SINTA

0.0

Impact

Scholar

6

H-Index

Journal of Chemical Learning Innovation

an Open Access Journal

The Effectiveness of the Jigsaw Learning Model in Improving Students’ Learning Outcomes in Carbon Chemistry

Theresia Ita Wijayanti
Yogyakarta State University ROR
Indonesia
theitawiyynt11@gmail.com
Steven J Field
Kendrick School
United Kingdom
Khawla Rashedy
Elaf Girls Secondary School
Syrian Arab Republic
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to examine the effectiveness of the Jigsaw cooperative learning model in improving students’ learning outcomes and learning motivation in carbon chemistry at the secondary school level through a classroom-based instructional intervention.

    Methodology: This study employed classroom action research with three instructional cycles. The Jigsaw cooperative learning model was implemented using lesson plans and student worksheets. Data were collected through achievement tests, observation sheets, motivation questionnaires, and attitude questionnaires. Descriptive quantitative analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel.

    Main Findings: The results show a consistent improvement in students’ learning outcomes across three cycles, indicated by increased average scores, mastery levels, and absorption rates. Students’ affective aspects and learning motivation also improved, with most students reaching moderate to high motivation levels and showing more positive attitudes toward chemistry learning.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study provides new empirical evidence on the integrated impact of the Jigsaw learning model on cognitive, affective, and motivational aspects in carbon chemistry. Unlike previous studies focusing mainly on achievement, this research highlights how structured peer collaboration enhances conceptual understanding and learning motivation in abstract chemistry topics.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    T. I. Wijayanti, S. J. . Field, and K. . Rashedy, “The Effectiveness of the Jigsaw Learning Model in Improving Students’ Learning Outcomes in Carbon Chemistry”, Jor. Chem. Lea. Inn, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 178–185, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.37251/jocli.v2i2.2583.

