The Advantages of the Jigsaw Model in Protista Learning: A Comparative Study of Conventional Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37251/jouabe.v2i2.3196Keywords:
Biology Education, Conventional Learning, Jigsaw Cooperative Learning, Learning Outcomes, Protista ConceptAbstract
Purpose of the study: This study aims to determine the differences in the improvement of student learning outcomes on the Protista concept between students taught using the Jigsaw type cooperative learning model and students taught using conventional learning at the Madrasah Aliyah level.
Methodology: This study used a quasi-experimental method with a Pre-Test–Post-Test Control Group Design. The sample was determined through purposive sampling and simple random sampling. The research instruments consisted of a 30-item multiple-choice test, an affective observation sheet, N-gain analysis, the Liliefors test, the Fisher exact test, and the t-test. Data processing was carried out using descriptive and inferential statistical analysis.
Main Findings: Jigsaw cooperative learning showed higher learning outcomes compared to conventional learning. The average N-gain for the experimental class was 0.33, while the control class was 0.18. The t-test results showed a significant difference (t count 3.75 > t table 1.99). The Jigsaw model also increased student participation, cooperation, responsibility, and engagement in understanding the concept of Protista.
Novelty/Originality of this study: The novelty of this research lies in its comparative analysis of the effectiveness of the Jigsaw cooperative learning model on Protista material, which has rarely been specifically studied. This research provides new empirical evidence regarding the influence of Jigsaw on improving students' cognitive and affective learning outcomes, while also expanding the reference list for student-centered biology learning strategies.
References
I. Irwan, A. Arnadi, and A. Aslan, “Developing critical thinking skills of primary school students through independent curriculum learning,” Indones. J. Educ., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 788–803, 2024.
P. Kwangmuang, S. Jarutkamolpong, W. Sangboonraung, and S. Daungtod, “The development of learning innovation to enhance higher order thinking skills for students in Thailand junior high schools,” Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 1–13, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07309.
D. A. E. P. Sembiring and M. Yusuf, “How do students understand biological concepts ? A study on science literacy in basic education,” J. Sinar Edukasi, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 207–222, 2025.
P. Y. Chen and Y. C. Liu, “Impact of ai robot image recognition technology on improving students’ conceptual understanding of cell division and science learning motivation,” J. Balt. Sci. Educ., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 208–220, 2024, doi: 10.33225/jbse/24.23.208.
V. Deak and R. Santoso, “Learning strategies and applications in learning achievements,” Int. J. Soc. Manag. Stud., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 159–167, 2021.
D. H. Chang, M. P. C. Lin, S. Hajian, and Q. Q. Wang, “Educational design principles of using ai chatbot that supports self-Regulated learning in education: Goal setting, feedback, and personalization,” Sustain., vol. 15, no. 17, pp. 1–15, 2023, doi: 10.3390/su151712921.
I. M. Astra, A. Henukh, and Algiranto, “Implementation of think pair share model in physics learning to determine cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning outcomes and student responses,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021, pp. 1–8. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1876/1/012064.
M. A. AlAfnan, “Enhancing educational outcomes using AlAfnan taxonomy: integrating cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains,” Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 2419–2437, 2025, doi: 10.11591/ijere.v14i3.33147.
I. V. Pavlova et al., “An introductory biology research-rich laboratory course shows improvements in students’ research skills, confidence, and attitudes,” PLoS One, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 1–27, 2021, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261278.
I. Tahir, V. Van Mierlo, V. Radauskas, W. Yeung, A. Tracey, and R. da Silva, “Blended learning in a biology classroom: Pre‐pandemic insights for post‐pandemic instructional strategies,” FEBS Open Bio, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 1286–1305, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1002/2211-5463.13421.
M. Treve, “Comparative analysis of teacher-centered and student-centered learning in the context of higher education: A co-word analysis,” Iberoam. J. Sci. Meas. Commun., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–12, 2024, doi: 10.47909/ijsmc.117.
B. D. S. Ghaleb, “Effect of exam-focused and teacher-centered education systems on students’ cognitive and psychological competencies,” Int. J. Multidiscip. Approach Res. Sci., vol. 2, no. 02, pp. 611–631, 2024, doi: 10.59653/ijmars.v2i02.648.
H. Hardianto, S. Mahanal, H. Susanto, and S. Prabaningtyas, “Protist literacy: A novel concept of protistlearning in higher education,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1–15, 2024, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/14157.
