Implementing of subject jigsaw learning model and its impact on students’ achievement in Embryology course

Implementing of subject jigsaw learning model and its impact on students’ achievement in Embryology course M. Haviz a,1,*, L. Lufri b,2 a Departmet of Biology Education, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, Institut Agama Islam Negeri Batusangkar, Jl. Jend. Sudirman No.137, Tanah Datar, West Sumatera, 27217, Indonesia b Departmet of Biology Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Sciences, Universitas Negeri Padang, Jl. Prof. Dr. Hamka, Air Tawar, Padang, West Sumatera, 25171, Indonesia 1 mhaviz@iainbatusangkar.ac.id * ; 2 lufri@fmipaunp.ac.id * Corresponding author


INTRODUCTION
The characteristics of biology studies that refer to factual (Hung, Hwang, Lin, Wu, & Su, 2013), theoretical (Freidenreich, Duncan, & Shea, 2011), and conceptual learning (Abdullah, Parris, Lie, Guzdar, & Tour, 2015) are also simultaneously confronted with macro and micro-sized materials and are dynamic in nature (Orcajo & Aznar, 2005). The typology of biology studies makes learning nature more interesting and challenging at the same time (Fleischner et al., 2017). These challenges are not only experienced by students, such as learning difficulties (Fauzi & Fariantika, 2018), but also on how the teacher designs meaningful and memorable learning for students (Iversen, Pedersen, Krogh, & Jensen, 2015). These problems have at least been widely used as a basis for learning research (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2012;Guleker, 2015), including efforts to apply 21 st-Century learning models in accordance with the character of student learning and the material being studied (Haviz, 2018;Hsieh, 2014;Scott, 2015).
Jigsaw implementation is not mere a learning method but also an effort that can be done to measure the success of biology learning (Slavin, 2012). (Oakes, Hegedus, Ollerenshaw, Drury, and Ritchie, 2019) found that the jigsaw method increases knowledge about anatomy by involving group work, peer-led learning, minimal supervision, and leads to increased student performance and learning motivation. While other research also reports that various biology topics such as ecology (Asshoff, Düsing, Winkelmann, & Hammann, 2019;Smith & Chang, 2005), microbiology (Jasti, Hug, Waters, & Whitaker, 2014), anatomy (Koprowski & Perigo, 2000), biology developmental (Haviz, 2015) that are taught with jigsaw have a positive impact on students' understanding, interest in learning, and thinking ability including cognitive (Bennett, 2016) and metacognitive awareness (Palennari, 2016).
On the other hand, modifications to the jigsaw model are mostly done by researchers such as jigsaw II (Aronson & Bridgeman, 1979), jigsaw III (Stahl & VanSickle, 1992), jigsaw IV (Holliday, 2000), reverse jigsaw (Hedeen, 2003), and subject jigsaw (Doymus, 2008). Subject jigsaw, according to (Doymus, Karacop, & Simsek, 2010) is indicated to be able to provide the learning experience needed to solve problems in accordance with the topic being studied. Various steps modification in the jigsaw model, apart from being an improvement effort, are also due to adjustments to the various characteristics of students and the topics studied (Haviz, 2015;Smith & Chang, 2005). Furthermore, some researchers believe that the accuracy of the selection of learning models and topics determines student learning success (Akker, Bannan, Kelly, Nieveen, & Plomp, 2010;Plomp & Nieveen, 2013).
Meanwhile, the topic of embryology learning is also faced with a complex study topic because it involves small material on embryonic development (Burns, 2010). These characteristics according to (Dudek, 2011;Haviz, 2018) cause embiology learning achievements are relatively low. These problems need to be anticipated by designing the use of learning methods that activate students' thinking skills (Bensley & Spero, 2014;Guleker, 2015;Larsson, 2017). In addition, students' cooperative skills also need to be facilitated so that, independently, the students are able to build effective discussion rooms with their peer-partners (Hsieh, 2014;Scott, 2015).
