The purpose of this paper is to examine what differences occur, if any, between students' communications in two kinds of groups: unstructured ones and ones in which students are taught to use the jigsaw method and become expert in it. Junior high school students studying the topic of volcanoes (over a period of six weeks) were divided into two groups. One was taught to use the jigsaw method (in five groups of four students) and a second group of twenty students was divided into five unstructured discussion groups, again of four students each. After the students had finished studying volcanoes, they were asked to discuss two samples of rocks, one collected from near their school and the other collected from near the Sakurajima volcano in Kyushu. The students' utterances were transcribed and classified into eight categories by the two authors. Also the understanding gained by each group was evaluated by using, before and after, a test and a cognitive map. As a result of this research, the following four points became clear: 1) There was no significant difference on the post-test of understanding of the topic of volcanoes between the jigsaw method groups (62.5 [18.3]) and the unstructured discussion groups (64.8 [18.2]), (t [38] =-0.39, n. s.). 2) In groups which had previously used the jigsaw method, there were increases in the number of different correct classifications of rocks and mountains on the cognitive map. 3) In groups which had used the jigsaw method, it was possible for members to correct others' opinions with confidence and to have the opportunity to notice their own mistakes, while explaining the reasons. 4) In the unstructured group, students' opinions were easily controlled by the dominant opinion and three-fifths of the groups went along with a wrong opinion without checking for any problems that position might involve.
抄録全体を表示