Introduction
Welcome back to our series exploring the powerful connections between John Hattie’s Visible Learning research and Maths Australia’s I-CRAVE pedagogy. In our previous posts, we delved into constructivist teaching, explicit teaching, and direct instruction. In this fourth post of the overall series and the first of this new set, we will examine the Jigsaw Method, a highly impactful collaborative learning strategy, and uncover its underlying principles within the I-CRAVE framework.
Understanding the Jigsaw Method
The Jigsaw Method is a cooperative learning technique that promotes both individual accountability and group collaboration. Students are divided into “home” groups, and each member of the home group is assigned a different topic or segment of material to learn. These “experts” then gather with experts from other home groups who were assigned the same topic, forming “expert” groups. In their expert groups, they discuss and learn the material thoroughly. Finally, the experts return to their home groups and teach their peers what they have learned. This method has a high effect size of 1.20 in Visible Learning, highlighting its significant impact on student achievement. Hattie’s research points to the power of students becoming “experts” and teaching their peers as a key factor in its effectiveness.
Jigsaw Principles within I-CRAVE
While the specific structure of the Jigsaw Method isn’t explicitly a step within the I-CRAVE pedagogy, the core principles that make Jigsaw so effective are deeply embedded within I-CRAVE. The I-CRAVE methodology, with its emphasis on explicit instruction and understanding student needs, inherently supports the active cognitive processing and peer interaction central to Jigsaw.
One of the most significant alignments lies in the “Verbal” stage of I-CRAVE. This stage requires “consistent engagement with the student in dialogue to enhance their learning and to check whether your teaching has been clear and accurate”. This dialogue-based approach encourages students to articulate their understanding, similar to how students in a Jigsaw group must explain their expertise to their peers. The act of explaining complex ideas, built upon the foundational understanding developed through the Concrete and Representational stages of I-CRAVE, serves a similar purpose of making learning visible and reinforcing understanding.
Furthermore, the multi-sensory approach of I-CRAVE, moving from concrete manipulatives to representational visuals and finally to abstract symbols, helps students build a deep and flexible understanding of mathematical concepts. This strong conceptual foundation is crucial for students to be able to confidently explain and teach these concepts to others, as required in the Jigsaw Method. The I-CRAVE framework, which aligns with “Understanding Learning and Learners,” broadly encompasses the active, student-centered learning promoted by Jigsaw.
The core alignment is the shared emphasis on the student actively processing and articulating their understanding to solidify learning. In I-CRAVE, the “Verbal” stage fulfills a similar purpose to the peer teaching in Jigsaw. Both approaches necessitate students actively engaging with and explaining the material, a practice strongly supported by Hattie’s research for its positive impact on achievement.
Conclusion
The Jigsaw Method, with its impressive effect size in Visible Learning, underscores the power of peer teaching and active articulation of understanding. While I-CRAVE may not explicitly use the Jigsaw structure, its “Verbal” stage and overall emphasis on building deep conceptual understanding through a multi-sensory approach embody the fundamental principles that make Jigsaw so effective. By requiring students to explain their mathematical thinking, I-CRAVE fosters a similar level of active cognitive processing and consolidation of learning, aligning with the evidence-based practices highlighted in Visible Learning research.
To learn more about our training, visit mathsaustralia.com.au/training