Chemistry Education

View Article Online / Journal Homepage / Table of Contents for this issue
Dynamic Article Links
Research and Practice
Cite this: Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313
www.rsc.org/cerp
PAPER
Jigsaw cooperative learning: Acid–base theories
a b
Leman Tarhan* and Burcin Acar Sesen
Received 5th July 2011, Accepted 17th March 2012
DOI: 10.1039/c2rp90004a

This study focused on investigating the effectiveness of jigsaw cooperative learning instruction on first-
year undergraduates’ understanding of acid–base theories.Undergraduates’ opinions about jigsaw
Published on 16 April 2012. Downloaded on 7/9/2018 3:05:13 PM.

cooperative learning instruction were also investigated. The participants of this study were 38 first-year
undergraduates in chemistry education department in an education faculty in Izmir, Turkey. A
prerequisite knowledge test was applied to both experimental (N = 18) and control groups (N = 20)
before the treatment in order to identify undergraduates’ prerequisite knowledge about ‘acids and bases’.
Independent t-test was conducted to compare the prerequisite knowledge test scores for groups and no
significant difference was found in terms of mean scores (t = 0.42,
p 4 0.05). The subject of ‘‘Acid–Base Theories’’ (Arrhenius, Brønsted–Lowry and Lewis Theories) was
taught using jigsaw cooperative learning in the experimental group and with regular teacher-centered
approach in the control group. After the instruction, the acid–base theories concept test
was administrated to investigate undergraduates’ conceptual understanding. Independent t-test results
showed significant difference in terms of mean scores (t = 4.65, p o 0.05).The results also indicated that
undergraduates in the experimental group had fewer misconceptions and understood the concepts more
meaningfully than undergraduates in the control group. In addition, individual interviews reflected that
undergraduates had positive opinion about jigsaw, and they believed jigsaw is an e ffective cooperative
learning technique that promotes positive attitudes and interest, develop inter personal skills as well as
their learning achievements.

Introduction in which students in the small groups work together to complete

It is well known that students can develop their own ideas about
scientific phenomenon based on many factors such as real-world
experiences, media, books and interaction with people (Driver and
Erickson, 1983). According to constructivism, learning occurs in the
mind of learner, and during this process students integrate their prior
knowledge with new knowledge (Bodner, 1986). If their existing
conceptions are different from the scientific view, misconceptions
are formed (Osborne and Freyberg, 1985; Nakhleh, 1992). From this
view, students’ misconceptions can interfere with students’ learning
of correct scientific principles or concepts (Driver and Erickson,
1983; Taber, 2000). Researchers have asserted that students in the
teacher-centered classes could not achieve the adequate conceptual
understanding (Acar Sesen and Tarhan, 2011; Hsu, 2008; Kaya,
2007). Therefore, they claimed that students should be engaged
active learning environments (Acar and Tarhan, 2007, 2008;
Doymus, 2008a, b; Hand and Treagust, 1991; Sisovic and Bojovic,
2000). Cooperative learning is one of these active learning
approaches
a Science Faculty, Chemistry Department, Dokuz Eylul University,
35160 Buca, Izmir, Turkey. E-mail: leman.tarhan@deu.edu.tr
bHasan Ali Yucel Education Faculty, Department of Science
Education, Istanbul University, 34452 Eminonu, Istanbul, Turkey. E-
mail: bsesen@istanbul.edu.tr
an assigned task (Cooper and Mueck, 1990).
Researchers have indicated benefits of cooperative learning as
higher academic achievement, greater persistence through
graduation, higher level reasoning and critical thinking skills,
deeper understanding of learned material, better attention and
less disruptive behavior in class, lower amounts of anxiety and
stress, more motivation to learn and achieve, positive attitudes to
subject matter, higher self esteem (Cooper and Mueck, 1990;
Johnson et al., 1991; McKeachie, 1986). This shows that students
achieve more, improve their social skills, and increase their
capacity to work productively together while working in
cooperative learning environment.
There are many cooperative learning techniques and most widely
used of them are Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD;
Slavin, 1980), Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT; Slavin, 1980),
Learning Together (Johnson and Johnson, 1994); and Group
Investigation (Sharan and Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1980), Jigsaw (Aronson
et al., 1978.; Slavin, 1980). The cooperative learning technique
selected for this study is jigsaw, which enhances cooperative learning
by making each student responsible for teaching some of the learning
issues to the group. In this structure, students are members of two
different groups, the ‘home group’ and the ‘jigsaw group’ (Fig. 1).
Initially, students meet in their home groups and each member of the
group is