This study aims to analyze the impact of the implementation of the subject jigsaw model on students' achievement. Student learning outcomes include cooperative skills and embryological learning outcomes. The results of this study can be used as consideration in solving problems in embryology learning.

METHOD
This experimental study used post-test only control group design (Creswell, 2014). The independent variable was subject jigsaw group (SJG) while the dependent varieble was cooperative skill and students' achievement. The treatment groups that included SJG, jigsaw group (JG), and conventional method as control group (CG). As much as 84 students, from the fifth semester -academic year of 2017/2018 Department of Biology Education IAIN Batusangkar-Indonesia, was participate as a subject. The participants were grouped into three classes, each class consisted of 28 students. The students group are based on three characteristics; average achievement index, score of the previous course (anatomy), and their background knowledge. This experimental study used the different of treatment was written at Table 1. SJG consists of home group (HG) and expert group (EG). HG members are determined based on the sub-topics studied, making it possible to have several different sub-topics in the same group. Furthermore, each HG member is grouped in one group with the same sub-topic discussion (EG) (Doymus, Karacop, & Simsek, 2010). The procedure to making of HG and EG on SJG class written in Figure 1.
Students in the JG class are grouped according to the results of the initial assignment. The students are divided into groups according to the large amount of material being studied. Students who study in expert groups return to the home group to share information. In this group, students do not work on worksheets in the guidelines. Observer observes students' cooperative skills in the learning process. Formative evaluation is not conducted at the end of each sub-topic but at the end of the embryology topic. Whereas in the CG class, students are not grouped into study groups. Students only apply the learning method as usual. Formative evaluation is not done after each class meeting but at the end of all meetings. The post-test was carried out after all embryology topics were studied. The student was grouping by initial task result and sub-topics The student was grouping by initial task result There is no grouping of students 2 Students work on worksheets in the student guidelines Students did not work on worksheets in the student guidelines The student did not worksheets in the student guidelines 3 The student was applyed the syntax of cooperative learning The student was applyed the syntax of cooperative learning The student was applyed of conventional method 4 Formative evaluation was conduct after meeting the class Grouped by initial task result members in SJG. The all of the students on SJG, JG and CG studied the context of embryology: pre-fertilization, weekly period, embryonic period and organogenesis (Dudek, 2011). The embryological context was studied during 16 meetings and were taught by the same lecturer.
The cooperative skills and learning outcome were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The results of the analysis of cooperative skills score (Table 2) refer to (Haviz, 2016). Furthermore, the difference in the average student achievement was analyzed using ANOVA and continued with the LSD test (α = 0.05) to determine the best results of the three treatments.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results showed that the students' who learned to use SJG, the cooperative skills score were higher than those who learned using JG (Figure 2). The students' cooperative skills in SJG are higher at all levels, i.e., beginner (3.10), intermediate (3.21), and advance (2.99). Furthermore, these results also show that at the beginner and intermediate levels in the SJG class are classified as highly practical/very good (x ≥3.10), whereas in the JG class, the cooperative skill level at beginner, intermediate, and advance is classified as practical / good respectively amounted to 3.01, 2.98, and 2.82. The results also showed that mean of students' achievement in the SJG class was higher than the other two treatment classes (Table 3). Descriptive analysis shows that the average in the SJG class is higher (80.32) compared to JG (73.57) and CG (64.82). Furthermore, the prerequisite test results, normality and homogeneity, showed that the data of the three treatment classes were spread normally and homogeneously (> 0.05), so that parametric analysis (ANOVA) was continued. JG, and CG classes. Furthermore, the LSD test results with a significance level of 0.05 indicate that students in the SJG class have better learning outcomes than the JG class, as well as student learning outcomes in the JG class are better than the CG class. The findings of this research indicate that implementing jigsaw, as a cooperative learning, in the SJG and JG classes affects the cooperative skills of students and learning outcomes. The division of groups based on the results of the initial assignment and sub-topics that have been applied in the SJG group has a significant effect than the division of the JG groups which is only based on previous learning outcomes. This finding also shows that SJG treatment has influenced the emergence of cooperative student activities, where this activity also affects student learning outcomes.
