34 in each class).[7]
The study of sixth graders was confounded by the fact that the Jigsaw class had two teachers whereas the control class had only one teacher.[7]
Study 2 assessed 11 Jigsaw classes and 11 matched control classes. Jigsaw teachers were well trained and repeatedly met during the eight week experiment. The analysis focused on 264 ethnic Norwegian students. Study 2 failed to indicate effects of Jigsaw on intergroup attitudes, cross-group friendship, common ingroup identity, empathy and attitudes toward school. These variables were measured before, immediately after and six months after the first measure. Bratt concluded that the two studies did not support Jigsaw. Bratt also pointed out methodological limitations in previous studies.[7]