This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313 307

Fig. 1 The jigsaw cooperative learning process.
Published on 16 April 2012. Downloaded on 7/9/2018 3:05:13 PM.
assigned a portion of the learning issues to learn as an ‘expert’
(Slavin, 1980). The home groups then break apart, like pieces of
a jigsaw puzzle, and students move into jigsaw groups, which
consist of members from the other home groups who have been
assigned the same portion of the learning issues. While in the
jigsaw groups, the students discuss their particular material to
ensure that they understand it. Students then return to their home
groups, where they teach their material to the rest of their group
(Colosi and Zales, 1998).
Researchers underlined that jigsaw is an e ffective cooperative
learning technique that promotes positive attitudes and interests
in the learning issues, development of communication skills
between students and also higher learning achievement in science
(Lazarowitz et al., 1985; Colosi and Zales, 1998; Doymus,
2008a; Eilks, 2005; Young et al., 1997). In the field of chemistry
education, relatively little research has been done on the use of
jigsaw techniques. In the one of the study, Eilks (2005) discussed
using a modified jigsaw-classroom method to teach atomic
structure in the 9th and 10th grades, and found that the jigsaw
techniques have potential to improve students’ attitude towards
science. Doymus (2008a) investigated the effect of jigsaw
cooperative learning versus individual learning methods on
students’ understanding of chemical equilibrium in a first-year
general chemistry course and found that students in the jigsaw
class were more successful than those in the individual learning
class. In another study, Doymus (2008b) examined the
effectiveness of jigsaw technique to teach ionic bonding,
covalent bonding, hydrogen bonding and van der Waals forces,
and found the same results as his previous study.
The subject of acids and bases are also an important and
fundamental concept in chemistry learning as early as primary
school, right through the university level. Researchers have
shown that students have many misconceptions related to acid
and base theories (Banerjee, 1991; Bradley and Mosimege, 1998;
Cross et al., 1986; Rayner-Canham, 1994; Schmidt, 1995).
Bradley and Mosimege (1998) asserted that university students
have problems with Arrhenius theory. They found that 38% of
them were able to identify the important objection against the
theory. Cross et al., (1986) also indicated that 47% of the first-
year university students gave the Brønsted–Lowry definition and
only 14% gave the Arrhenius definitions of acids. Vidyapati and
Seetharamappa (1995) investigated higher secondary school
students’ concepts of acids and bases. In this study, it was found
that the percentage of students citing the right
308 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313
View Article Online
examples of acids and bases according to the Arrhenius,
Brønsted–Lowry and Lewis theories is more than the percentage
of students who gave the scientific definitions, and they
suggested cooperative learning in place of normal lecture classes
to overcome this ineffectively construction of knowledge.
Hawkes (1992) observed that the Arrhenius acid–base theory
confused students, and when asked to use the Brønsted theory,
which applies to a variety of bases, students’ thinking was still
domi-nated by the Arrhenius theory, in which only OH ion-
producing substances are considered as bases. For this reason
Hawkes (1992) suggested that the Brønsted theory should be
introduced first, and that the Arrhenius theory should only be
used as a historical footnote. In the other hand, Demerouti et al.,
(2004) reported that students from upper secondary school were
more familiar with the Arrhenius theory, and they did not use the
Brønsted theory to explain the properties of acids and bases.
As a conclusion, the results of those studies underlined that
students have some difficulties and misconceptions about acid
and base theories.
Purpose of the research
The purpose of this study was to investigate the e ffectiveness of
jigsaw cooperative learning instruction on first-year under-
graduates’ understanding of ‘acid and base theories’. Under-
graduates’ opinions about jigsaw cooperative learning were also
investigated in the context of this study. For this reason, the
following research questions were investigated;
What is the first-year undergraduates’ prerequisite knowledge
about acid and base theories at the beginning of the instruction?
Does jigsaw cooperative learning contribute to better
conceptual understanding of acid and base theories in first-year
under-graduates’ than teacher-centered approach?
What are the opinions of experimental group undergraduates
about the treatment based on jigsaw cooperative learning?
Methodology
Participants
The participants of this study consisted of 38 first-year under-
graduates (18–19 years of age) enrolled in a General Chemistry
Course at chemistry teaching department in a faculty of education
cited in Izmir, which is located in the west of Turkey. The under-
graduates were from different cities in Turkey. The socio-economic
status of the them was similar and the majority of them were from
middle to upper class families. The undergraduates enroled in faculty
of education to be a chemistry teacher based on the scores taken in
university entrance examination.
The place of acid and base theories in the turkish curriculum
The concepts of acids and bases are taught initially in the eighth
grade (age 13–14) Science and Technology Lesson according to
Turkish Educational System. Students learn the subject of acid
and base theories in high school chemistry lesson. In this grade,
the Arrhenius Theory is presented first, then Brønsted–Lowry
Theory and finally, though not in as much detail, the Lewis
Theory are explained. In the university level, the three theories
are thought in a detailed in general chemistry lesson.
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012