The implementation of SJG and JG in Embryology course plays a direct role in improving cooperative skills and student achievement (Haviz, 2015(Haviz, , 2016. The principles of cooperative learning that are applied in small groups (Bellanca et al., 2010;Slavin, 2014), provide more space for students to take on the role and work together as a learner (Cetindamar & Hopkins, 2008;Jasti et al., 2014). Social interactions that occur in learning activities affect how students master the material (Pang, Lau, Seah, Cheong, & Low, 2018;Shin, Lee, & Ha, 2017). Some researchers believe that cooperative attitudes can grow with a pattern of habituation in the learning process (Scott, 2015;Triyanto, 2018). Cooperative attitudes such as togetherness in the learning process (Hedeen, 2003;Slish, 2005), responsibilities (Bennett, 2016), perceptions of the same learning goals (Slavin, 2012), fair distribution of responsibilities (Haviz, 2015), appreciation (Oakes et al., 2019), and leadership (Bennett, 2016) always emerge and grow in student learning interactions (Karaçöp, 2016). On the contrary, these results were not found in the CG class. The conventional learning design does not place students in study groups (Madhuri, Kantamreddi, & Prakash-Goteti, 2012). In other words, students learn independently and there is no significant interaction between students. This learning design has an impact not only on social skills but also on student learning outcomes (Domopolii & Rahman, 2019;Pang et al., 2018). Students in CG classes are not accustomed to learning that involves holistic activities.
Cooperative learning was a specific strategy used to achieve learning objectives designed as well with specific instructional design (Bennett, 2016;Roger & Johnson, 2002). This strategy was social learning concerning the aspect of individual responsibility in achieving specific objectives. This way of learning is conducted base on motivational theory (Slavin, 2012). These result study argue that cooperative learning way is not just based on motivational theory, but it is clearly supported by other learning theories such as cognitive, constructivism and behaviorism (Haviz, 2016). These fact is based on the findings of this research. Embryology material used in this research was classified as one of difficult materials in which to be mastered with high critical thinking skill requirement (Burns, 2010;Dudek, 2011). As part of developmental of biology course, embryological material contains many processes, facts, theories, and concepts (Dudek, 2011). Only by applying specific ways of learning and learning materials, it can be mastered as well (Guleker, 2015). Those specific learning methods are at least based on constructivism, behaviorism and cognitivist (Ertmer & Newby, 2013;Iversen et al., 2015;Palennari, 2016). It is also supported by the correlation between facts of learning with those three theories (Yusof, Hassan, Jamaludin, & Harun, 2012).
Nowadays, with technological developments and social shifts (Thompson, 2011), including a culture of learning in schools (Iversen et al., 2015), it is possible to form a multidisciplinary learning community (Ahmadi & Yulianto, 2017;Lawless & Brown, 2015). These changes will eventually produce a new paradigm of integration of theories in learning designs that are adaptive to the values of cooperative skills (Akker et al., 2010;Ertmer & Newby, 2013;Thompson, 2011). Finally, cooperative learning is one area of extraordinary educational theory, research and practice. The results of this study indicate that cooperative learning influences students' learning achievement in Embryology. The application of cooperative syntax in this study makes good student learning outcomes in the experimental class (Huang, Liao, Huang, & Chen, 2014). Good Embryology learning outcomes is begin with good cooperative activity that students have (Bennett, 2016;Chatila & Husseiny, 2017). This explanation is the relationship between theory, research, and practice in embryology learning.

CONCLUSION
This study concluded that cooperative skill of SJG and JG members were not different from one to another, the cooperative skill of these groups was in a good level. The student achievement of SJG member was better than SJ, while SJ was better than CG. Further, it can be concluded that JCL effected toward student learning achievement in Embryology course. The researchers believe that further study toward the cooperative skill of the members in each group is needed to be conducted. The enhancement of the cooperative learning use on the learning activities that required high-order thinking skill is needed to be done.