    More Citation Formats

  • 103
    Abstract views
    132
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. M. Arsyad, S. Guna, and S. Barus, “Enhancing chemistry education through problem-based learning: Analyzing student engagement, motivation, and critical thinking,” Int. J. Curric. Dev. Teach. Learn. Innov., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 110–117, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.35335/curriculum.v2i3.178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35335/curriculum.v2i3.178
    2. C. Ngendabanga, J. B. Nkurunziza, and L. R. Mugabo, “Innovative approaches in chemistry teaching: a systematic review on the use of improvised chemicals for student engagement and performance,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 566–577, 2025, doi: 10.1039/D4RP00302K. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RP00302K
    3. S. E and A. E. W. Benjamin, “Studying the student’s perceptions of engagement and problem-solving skills for academic achievement in chemistry at the higher secondary level,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 8347–8368, May 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12165-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12165-x
    4. D. Darsan, P. Endra, and W. Werdining, “Improving learning outcomes through dialogic teaching in collaborative settings for high school students in East Java,” J. Educ. Technol. Inov., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 94–105, 2025, doi: 10.31537/jeti.v8i1.2423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31537/jeti.v8i1.2423
    5. A. Akbar, R. Asmawati, and H. Juanda, “Optimizing science learning through a problem-based approach,” ESENSI J. Ris. Pendidik., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.71094/esensi.v2i1.277
    6. M. Jamil, T. Batool Bokhari, and Q. Zia, “Qualitative content analysis for critical thinking and skill development: A case of chemistry curriculum,” J. Asian Dev. Stud., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 147–155, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.62345/jads.2024.13.1.12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62345/jads.2024.13.1.12
    7. J. Yao, “Exploring experiential learning: enhancing secondary school chemistry education through practical engagement and innovation,” J. Educ. Humanit. Soc. Sci., vol. 22, pp. 475–484, 2023, doi: 10.54097/ehss.v22i.12508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54097/ehss.v22i.12508
    8. K. Vo, M. Sarkar, P. J. White, and E. Yuriev, “Exploring problem-solving scaffolds in general chemistry: A systematic review of scaffolding goals and instructional approaches,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 1004–1018, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01327
    9. P. Thongkorn and K. Cojorn, “Enhancing students’ collaborative problem solving competency through creativity-based learning combined with collaborative learning in chemistry learning,” J. Penelit. dan Pembelajaran IPA, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 78, May 2025, doi: 10.30870/jppi.v11i1.28557. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30870/jppi.v11i1.28557
    10. L. Ruijuan, S. Srikhoa, and N. Jantharajit, “Blending of collaborative and active learning instructional methods to improve academic performance and self-motivation of vocational students,” Asian J. Educ. Train., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 130–135, 2023, doi: 10.20448/edu.v9i4.5211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20448/edu.v9i4.5211
    11. P. Doolittle, K. Wojdak, and A. Walters, “Defining active learning: A restricted systemic review,” Teach. Learn. Inq., vol. 11, pp. 1–24, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.25
    12. F. I. Pratama and E. Rohaeti, “Students’ chemical literacy ability on hydrocarbon material: A case of toxic compounds in fried food,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 6795–6802, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.29303/jppipa.v9i9.4554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i9.4554
    13. K. Adu-Gyamfi and I. A. Asaki, “Factors contributing to teachers’ conceptual difficulties in teaching high school organic chemistry,” Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 49–67, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.30935/scimath/12433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/12433
    14. H. Hulyadi, M. Muhali, and A. Fibonacci, “Identification of student conceptions on the molecular structure of organic compounds using question,” Hydrog. J. Kependidikan Kim., vol. 11, no. 3, p. 328, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.33394/hjkk.v11i3.8135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33394/hjkk.v11i3.8135
    15. V. T. T. Hoai, P. N. Son, V. V. D. Em, and N. M. Duc, “Using 3D molecular structure simulation to develop chemistry competence for Vietnamese students,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 19, no. 7, p. em2300, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/13345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13345
    16. D. Morrison et al., “Effect of peer group activity-based learning on students’ academic performance in chemical bonding,” Eur. J. ofEducation Pedagog., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 11–17, 2026.
    17. S. Monsalve-Silva, J. J. Bermudez-Aponte, and S. P. Vera-Monroy, “Implementation of didactic strategies for assurance of learning with students at risk of academic failure in general chemistry,” F1000Research, vol. 14, p. 644, 2025, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.165428.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165428.1
    18. X. Yang, “A historical review of collaborative learning and cooperative learning,” TechTrends, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 718–728, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11528-022-00823-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00823-9
    19. A. A. Alzubi, M. Nazim, and J. Ahamad, “Examining the effect of a collaborative learning intervention on EFL students English learning and social interaction,” J. Pedagog. Res., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 26–46, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.33902/JPR.202425541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202425541
    20. J. C. Mugabekazi, J. Mukanziza, P. Nizeyimana, and P. Manirahari, “Integrating collaborative learning strategies in the curriculum: Enhancing critical thinking and communication skills in primary education,” Eur. J. Educ. Stud., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 14–39, 2025, doi: 10.46827/ejes.v12i3.5848. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v12i3.5848
    21. T. Zhou and J. Colomer, “Cooperative learning promoting cultural diversity and individual accountability: A systematic review,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 6, p. 567, May 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14060567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060567
    22. U. Hasanah, U. Chasanah, U. S. A. Talib, W. O. Zumirddat, and U. Hasanah, “Jigsaw type cooperative learning model to improve students’ cooperation and tolerance character at MI Siti Fatimah Tawangrejeni Turen,” Deep Learn. J. Educ. Res., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 81–93, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.62945/deeplearning.v1i1.204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62945/deeplearning.v1i1.204
    23. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251318883
    24. E. Nsabayezu, O. Habimana, W. Nzabalirwa, and F. N. Niyonzima, “Examining students’ engagement and motivation in organic chemistry through the use of a multimedia-supported flipped classroom approach,” Educ. Chem. Eng., vol. 53, pp. 102–112, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ece.2025.08.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2025.08.001
    25. M.-Y. M. Wu and E. J. Yezierski, “Pedagogical chemistry sensemaking: a novel conceptual framework to facilitate pedagogical sensemaking in model-based lesson planning,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 287–299, 2022, doi: 10.1039/D1RP00282A. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00282A
