USING JIGSAW COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STRATEGY IN ONLINE DISCUSSION TO FOSTER A PROJECT-BASED LEARNING COMMUNITY ON THE WEB

Int'l J of Instructional Media Vol. 36(2), 2009 USING JIGSAW COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STRATEGY IN ONLINE DISCUSSION TO FOSTER A PROJECT-BASED LEARNING COMMUNITY ON THE WEB CHI-CHENG CHANG, PH.D, National Taipei University of Technology, Taiwan ABSTRACT This article mainly describes the use of jigsaw collaborative learning strategy in online discussion to foster the form of an online learning community, called Web-enabled Project-Based Learning Community. Moreover, this article also discusses the concepts of Project-Based and Web-enabled PBL Community, importance of online discussion in community, and jigsaw collaborative learning method. Finally, implications and conclusions are proposed. Keywords: Jigsaw Collaborative Learning, Online Discussion, Project-Based Learning, Learning Community INTRODUCTION Project-based learning (PBL) on the Web is usually used to enable learners to have an in-depth group discussion about specific topics online, from which an online collaborative community is established, through mutual knowledge, information and experience shared between each group members, to complete group product and foster the ability of collaboration and coordination, social connection and interaction, and settlement of problems. Markkanen, Ponta, & Donzellini (2001) state that the project teams may naturally form cross-institutional learning communities through idea sharing on projects and interaction in group discussions. Hung & Wong (2000) claim that through online learning community on the Internet, project teams can communicate and share knowledge. These argue that the establishment of the online learning community is contributive to fulfillment of web-enabled project-based learning tasks and works, while online knowledge sharing is a key factor in building a learning community. 221

222 / Chi-Cheng Chang, Ph.D. As indicated by McAlpine & Ashcroft (2002), during web collaborative learning process, a major element in a constructivist approach is active learning through knowledge sharing and idea exchange in online discussion forum. Hence online knowledge sharing and- information exchange may be called indispensable courses for web-enabled project-based learning (WEPBL). Online discussion definitely has influence on the performance and successful task fulfillment of project-based collaborative learning (PBCL). In addition, learning tasks during the WEPBL process (such as settlement of problems, conclusion announcement, discussion, and demonstration, simulation and appreciation of works) need brain storming through online discussion to enhance the quality of project-based works. From the multilateral description above, we may conclude that online discussion is one of the most critical activities for WEPBL, and is an essential factor in completing learning tasks and enhancing the quality of project-based works, featuring significant influence on learning efficiency and effectiveness. PROJECT-BASED LEARNING ON THE WEB What is IT-assisted PBL? Project-based learning (PBL) has long been a teaching tool of many teachers and a learning strategy for students to solve a complex problem or accomplish a complex task. The steps of PBL usually include electing, selecting, researching, reading, gathering facts, sketching, drawing, illustrating, developing prototypes, trying, testing, evaluating, revising, revamping, reconceptualizing, trying again, testing, and evaluating (Fogarty, 1997). According to Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka and Conceicao-Runlee (2000), team projects engage learners in team-build, leadership and time management, real-life experience, facilitation, problemsolving. Learning by doing is essential to the learning process in PBL that requires learners to develop project to demonstrate their understanding of the complex concepts or skills (Schweizer, 1999). The use of PBL is rapidly growing for its high level of authenticity, many real-world characteristics, concrete purpose, and wide range of subjects. PBL is now being supported by use of information technology (IT) including computers, the Internet, the World Wide Web, multimedia, hypermedia, and generic software tools (such as a word processor, graphics application, data base, spreadsheet, presentation, and e-mail) etc. As George (2002) argues, it is particularly interesting to implement PBL in a distance learning environment. Therefore, ITassisted PBL (especially Web-enabled PBL) is now a vesicle for learning subject matter content and for learning how to use IT effectively. Especially, the Internet and World Wide Web provide a large amount of resources for teachers developing PBL lessons and for students working on projects. Collis (1997) defines project-based tele-leaming (or tele-pbl) as "problem-oriented learning within the framework of a group project and using telematics support for the project activities" (p.213).

