The Jigsaw teaching method compared to traditional teaching on anatomy and physiology knowledge in higher education – a randomised controlled trial

TL;DR

This study compared the Jigsaw teaching method and traditional teaching in higher education and found both equally effective for learning anatomy and physiology, though students preferred traditional teaching.

Contribution

The study provides empirical evidence on the effectiveness of the Jigsaw method versus traditional teaching in anatomy and physiology education.

Findings

Both Jigsaw and traditional teaching significantly improved student knowledge of anatomy and physiology.

No significant differences in knowledge acquisition or retention were found between the two teaching methods.

Students preferred traditional teaching despite similar learning outcomes with the Jigsaw method.

Abstract

Traditional teaching (TT) is lecturer-centred, while student-centred teaching, including Jigsaw (JS), fosters student interaction. However, the results of research on the effectiveness of JS on learning outcomes is inconsistent. This randomised controlled trial compared the effect of JS and TT on higher-education students’ knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of the sensory apparatus and on their perceptions of the two teaching methods.

Forty-eight undergraduate social nursing students were randomised to either a TT or JS-based learning activity. One JS student dropped out before completing the activity and was excluded, resulting in 47 participants (23 TT, 24 JS). Improvement in knowledge was assessed by recording the number of correct answers (points) on a 25-question multiple-choice test at three time points: before the activity (baseline), immediately after the activity (post-intervention) and at a three-month follow-up. Additionally, the students’ perceptions were surveyed post-intervention using a questionnaire. Improvement in knowledge was analysed using a longitudinal model, and group differences in perceptions were analysed using Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests.

Both groups significantly improved knowledge from baseline to post-intervention (TT: 5.2 points; JS: 4.6 points; p < 0.001 both groups) and from baseline to the three-month follow-up (TT: 3.8 points; JS: 3.3 points; p < 0.001 for both groups). No statistically significant differences in knowledge were observed between the groups (post-intervention difference: −0.5 points, 95% CI: −2.3 to 1.2, p = 0.54; three-month difference: −0.6 points, 95% CI: −2.4 to 1.2, p = 0.52). Overall, 91% improved from baseline to post-intervention, and 83% from baseline to three months. A higher proportion of TT students than JS students preferred their assigned teaching activity over others (78% vs. 38%, p = 0.002) or believed it would improve their grades (87% vs. 42%, p = 0.004). On the other hand, a lower proportion thought that it provided useful practice in oral presentation / communication (61% vs. 88%, p = 0.02).

This study found that both the Jigsaw method and traditional lectures effectively improve anatomy and physiology knowledge among students. Despite a student preference for traditional teaching, there were no significant differences in knowledge acquisition or retention between the two methods.

Clinical trial number not applicable.

Figures