H. Hardianto, S. Mahanal, H. Susanto, and S. Prabaningtyas, Exploring protist literacy among university students’: Findings from a recent survey, no. Smic. Atlantis Press International BV, 2024. doi: 10.2991/978-94-6463-624-6_18.
M. S. G. Sihombing and H. Pranoto, “Analysis of students’ learning difficulties protist material,” J. Pelita Pendidik., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1–11, 2020.
L. Khalifatunnisa and I. Mubarok, “The application of 7E learning cycle model based on multiple representations on understanding the concept of classification and communication skills in protist learning material,” J. Biol. Educ., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 181–191, 2023, doi: 10.15294/jbe.v12i2.59432.
R. M. Sølvik and A. E. H. Glenna, “Teachers’ potential to promote students’ deeper learning in whole-class teaching: An observation study in Norwegian classrooms,” J. Educ. Chang., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 343–369, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10833-021-09420-8.
D. Harefa, “Strengthening mathematics and natural sciences education based on the Local wisdom of South Nias: Integration of traditional concepts in modern education,” Haga J. Pengabdi. Kpd. Masy., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 63–79, 2024, doi: 10.57094/haga.v3i2.2347.
M. Usman, I. N. S. Degeng, S. Utaya, and D. Kuswandi, “The influence of jigsaw learning model and discovery learning on learning discipline and learning outcomes,” Pegem Egit. ve Ogr. Derg., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 166–178, 2022, doi: 10.47750/pegegog.12.02.17.
F. P. Soedimardjono and P. P, “Cooperative learning model with jigsaw type improves students’ sciences process skills and learning outcomes,” JPI (Jurnal Pendidik. Indones., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 172–179, 2021, doi: 10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v10i1.25203.
P. Sunasuan and U. Songserm, “Using advance organizer model to influence the meaningful learning of new concepts for esl learners in a collaborative classroom,” Arab World English J., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 129–143, 2021, doi: 10.24093/awej/vol12no3.9.
T. F. Silalahi and A. F. Hutauruk, “The application of cooperative learning model during online learning in the pandemic period,” Budapest Int. Res. Critics Inst. Humanit. Soc. Sci., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1683–1691, 2020, doi: 10.33258/birci.v3i3.1100.
T. Suwartono and Y. Romdona, “The jigsaw learning model to promote engagement in the english language classroom: A teacher’s reflection,” Acta Pedagog. Asiana, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 55–64, 2024, doi: 10.53623/apga.v3i2.401.
Z. Widyanto, R. Qomarrullah, and S. Tebai, “The implementation of the jigsaw-type cooperative learning model to enhance students’ motivation and participation in physical education,” J. Phys. Educ. Sport. Heal. Recreat., vol. 14, no. 32, pp. 679–685, 2025, doi: 10.15294/active.v14i2.28474.
P.-H. Chen, “In-class and after-class lecture note-taking strategies,” Act. Learn. High. Educ., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 245–260, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1177/1469787419893490.
A. E. Flanigan and S. Titsworth, “The impact of digital distraction on lecture note taking and student learning,” Instr. Sci., vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 495–524, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11251-020-09517-2.
B. Panjaitan, B. Sitompul, and M. B. Panjaitan, “Comparison of learning outcomes using information and communication technology media with conventional learning at iakn tarutung,” Int. Dev. Plan. Rev., vol. 22, no. 02, pp. 1789–1800, 2023.
V. Bhardwaj, S. Zhang, Y. Q. Tan, and V. Pandey, “Redefining learning: Student-centered strategies for academic and personal growth,” Front. Educ., vol. 10, no. February, pp. 1–15, 2025, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1518602.
S. Rosamsi and F. Aryanti, “The implementation of discovery learning to improve scientific literacy in biology learning of protists,” JPBIO (Jurnal Pendidik. Biol., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 430–436, 2025, doi: 10.31932/jpbio.v10i2.5464.
Y. A. Kebede, F. K. Zema, G. M. Geletu, and S. A. Zinabu, “Cooperative learning instructional approach and student’s biology achievement: A quasi-experimental evaluation of jigsaw cooperative learning model in secondary schools in gedeo zone, South Ethiopia,” SAGE Open, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2025, doi: 10.1177/21582440251318883.
I. N. Ojekwu and B. O. Ogunleye, “Effects of jigsaw learning strategy on science students’ performance and interest in biology in selected schools in rivers state, Nigeria,” Sapientia Found. J. Educ. Sci. Gend. Stud., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 299–308, 2020.