Benefits of IT-assisted PBL Using Jigsaw Collaborative Learning Strategy / 223 Moursund (1999) argues that IT adds some new dimensions to PBL. These dimensions are: (1) IT as an aid to carrying out the work in a project; (2) IT as part of the content of a project; (3) IT as a vehicle that helps create a teaching and learning environment. In team-based learning online, learners have to establish agendas and priorities, identify the roles of the members in a team, manage tasks, think critically, solve problems, make decision, and collaborate with each other. These activities are not easy tasks to accomplish in online environment, but they can be effectively used if providing clear and concrete guideline. (Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka and Conceicao-Runlee, 2000). Additionally, ITassisted PBL may provide both learners and teachers the opportunity to infuse technology into curriculum (Daniel, 2002). Moursund (1999) also claims that IT-assisted PBL can provide students with some real experiences. These experiences are: (1) Learning in an authentic and multidisciplinary environment; (2) learning how to design, implement, and evaluate a project; (3) learning about the topics on which the project focuses; (4) gaining more IT skills; (5) learning to work with external guidance individually and in groups; (6) gaining in self-reliance and personal accountability. Krajcik, Czemiak, & Berger (2003) state that technology-supported PBL may help learners, for instance, carry out investigations, produce artifacts, enhance motivation, and develop understanding of complex concepts. Moursund (1999) anticipates that future IT-assisted PBL are associated with (1) the continuing rapid growth of IT; (2 ) the steadily increasing importance of problem or task team; (3) professional development of teachers. Process of IT-assisted PBL The process of doing a project during a IT-assisted PBL consists of (1) project posing - defining the goals and objectives of the project; (2) resource allocation - identify the available of resources; (3) planning - analyze the various components of the project and specify what should be accomplished in each component; (4) implement the plan - do substantial research using multiple sources of information (5) continual improvement - incrementally improve a product, presentation, or performance (Moursund, 1999). There should be some experiences engaged for students during IT-assisted PBL process that include working on a team to accomplish a complex task, creating and presenting a product, learning how to learn, gaining creative problem-solving and critical thinking skills, and using IT. As for the experiences for using technologies in PBL, Krajcik, Czemiak, & Berger (2003) state that technology-supported PBL make the environment more authentic to learners. For instance, learners can gather information on the Internet, enhance interaction and collaboration with their peers via the Web, use visualization tools to analyze data and make multimedia products. Moursund (1999) indicates that a good PBL lesson requires substantial skills of thinking, analysis, creativity, and problem solving. Moreover, research such as searching, gathering, analyzing, finding, integrating, and presenting useful infor-

224 / Chi-Cheng Chang, Ph.D. mation is an essential component of any good PBL project. WEB-ENABLED PBL COMMUNITY PBL and Online Learning Community Palloff and Pratt (1999) argue that the establishment of online learning community is the key to successful web-based learning, and also the motive power for effective online learning. If there were no learning community support and activities, online learning would not be available. Also, Al-Balooshi (2002) argues that online community plays a main role in establishing web learning. Additional, Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson (1999) argue that collaborative problembased projects may support the forming of online learning communities. Hung & Wong (2000) claim that, within a PBL team, the members form an online community of learners operating under some natural rules of working together. Moreover, each project team becomes a small community within the large community of teams. Yang (2002) argues that creating a community of learners is considered to be essential to collaborative online PBL. We may attribute, likewise, successful Web-enabled PBL (WEPBL) facilitates the establishment of the online learning community; no learning community support and activity will lead to invalid WEPBL. Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka and Conceicao-Runlee (2000) argue learning community-centered courses are intentionally created environments that emphasize the social aspects of learning and promote interaction as a process critical for learning. In learning community-centered courses, learners are able to build social skills and learn from each other collaboratively. What Is Web-enabled PBL Community? The interdependence of WEPBL and the online learning community are quite clear from the foregoing discussion. WEPBL facilitates the establishment of the online learning community while the online learning community assumes the key to the accomplishment of WEPBL. As a result, online learning community plays a major role in implementing a successful web-enabled PBL. On the basis of the aforementioned theory, the author presents the term, Web-enabled PBL Community (WEPBLC), similar to the collaborative learning community proposed by Graves (1994). Krajcik, Czemiak, & Berger (2003) also mention that, in projectbased learning, learners become members of a community collaborating to investigate questions. Additionally, Markkanen, Ponta, & Donzellini (2001) state, the project teams may naturally form cross-institutional learning communities. This term, Web-enabled PBL Community, derived from the said Learning Communitycentered PBL, means that the WEPBL succeeds with online collaborative learning community properly organized during WEPBL processes. Via such collaborative community, group members undertake knowledge sharing, information exchange, resource sharing, interchange of experience and personal interaction, and complete a series of tasks and final works of the PBL.