Instruments
The prerequisite knowledge test. According to constructivism,
learning as an active process where learners are involved by
constructing new knowledge based on their prior knowledge and
experiences (Driver and Bell, 1986; Driscoll, 2005). Therefore,
students’ prior knowledge should be determined before they learn
new knowledge.
Acids and bases are related to many other chemistry concepts such
as atom, molecule, solubility, solution, the periodic table,
electronegativity, chemical bonding, chemical reactions, thermo-
dynamics, and chemical equilibrium. Researchers have underlined
that the causes of student difficulties in acid–base chemistry have
been ascribed to the existence of many misconceptions related to
these aforementioned concepts (Demirciog˘lu, 2003; Nakhleh and
Krajcik, 1993; Nakhleh, 1994; Smith and Metz, 1996; Schmidt,
Published on 16 April 2012. Downloaded on 7/9/2018 3:05:13 PM.
1997; Sheppard, 1997). For this reason, in this study, the prerequisite
knowledge test consisting of 16 multiple-choice items was developed
by the researchers to identify under-graduates’ understanding the
concepts that effects learning of acids and bases. The items of the test
were constructed by considering students’ misconceptions
determined in the literature (Ebenezer and Gaskell, 1995; Gri ffiths
and Preston, 1992; Peterson et al., 1989; Sanger, 2000). Each item
had one correct answer and four incorrect answers (distracters). The
distracters are derived from actual student misconceptions gathered
from the literature. For the content validity and error reduction, the
items were evaluated by seven chemistry educators. The prerequisite
knowledge test was piloted with the sample of 152 under-graduates
for the reliability. After the item analysis the reliability coe fficient
(KR-20) of the test was found to be 0.77.
The acid–base theories concept test. A acid–base theories concept
test by 10 multiple choice items with an open-ended part, where
students are required to explain the reasons for their answers, was
developed to identify undergraduates’ understanding of ‘acid and
base theories’. Prior to the development of the tests items, the content
boundaries were defined and instructional objectives were identified.
The test items were constructed by considering students’ learning
difficulties and misconceptions determined in the literature (Bradley
and
¨
Mosimege, 1998; Demirciog˘lu, 2003; Ozmen, 2003; Ross and
Munby, 1991; Schmidt, 1991; Toplis, 1998; Vidyapati and
Seetharamappa, 1995). Each item had one correct answer and
four distracters. The distracters are derived from actual student
misconceptions gathered from the literature. The contents of the
test were validated by seven chemistry educators for the
appropriateness of the items to the instructional objectives. The
test was piloted with the sample of 153 undergraduates for the
reliability. The reliability coefficient (KR-20) of the test was
found to be 0.86.
Each answer was evaluated by researchers and two expert
chemistry instructors. The scores were compared and discussed
until an agreement was reached.
Semi-structured interviews. 15-minute period semi-structured
individual interviews were carried out with all the experimental
group students to determine their opinions about the treatment
based on jigsaw cooperative learning. The interviews were
conducted around the following questions;
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012
View Article Online
What is your opinion about the effects of jigsaw cooperative
learning application on you and your friends’ chemistry
achievements?
If you compare the jigsaw cooperative learning technique to
the teacher centered approach, how can you explain the
differences about the learning process and the roles of
instructor’s and students?
Procedure
38 undergraduates were randomly assigned to experimental (N =
18) and control groups (N = 20). Before the instruction, the
prerequisite knowledge test was applied to both groups to
identify undergraduates’ pre-knowledge related to the ‘acid and
base theories’. The results revealed that there was no significant
difference between mean scores of groups (Table 1). The
experimental group was taught using jigsaw cooperative learning
and control group was taught using traditional course content
based on teacher-centred instruction during the same instructional
period. These two groups were instructed by the same competent
chemistry instructor.
Instruction in the experimental group
Before the instruction, undergraduates in the experimental group
were informed about cooperative learning and jigsaw technique.
Their and instructors’ responsibilities, utilization of resources
were also explained.
In an cooperative learning environment, group formation is
very important for success. In this study, stratified random
sampling was used as a method of group formation. This method
of group formation involves creating small subgroups (strata) of
undergraduates stratified along a specific dimension and then
randomly choosing group members from each of these strata. By
design, stratified random sampling yields groups that are
balanced across the dimension used to form the strata (Fraenkel
and Wallen, 2005). In this study, the undergraduates in the
experimental group, were stratified random to six home groups
considering their chemistry achievements. As presented in Fig. 2,
there were three under-graduates in each home group. Each
member of the groups was assigned a portion of acid–base
theories and then they moved into three jigsaw groups including
six members to be expert. Jigsaw group-1 studied Arrhenius
Acid–Base Theory, jigsaw group-2 investigated Brønsted–Lowry
Acid–Base Theory, and jigsaw group-3 searched Lewis Acid–
Base Theory. During this process, they were encouraged to
develop their hypothesis and to make task distributions in the
fifteen minute period under the guidance of the instructor. Then,
they were directed to study their own subtopics outside the class.
Undergraduates benefited from library, textbooks and internet,
and they worked under the supervision of the instructor to
achieve the learning objectives. Undergraduates then returned
their home groups and taught their own expertise subtopics to the
rest of their group.
Jigsaw group studies
Jigsaw group-1. First jigsaw group was responsible to study
Arrhenius Acid and Base Theory. After their research about the
subtopic outside the class, they discussed their findings and made
a presentation in their group under the guidance of the instructor.
In this way, undergraduates would able to explain;
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313
309