I. Rionard and P. taek Liunima, “The influence of jigsaw cooperative learning model on learning outcomes of biology protist material,” Haumeni J. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2024, doi: 10.35508/haumeni.v4i1.14357.
J. Jirana, M. Damayanti, R. Rahmadina, and R. Megawati, “Comparison of cooperative learning models of reciprocal teaching type and cooperative jigsaw type on students’ learning outcomes in animalia material class x mipa sma negeri 1 tapalang,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 398–407, 2025, doi: 10.29303/jppipa.v11i5.11021.
F. González-Alonso, F. D. Guillén-Gámez, and R. M. de Castro-Hernández, “Methodological analysis of the effect of an antibullying programme in secondary education through communicative competence: a pre-test—post-test study with a control-experimental group,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1–16, 2020, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17093047.
A. Tanhan, M. A. Karaman, and A. Nalbant, “The effect of counselling on anxiety level from the perspective of ecological systems theory: A quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test control group study,” Int. J. Psychol. Educ. Stud., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 58–69, 2020, doi: 10.17220/ijpes.2020.03.006.
K. M. Q. Magnone and E. J. Yezierski, “Beyond convenience: A case and method for purposive sampling in chemistry teacher professional development research,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 718–726, 2024, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00217.
O. Tajik, J. Golzar, and S. Noor, “Purposive sampling,” Int. J. Educ. Lang. Stud., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–9, 2024.
N. Azizah, E. Istiyono, and I. Wilujeng, “Development of student cognitive learning outcomes tests based on differentiated learning,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 194–200, 2024, doi: 10.29303/jppipa.v10i1.5080.
W. Sukmawati, S. L. Handayani, and Y. Yeni, “Is conceptual learning based on conceptual change text (CCT) effectively applied to pgsd students science class?,” J. Inov. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 171–181, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.21831/jipi.v7i2.44034.
S. Saprudin and A. T. Pratama, “The effect of website-based digital learning media on students’ cognitive learning outcomes in class x biology material,” Biosf. J. Pendidik. Biol., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 138–147, 2025, doi: 10.21009/biosferjpb.49284.
S. Demir, “Comparison of normality tests in terms of sample sizes under different skewness and kurtosis coefficients,” Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 397–409, 2022, doi: 10.21449/ijate.1101295.
U. Knief and W. Forstmeier, “Violating the normality assumption may be the lesser of two evils,” Behav. Res. Methods, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 2576–2590, 2021, doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01587-5.
Y. Wang, “Affective state analysis during online learning based on learning behavior data,” Technol. Knowl. Learn., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 1063–1078, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10758-022-09597-8.
D. Huang and W. Zhang, “Research on learning state based on students’ attitude and emotion in class learning,” Sci. Program., vol. 2021, pp. 1–11, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1155/2021/9944176.
O. C. Drouet, V. Lentillon-Kaestner, and N. Margas, “Effects of the Jigsaw method on student educational outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analyses,” Front. Psychol., vol. 14, pp. 1–19, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1216437.
B. R. Hiremath, A. S, D. Deepthi, V. Hiregoudar, and P. S. Patil, “Effectiveness of jig-saw classroom versus tutorial method of small group teaching in improving the learning of undergraduate students,” Int. J. Life Sci. Biotechnol. Pharma Res., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 693–697, 2025, doi: 10.69605/ijlbpr_14.1.2025.119.
R. Joshi, D. Hadley, S. Nuthikattu, S. Fok, L. Goldbloom-Helzner, and M. Curtis, “Concept mapping as a metacognition tool in a problem-solving-based BME course during in-person and online instruction,” Biomed. Eng. Educ., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 281–303, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s43683-022-00066-3.
A. H. Schoenfeld, “Reframing teacher knowledge: a research and development agenda,” ZDM, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 359–376, May 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11858-019-01057-5.
Z. Abidin and N. Muhammad, “Effective classroom management as a quick solution to improve student participation and motivation in the learning process,” Zabags Int. J. Educ., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 75–88, 2024, doi: 10.61233/zijed.v2i2.22.
H. A. Ismail et al., “Sustainable healthcare futures: how digital leadership stimulates nurses’ green creativity: A quasi-experimental study,” BMC Nurs., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s12912-025-02906-3.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Siti Farihah, Novita Vandrianur, Fitri Gumulya
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and acknowledge that the Journal of Academic Biology and Biology Education is the first publisher licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citation of published work.
.png)
.png)