Using Jigsaw Collaborative Learning Strategy / 225 ONLINE DISCUSSION AND SHARING IN WEPBL COMMUNITY Online Discussion Fosters Establishment of Learning Community Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka and Conceicao-Runlee (2000) believe that the online discussion forum or the bulletin board offers group reflection, social interaction and personal association for the community. Community members may learn from dialogues during the discussion and prompt continuous discussion and dialogues through meaningful feedback. Kearsley (2000) states that the discussion is essential to an online learning community. Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson (1999) argue that learning communities can be fostered through dialogue as well as information collections, searches, and exchanges. As what Hanna, Glowacki- Dudka and Conceicao-Runlee (2000) have argued, online activities that support learning communities contain online discussion, individual and group research, group projects and presentation, and collaborative problem solving. Markkanen, Ponta, & Donzellini (2001) state that learning communities happen in network PBL through sharing and peer reviewing of projects, and interaction in group discussions. In a qualitative study of Polhemus & Swan (2002), learners' collaborations with their peers and interactions with instructor in the online discussion forum may result in the formation of learning community's dynamics. Degree of Participation in Online Discussion According to the formula for the degree of community participation (Chang et al, 2002), this study defines the formula for the degree of participating online discussion as follow: Degree of Participating Discussion (DPD) =logl 0 [Frequency of Discussion Per Learner and Per Week] =log 10 [Total Frequency of Discussion / Weeks # x Learner #1 This formula uses the function of log on the base of 10. "Frequency of participating discussion per learner per week equals or is larger than I time" is regarded as high degree. Corresponding to asking or answering question one time in traditional face-to-face class weekly, viz., degree of participating discussion must be larger than logl 0 [1] = 0, this non-n is quite reasonable. The scale of the degree of participating online discussion consisting of five categories is as follows (shown as Figure 1): 1. Very low : DPD < -0.48, frequency of participating discussion per learner per three week equals or is smaller than 1 time (logl0 [1/31 = -0.48); 2. Low : - 0.48 _- DPD < -0.3, frequency of participating discussion per learner per three week equals or is larger than 1 time (logl 0 [1/3] = -0.48), or frequency of participating discussion per learner per two week equals is smaller than 1 time (logl0 [1/2] = -0.3);

226 / Chi-Cheng Chang, Ph.D. 3. Moderate: -0.3 '< DPD < 0, frequency of participating discussion per learner per two week equals or is larger than I time (logl 0 [1/2] = -0.3), or frequency of participating discussion per learner per week equals is smaller than 1 time (log 10 [1] = 0); 4. High : 0.03 -_ DPD < 0.3, frequency of participating discussion per learner per week equals or is larger than I time (log 1 0 [1] = 0), or frequency of participating discussion per learner per week equals is smaller than 2 times (logl 0 [21 = 0.3); 5. Very high : 0.3 -- DPD, frequency of participating discussion per learner per week equals or is larger than 2 times (log 1 0 [2] = 0.3). FIGURE 1. FIVE CATEGORIES OF THE DEGREE OF PARTICIPATING ONLINE DISCUSSION Very low Low Moderate High Very high -0.48-0.3 0 0.3 The total frequency of discussion forums, for instance, are respectively 101, 135, 215, 374 times for 7 weeks and 15 participants, based on the above formula of for the degree of participating online discussion, their degrees of participating online discussion and categories are as follows: 1. DPD = logl 0 [101 / 7x 15] = -2.02, belong to moderate degree; 2. DPD = log 10 [135 / 7x 15] = 0.11, belong to high degree; 3. DPD = logl 0 [215/ 7x 15] = 0.31, belong to very high degree; 4. DPD = log 10 [374 / 7x15] = 0.55, belong to very high degree. Group Discussion In Online Learning Community D. Johnson, R. Johnson, & Holubec (1994) state that small, focused discussion groups are ideal because they allow learners to formulate what they know and easily explain it to others. Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka and Conceicao-Runlee (2000), suggest that keeping online discussion groups small, to perhaps no more that five participants, so that learner interactions are not overwhelming. In this view, group discussion is critical to successful discussion online. Brooks, Nolan, & Gallagher (2001) argue that, in online discussion of collaborative learning, small groups should be organized and teacher (or mentor) serves as guide. Stratfold (1998) also mention focused discussion that might enable participants to converge on specific issues during online dialogues. According to Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, & Tinker (2000), small and learner-facilitate discussion groups can ensure a high possibility of effective discussions and counterbalance a lack of experienced mentors or co-facilitators. They add that, buddy groups of