Fig. 2 Studies in home and jigsaw groups.
Published on 16 April 2012. Downloaded on 7/9/2018 3:05:13 PM.
Arrhenius investigation on galvanic conductivity of
electrolytes,
salts dissociate when they dissolve in water to give charged
particles which Arrhenius called ions,
why acids have similar characteristics, since they all give H +
ions when they dissolve in water,
why bases have similar characteristics, since they all give
OH ions when they dissolve in water,
ionization equation of Arrhenius acid and bases in the water,
identification of Arrhenius acid and bases,
the limits of Arrhenius theory.
Jigsaw group-2. The second jigsaw group studied Brønsted–
Lowry Acid and Base Theory. In the second lesson, the group
members discussed their studies in their group under the
guidance of the instructor. After this study that all the under-
graduates would able to explain;
Brønsted and Lowry separately proposed a new set of
definitions for acids and bases,
acids are any substance that can donate H + ion to a base,
bases are any substance that can accept H+ ion from
an acid,
the role of water in acid–base reactions,
the reason of formation hydronium ion in the water,
dissociation of Brønsted and Lowry acid and bases in the
water,
part of the acid remaining when an acid donates a H + ion is
called the conjugate base and the acid formed when a base
accepts a H+ ion is called the conjugate acid,
acids and bases can be ions or neutral molecules accord-ing
to Brønsted and Lowry theory,
acid and bases can be applied to solutions with solvents
other than water and even in reactions that occur in the gas or
solid phases,
the limitations of Brønsted–Lowry theory.
Jigsaw group-3. The third jigsaw group was studied on Lewis
Acid and Base Theory. After their study outside the class, they
presented their studies in their group under the guidance of the
instructor. In this way, undergraduates would able to explain;
Lewis acids are any substance that can accept a pair of
nonbonding electrons,
310 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313
View Article Online
Lewis bases are any substance that can donate a pair of
nonbonding electrons,
Lewis acids are those which can form a new covalent bond
by accepting a pair of electrons and Lewis Bases are those that
can form a new covalent bond by donating a pair of electrons,
formation of complex ions according to Lewis theory,
identification organic molecules that act as a Lewis acid or
Lewis base,
the limits of Lewis theory.
After the presentations of each jigsaw group, a 15 min break
was taken. In the third lesson, undergraduates were moved to
their home groups to complete their task related to the ‘Acid–
Bases Theories’.
Home group studies. Each undergraduate in the home groups
taught their own expertise subtopics to the other undergraduates
under the guidance of the instructor. After all the undergraduates
learned the subtopics, they began to investigate the di fferences,
limits of the theories, and they classified some acid and base
samples as HCl, H2S, H2CO3, HSO4 , HMnO4, HNO3, HC2H3O2,
NaOH, NH3, NH4Cl, Na2CO3, CaO, BF3, SO3, CH2ClCOOH,
CH3NH2 according to the acid–base theories. After this 45-
minutes period group study, class discussion was conducted
related to Acids and Base Theories. During this learning process
it was aimed undergraduates learn;
Arrhenius theory can only classify substances when they are
dissolved in water since the definitions are based upon the
dissociation of compounds in water,
Arrhenius theory does not explain why some compounds
containing hydrogen such as HCl dissolve in water to give acidic
solutions and why others such as CH4 do not,
Arrhenius theory can only classify substances as bases if
they contain the OH ion and cannot explain why some
compounds that don’t contain the OH such as Na 2CO3 have base-
like characteristics,
Brønsted theory explains acids and bases can be ions or
neutral molecules,
Brønsted theory explains bases can be any molecule with at
least one pair of nonbonding electrons,
Brønsted theory explains the role of water in acid–base
reactions; H2O accepts H+ ions from acids to form H3O+ ions,
Brønsted theory can be applied to solutions with solvents
other than water and even in reactions that occur in the gas or
solid phases,
Brønsted theory relates acids and bases to each other with
conjugate acid–base pairs and can explain their relative strengths,
Brønsted theory explains the relative strengths of pairs of
acids or pairs of bases,
Only Lewis theory explains formation of complex ions,
Only Lewis theory explains organic molecules acid or base
characterizes.
Instruction in the control group
Undergraduates in the control group were instructed via teacher-
centered approach. This instruction included lecture, discussion
and problem solving. Throughout the lesson in the control group,
the same instructor presented the same content
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012