    26. X. Han, “Associations between effectiveness of blended learning, student engagement, student learning outcomes, and student academic motivation in higher education,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 10535–10565, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-13246-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13246-1
    27. E. Fakhri Alamdari and F. Ghani, “Enhancing foreign language motivation through the magic of cooperative learning: Dream or reality?,” Foreign Lang. Ann., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 237–257, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1111/flan.12590. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12590
    28. M. A. Lasaiba and D. Lasaiba, “Enhancing academic achievement through the application of the 5e learning cycle model,” Insecta Integr. Sci. Educ. Teach. Act. J., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 71–86, May 2024, doi: 10.21154/insecta.v5i1.8518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21154/insecta.v5i1.8518
    29. S. H. Rahmia, M. Mutiani, F. Nuraini, S. Triyono, and ..., “Integration of learning design and evaluation in the implementation of kurikulum merdeka: Evidence from public junior high schools in Banjarmasin,” Kalimantan Soc. …, vol. 7, no. October, pp. 98–116, 2025.
    30. J. A. Jaison, K. A. Cruz, and Y. Liu, “Investigating students’ academic motivation, homework, and academic achievement in an online general chemistry II course,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 485–494, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00736. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00736
    31. C. Haelermans, “The effects of group differentiation by students’ learning strategies,” Instr. Sci., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 223–250, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11251-021-09575-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09575-0
    32. S. K. Gupta et al., “Revolutionizing the way students learn photographic arts through experiential education using AI and AR systems,” Sci. Rep., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-24415-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-24415-8
    33. Susanto, E. Muafiah, A. Desrani, A. W. Ritonga, and A. R. Hakim, “Trends of Educational Technology (EdTech): students’ perceptions of technology to improve the quality of islamic higher education in Indonesia,” Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 226–246, 2022, doi: 10.26803/ijlter.21.6.14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.6.14
    34. X. Xiong, “Influence of teaching styles of higher education teachers on students‘ engagement in learning: The mediating role of learning motivation,” Educ. Chem. Eng., vol. 51, pp. 87–102, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ece.2025.02.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2025.02.005
    35. S. E. Kassab, W. El‐Sayed, and H. Hamdy, “Student engagement in undergraduate medical education: A scoping review,” Med. Educ., vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 703–715, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1111/medu.14799. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14799
    36. S. Zach, E. Shoval, and B. Shulruf, “Cooperative learning in physical education lessons - literature review,” Front. Educ., vol. 8, no. October, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1273423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1273423
    37. Y. Karadeniz and K. Doymuş, “Effect of cooperative jigsaw II and subject jigsaw techniques on learning in science class,” Hurrian Educ., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2025.
    38. S. G. T. Ong and G. C. L. Quek, “Enhancing teacher–student interactions and student online engagement in an online learning environment,” Learn. Environ. Res., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 681–707, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10984-022-09447-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09447-5
    39. J. Hutain and N. Michinov, “Improving student engagement during in-person classes by using functionalities of a digital learning environment,” Comput. Educ., vol. 183, p. 104496, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104496
    40. N. R. Mishra, “Constructivist approach to learning: An analysis of pedagogical models of social constructivist learning theory,” J. Res. Dev., vol. 6, no. 01, pp. 22–29, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.3126/jrdn.v6i01.55227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/jrdn.v6i01.55227
    41. N. Umar, N. A. Atan, and U. M. A. Majid, “Learning activities based on social constructivism theory to promote social interaction and student’s performance (EPSISM),” 2023, p. 060004. doi: 10.1063/5.0112879. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0112879
    42. H. O. Kapici, “From Symbolic representation to submicroscopic one: Preservice science teachers’ struggle with chemical representation levels in chemistry,” Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 134–147, 2023, doi: 10.46328/ijres.3122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3122
    43. L. Wang, G. Hodges, and J. Lee, “Connecting macroscopic, molecular, and symbolic representations with immersive technologies in high school chemistry: The case of redox reactions,” Educ. Sci., vol. 12, no. 7, p. 428, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.3390/educsci12070428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070428
    44. N. Purnama Sari, S. Basyar, and A. Jatmiko, “The jigsaw cooperative learning model in islamic religious education to develop students’ emotional intelligence,” Bull. Sci. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 122–134, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.51278/bse.v4i1.986. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51278/bse.v4i1.986
    45. Mardiana and N. Sa’idah, “The effectiveness of photovoice-based jigsaw learning model in improving student learning outcomes in islamic cultural history (SKI) subjects,” Fikroh J. Pemikir. dan Pendidik. Islam, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 252–266, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.37812/fikroh.v18i2.1868. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37812/fikroh.v18i2.1868
    46. U. D. Agwu and J. Nmadu, “Students’ interactive engagement, academic achievement and self concept in chemistry: an evaluation of cooperative learning pedagogy,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 688–705, 2023, doi: 10.1039/D2RP00148A. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RP00148A
    47. M. D. Simesso, T. S. Gutu, and W. M. Tarekegn, “The contribution of using cooperative learning methods on students’ achievement and retention in secondary schools during chemistry lesson,” Educ. Res. Int., vol. 2024, pp. 1–12, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1155/2024/1830124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/1830124
    48. A. K. Jeppu, K. A. Kumar, and A. Sethi, “‘We work together as a group’: implications of jigsaw cooperative learning,” BMC Med. Educ., vol. 23, no. 1, p. 734, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04734-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04734-y
    49. S. K. Kekeba, A. Gure, and T. T. Olkaba, “Effects of jigsaw learning strategy integrated with computer simulations on grade 10 students’ achievement and attitude and their correlations in chemistry,” Interact. Technol. Smart Educ., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 134–162, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1108/ITSE-01-2024-0002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-01-2024-0002
    50. S. R. Aisy and S. Syahidin, “The Jigsaw model strategy as a peer-teaching method in islamic education subjects,” Dirasah, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 161–170, 2025.
    51. S. K. Kekeba, “Effects of jigsaw learning strategy integrated with computer simulations on gender differences in students’ achievement and attitude in learning chemistry,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2346041. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2346041