as the experimental group to achieve the same learning
objectives that detailed instruction in the experimental group
section. During this process instructor used blackboard and
asked some questions related to the subject. Undergraduates
also used regular textbook. While the instructor explained
the subject, the undergraduates listened to her and took notes.
They solved the problems related to Acid–Base Theories. In
addition, the some problems were assigned as homework in
order to ensure time equation in the experimental group.
Results and discussion
As indicated before, researchers have asserted the reason of
students’ misconceptions in acids and bases are related their prior
knowledge and learning difficulties about some chemistry subjects
such as particulate nature of matter, solubility, chemical reactions,
Published on 16 April 2012. Downloaded on 7/9/2018 3:05:13 PM.
stoichiometry, ionic dissociation of substances, chemical bonding
and chemical equilibrium (Furio-Ma´s et al., 2007; Nakhleh and
Krajcik, 1993; Nakhleh, 1994; Ross and Munby, 1991; Sheppard,
2006; Smith and Metz, 1996). For this reason, undergraduates’
prior knowledge and possible misconceptions were identified via a
prerequisite knowledge test. The independent sample t-test was
used to compare the mean scores. As shown in Table 1, the mean
scores of the experimental and control groups were 21 and 22
respectively, and there were no significant differences in terms of
prerequisite knowledge test (t = 0.4, p 4 0.05).
Undergraduates’ responses to the prerequisite knowledge
test indicated that they had misconceptions related to identification
chemical bonds and inter molecular forces, confusion ionic
and covalent bonds, confusion London and dipol-dipol forces,
solubility, and chemical equilibrium (Table 2). Because these
concepts were important for learning ‘Acid and Base Theories’,
undergraduates in both group were taught these concept before
and during the instruction.
Instruction of Arrhenius, Brønsted–Lowry, and Lewis
Acid–Base Theories was conducted with jigsaw cooperative
learning in the experimental group and with teacher-centered
approach in the control group. Immediately after the instructions
the acid–base theories concept test was administrated to determine
undergraduates’ understanding. The independent sample t-test
results showed that the undergraduates who trained with jigsaw
Table 1 Independent sample t-test results of the prerequisite knowledge
test
Group N Mean SD t p
Experimental 18 21 7.4 0.4 0.68
Control 20 22 5.4
Table 2 The percentage of undergraduates misconceptions determined in the prerequisite knowledge test
Undergraduates’ misconceptions
HCl is an ionic compound.
H2 includes hydrogen bonds.
London forces are stronger than dipole–dipole forces.
Because HF molecule can ionize in the water, it has high solubility.
If equilibrium constant bigger than 1, the reaction occurs more rapidly.
All the acids and bases are strong electrolyte.
Hydrogen is a metal in I-A group of the periodic table.
Only solutions of ionic compounds conduct electricity.
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012
View Article Online
Table 3 Independent sample t-test results of the acid–base theories
concept test
Group N Mean SD t p
Experimental 18 24 4.1 4.6 0.002
Control 20 16 6.7
cooperative learning significantly had higher scores than those
taught by teacher-centred approach in terms of acid–base theories
concept test mean scores (t = 4.6, p o 0.05, Table 3).
Undergraduates’ responses to each item in the acid–base
theories concept test reflected that undergraduates in the
experimental group had significantly fewer misconception
and understood ‘Acids and Bases Theories’ more meaningfully
than undergraduates in the control group (Table 4). While two
of the misconceptions in Table 4 were first identified in this
study, six of them had been previously documented in the
literature.
Results reflected that undergraduates in the control group
commonly had difficulties about Lewis Theory, and they
confused Arrhenius and Brønsted–Lowry Theories. For
example, one of the item, it is asked to undergraduates to
identify the acids and bases in the reaction of HS + CH 3Cl -
CH3SH + Cl according to ‘Acid–Base Theories’. It was
required undergraduates to answer this item as HS is Lewis
base, because it is an electron pair donor. While undergraduates
in the experimental group correctly answered this item, 85% of
the undergraduates in the control group gave the wrong answer.
45% of them identified HS as Lewis acid because of having
hydrogen. 40% of them thought that HS is Brønsted–Lowry
acids, because of giving proton.
In the other item, undergraduates were required to explain
some sample reactions according to Lewis Theory. 45% of the
undergraduates in the control group classified the reaction
between NH3 and BF3 molecules as Lewis Theory, because
they believed that new complex products as BF3NH3 should
be formed according to Lewis theory. Those undergraduates
also could not explain the reaction between CN and H2O
molecules deped on Lewis Theory. In the other hand, 40% of
undergraduates in the control group could not explain this
reaction according to Lewis theory and they indicated that
there is no electron transfer between NH3 and BF3 molecules.
Those misconceptions underlined that over 35% of the
undergraduates in the control group did not understand
electron transfer between acids and bases depend on Lewis
theory, could not explain the basic characteristics of some
samples do not include OH ions, confused H+ ion and
proton. This situation indicate that undergraduates commonly
Exp. Grp (%) Cont. Grp (%)
67 70
44 30
56 40
67 75
33 40
50 60
55 55
39 40
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313
311
 View Article Online

Table 4 The percentage of undergraduates’ misconceptions about ‘‘Acid and Base Theories’’

Undergraduates’ misconceptions Exp. Grp(%) Cont. Grp(%)

Because HS has hydrogen, it is Lewis acid. 0 45
Because HS give its proton, it is Brønsted–Lowry acids. 6 40
CN ion takes proton from the base and thereby it is Arrhenius base. 0 35
There is no electron transfer between NH3 and BF3 molecules. 6 40
+
Acids are the substances that only give H ions and bases are the substances that only gave OH ions. 11 45
Bases are the substances that give proton and acids are the substances that gain proton. 11 50
+ a
Arrhenius theory explains transferring of H and Brønsted–Lowry theory explains transferring proton. 6 55
a 0 45
According to Lewis Theory, ions should be combined to make new products.
a
Firstly identified misconceptions in this study.
Table 5 The percentage of experimental group undergraduates’ opinions about jigsaw cooperative learning

Experimental Group Undergraduates’ Opinions about Jigsaw (%)

2012. Downloaded on 7/9/2018 3:05:13 PM.

Using jigsaw cooperative learning in all the chemistry lessons may increase my chemistry achievement. 67
Because we shared our ideas and knowledge, I learned better. 50
I learned chemistry is not memorization. 61
I wish jigsaw cooperative learning is used in all the lessons. 44
I learned the research techniques in the library and internet. 72
I began to like chemistry after jigsaw cooperative learning instruction. 56
Working with friends increased my interest to chemistry. 44
Instructor’s monitoring helped us to plan our research. 78
I would rather educated by instructor than studying in the group. 22
The feedback given by the instructor helped us to reduce errors in our study. 83
I feel my confidence level in investigating has improved after the group study. 61
I enjoyed while working in my group. 78
I liked to study with my friends in the groups. 44
Working in groups developed the relations between friends. 50
Published on 16 April

prefer to define acid and base according to Brønsted–Lowry
Theory, and had difficulties in explaining Lewis acid–base
theories and confused acid and base theories with each other as
mentioned by the other researches (Bradley and Mosimege,
1998; Demerouti et al., 2004; Zoller, 1990). This can be caused
because the regular chemistry curriculum generally highlights
Arrhenius and Brønsted–Lowry Theory, and the differences
between these theories do not give apprehensible as indicated in
the previous studies by Carr (1984), Schmidt (1995), Vidyapati
and Seetharamappa (1995).
In the light of the results of this study, it can be said that jigsaw
cooperative learning instruction is successful in improving
students’ conceptual understandings and preventing misconcep-
tions. The findings are consistent with earlier studies as those of
Doymus (2008a, 2008b), Eilks (2005) which revealed that the
jigsaw method leads to higher achievement.
In order to identify undergraduates’ opinions about jigsaw
cooperative learning application, 15-minute period semi-structured
individual interviews were conducted with all the undergraduates in
the experimental group after the instruction. As shown in Table 5,
undergraduates indicated that this instruction positively e ffected their
attitudes towards chemistry, learning achievements, responsibilities,
and social skills. 67% of the undergraduates indicated that jigsaw
cooperative learning increased their chemistry achievements, and
61% of them began to think that chemistry is not memorization. In
the other hand only 44% of them required using jigsaw cooperative
learning in all the lessons. This result underlined that although
undergraduates recognize the power of jigsaw cooperative learning,
more than half of them do not want to be taught via jigsaw. They also
do not want to study in group. This results underlined that
undergratuates are not accustomed to this type pf learning.
Threfore, application of jigsaw or the other cooperative learning
techniques should be used most widely in chemistry and science
classes. Additionally, undergarduates generally have positive
attitudes and interest towards jigsaw techniqe. These findings are
in agreement with previous research findings which revealed that
the jigsaw method increased students’ attitudes and interest (Dori
1995; Doymus et al., 2004).
Conclusions
The present study was conducted to investigate the e ffectiveness
of jigsaw cooperative learning instruction over teacher-centered
approach on first-year undergraduates’ understanding of ‘Acid
and Base Theories’. The results reflected that jigsaw is an
effective cooperative learning technique that promotes positive
attitudes and interest, develop inter personal skills, and increase
conceptual understanding. Additionally, there are limited studies
on students’ understanding of chemistry concepts via jigsaw
cooperative learning. Therefore, it is believed that this study will
contribute to the chemistry education literature. In the light of the
results, it is suggested that jigsaw cooperative learning should be
used widely in chemistry instruction.
References
Acar Sesen B. and Tarhan L., (2011), Active-learning versus teacher-
centered instruction for learning acids and bases, Research in Science
& Technological Education, 29, 205–226.
Acar B. and Tarhan L., (2007), Effect of cooperative learning strategies on
students’ understanding of concepts in electrochemistry, International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 349–373.

312 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313 This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012

Acar B. and Tarhan L., (2008). Effects of cooperative learning on
students’ understanding of metallic bonding, Research in Science
Education, 38, 401–420.
Aronson E., Blaney N., Stephan C., Sikes J. and Snapp M., (1978),
The Jigsaw Classroom, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Pub.
Banerjee A. C., (1991), Misconception of students and teachers in
chemical equilibrium, International Journal of Science Education,
13, 487–494.
Bodner G., (1986), Constructivism: A theory of knowledge, Journal of
Chemical Education, 63, 873–878.
Bradley J. D. and Mosimege M. D., (1998), Misconceptions in acids
and bases: a comparative study of student teachers with different
chemistry backgrounds, South African Journal of Chemistry, 51,
137–145.
Carr M., (1984), Model confusion in chemistry, Research in Science
Education, 14, 97–103.
Colosi J. C. and Zales C.R., (1998), Jigsaw Cooperative Learning
Improves Biology Lab Course, Bioscience, 48, 118–124.
Cooper J. L. and Mueck R., (1990), Student involvement in learning
Cooperative learning and college instruction, Journal on Excellence
Published on 16 April 2012. Downloaded on 7/9/2018 3:05:13 PM.
College Teaching, 1, 68–76.
Cross D., Maurin M., Amouroux R., Chastrette M., Leber J. and
Fayol M., (1986), Conceptions of first-year university students’ of
the constituents of matter and the notions of acids and bases,
European Journal of Science Education, 8, 305–313.
Demerouti M., Kousathana M. and Tsaparlis G., (2004), Acid–base
equilibria, part I. upper secondary students’ misconceptions and
difficulties, Chemical Educator, 9, 122–131.
Demirciog˘lu G., (2003), Lise II Asitler ve bazlar nitesi ile ilgili rehber
materyal gelitirilmesi ve uygulanması (Doctoral dissertation, Karadeniz
Teknik University, Turkey). Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr/
content/view/59/111/lang,tr/.
Dori Y. J., (1995), Cooperative development of organic chemistry
computer assisted instruction by experts, teachers and students,
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 163–170.
Doymus K., (2008a), Teaching chemical equilibrium with the jigsaw
technique, Research in Science Education, 38, 49–260.
Doymus K., (2008b), Teaching chemical bonding through jigsaw
cooperative learning, Research in Science & Technological Education,
26, 47–57.
Doymus K., Simsek U. and Bayrakceken S., (2004), The effect of
cooperative learning on attitude and academic achievement in
science lessons, Journal of Turkish Science Education, 2, 103–113.
Driscoll M. P., (2005), Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd edn).
Boston: Pearson.
Driver R. and Bell B., (1986), Students’ thinking and the learning of
science: A constructivist view, School Science Review, 67, 443–456.
Driver R. and Erickson G., (1983), Theories-in-Action: Some theori-
tical and emprical isues in the study of students’ conceptual
framework in science, Studies in Science Education, 10, 37–60.
Ebenezer J.V. and Gaskell P. J., (1995), Relational conceptual change
in solution chemistry, Science Education, 79, 1–17.
Eilks I., (2005), Experiences and reflections about teaching atomic
structure in a jigsaw classroom in lower secondary school chem-
istry lessons, Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 313–9.
Fraenkel J. R. and Wallen N. E., (2005), How to Design and Evaluate
Research in Education, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Furio-Ma´s C., Calatayud M. L. and Ba´rcenas S. L., (2007), Surveying
students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of acid–base behavior
of substances, Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 1717–1724.
Griffiths A. K. and Preston K. R., (1992), Grade 12 students’ misconcep-
tions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 611–628.
Hand B. and Treagust D. F., (1991), Student achievement and science
curriculum development using a constructive framework, School
Science and Mathematics, 91, 172–76.
Hsu Y.S., (2008), Learning about seasons in a technologically enhanced
environment: The impact of teacher-guided and student-centered
instructional approaches on the process of students’ conceptual
change, Science education, 92, 320–344.
Hawkes S.J., (1992), Arrhenius confuses students, Journal of Chemical
Education, 69, 542–543.
Johnson D. W., Johnson R. and Smith K., (1991), Active learning:
Cooperation in the college classroom, Edina, MN: Interaction Book
Company.
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012
View Article Online
Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (1994), Joining together: Group
theory and group skills, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kaya O. N., (2007), A student-centred approach: Assessing the
changes in prospective science teachers’ conceptual understanding
by concept mapping in a general chemistry laboratory, Research in
Science Education, 38, 91–110.
Lazarowitz R., Baird J. H., Hertz-Lazarowitz R. and Jenkins J.,
(1985), The effect of modified jigsaw on achievement, classroom
social climate and self-esteem in high school science classes, in:
Slavin, R. et al. (ed.) Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn,
New York & London: Plenum Press, pp. 231–253.
McKeachie, W. J., (1986), Teaching Tips, (8th edn) Lexington, Mass.:
Heath.
Nakhleh M.B. and Krajcik J. S., (1993). A proctocol analysis of the
influence of technology on students’ actions, verbal commentary, and
thought processes during the performance of acid–base titrations,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1149–1168.
Nakhleh M. B., (1994), Students’ models of matter in the context of
acid–base chemistry, Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 495–499.
Nakhleh M. B., (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry,
Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191–196.
Osborne R. and Freyberg P., (1985), Learning in science: The implications
of children’s science, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
¨
Ozmen H., (2003), Chemistry student teachers’ levels of linking their
knowledge with daily life about acid and base concepts, Kastamonu
Education Journal, 11, 317–324.
Peterson R.F., Treagust D.F. and Garnett P., (1989), Grade-12 students
misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure, Journal of
Chemical Education, 66, 459–460.
Rayner-Canham G., (1994), Concept of acids and bases, Journal of
College in Science Teaching, 23, 246–247.
Ross B. and Munby H., (1991), Concept mapping and misconceptions:
a study of high-school students’ understandings of acids and bases,
International Journal of Science Education, 13, 11–24.
Sanger M. J., (2000), Addressing student misconceptions concerning
electron flow in aqueous solutions with instruction including computer
animations and conceptual change strategies, International Journal of
Science Education, 22, 521–537.
Schmidt H.J., (1991), A label as a hidden persuader: chemists’ neutralization
concept, International Journal of Science Education, 13, 459–472.
Schmidt H. J., (1995), Applying the concept of conjugation to the Brønsted
theory of acid–base reactions by senior high school students from
Germany, International Journal of Science Education, 17, 733–741.
Schmidt H. J., (1997), Students’ misconceptions—looking for a pattern,
Science Education, 81, 123–35.
Sharan S. and Hertz-Lazarowitz R., (1980), A group-investigation
method of cooperative learning in the classroom, Cooperation in
Education, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Pre.
Sheppard K., (1997), A qualitive study of high school students pre- and
post-instructional conceptions in acid–base chemistry, PhD diss.,
Colombia University.
Sheppard K., (2006), High school students’ understanding of titrations
and related acid–base phenomena, Chemical Education Research
and Practice, 7, 32–45.
Sisovic D. and Bojovic S., (2000), Approaching the Concepts of Acids
and Bases by Cooperative Learning, Chemistry Education:
Research and Practice in Europe, 1, 263–275.
Slavin R.E., (1980), Cooperative learning, Review of Education
Research, 50, 315–42.
Smith K. J. and Metz P. A., (1996), Evaluating student understanding
of solution chemistry through microscopic representations, Journal
of Chemical Education, 73, 233–235.
Taber K., (2000), Chemistry lessons for universities?: A review of
constructivist ideas, University Chemistry Education, 4, 63–72.
Toplis R., (1998), Ideas about acids and alkalis, School Science
Review, 80, 67–70.
Vidyapati T. J. and Seetharamappa J., (1995), Higher secondary
school students’ Concepts of acids and bases, School Science
Review, 77, 82–84.
Young W., Hadgraft R. and Young M., (1997), An application of
‘jigsaw learning’ to teaching Infrastructure model development,
European Journal of Engineering Education, 22, 11–18.
Zoller U., (1990), Students’ misundestanding and misconceptions in
college freshman chemistry (general and organic), Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 27, 1053–1065.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 307–313
313