Using Jigsaw Collaborative Learning Strategy / 227 two or three participants and one mentor or facilitator should be established for giving feedback and support. Furthermore, Brooks, Nolan, & Gallagher (2001) argue that student-expert (outside resource person) discussions should be considered in electronic discussions. Schweizer (1999) argues, there are different types of groups, for instance, base group, formal groups and information groups, which can be considered in collaborative learning. For these reasons, the projectbased discussion area and expert-based discussion area may be provided online and their groups are organized in a PBL. JIGSAW COLLABORATIVE LEARNING METHOD What Is Jigsaw Collaborative Learning? Jigsaw is a collaborative method that makes the interdependence between group members possible, intensify interaction and construct knowledge (Hinze, Bischoff & Blakowski, 2002). Jigsaw approach, the use of reconstituted groups, is based on the principles of interdependence that operate in the cross-role teams (Clarke, 1994). Jigsaw learning is a variation of a study group. You can form new study groups, so-called expert group or jigsaw group, composed of representatives of each of the initial groups and then ask each jigsaw group to study different topics or information. Consequently, each representation bring new knowledge or idea to the initial groups (Silberman, 1998). It is an exciting alternative whenever there is material to be learned that can be segmented or divided into several parts (Silberman, 1996). According to Hinze, Bischoff, & Blakowski (2002), the jigsaw process consists of following phases: phase 1, introduction and group forming; phase 2, work in the main groups; phase 3, work in the jigsaw group; phase 4, evaluation and reflection. All participants have to take in turns both the role of the learner and the role of teacher, viz., the main group member and jigsaw group member. Process of Jigsaw Collaborative Learning According to Silberman (1998), the jigsaw process may be: (1) forming study groups, so-called project groups, with proper number of member in each group to study the same main topic; (2) a member of each group select a subtopic within main topic to form new groups, so-called jigsaw groups, each containing one representative from the initial study groups; (3) in these groups, each member explain his or her opinion regarding the subtopic to the others; (4) each member of jigsaw group bring newly acquired knowledge and return to the initial study group; (5) finally, in the initial study groups, each member share knowledge regarding subtopic and further study main topic. This jigsaw method involving different subtopics for each jigsaw group may be called learning objective-oriented or learning topic-oriented jigsaw (Chang & Chan, 2003), proceeded to encourage students' compliance with problem-based learning and problem-solving strategies (shown as Figure 2). The learners are interdependent

228 / Chi-Cheng Chang, Ph.D. because of the division of the materials the need to complete the project or assignment (D. Johnson, R. Johnson, & Holubec, 1994). On the other hand, Krajcik, Czemiak, & Berger (2003) mentioned so-called task-oriented or role-oriented jigsaw, that means each member serves as different roles for implementing his or her task, for instances, manager of project, collector of materials, recorder of results, scheduler/timer of project and so forth (shown as Figure 3). No matter what kind of jigsaw approach is used, group members can make separate contributions to a joint product. FIGURE 2. LEARNING OBJECTIVE-ORIENTED JIGSAW COOPERATIVE LEARNING (USED IN THIS STUDY) Projec ru Group #1 Group #2 Group #3 Group #4 Group #5 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 Each project group delegates a representative (1) The expert group composed of 5 members coming from each project group * (totally I expert group) (2) There is an expert group in 3rd week, 4th week, 5th week (3) Five members of expert group share and discuss each other based on learning * objective and content (4) Each representative bring outcomes back to project group after discussion 00... 00 00 3rd Week Learning Objective X 00 00 4th Week Learning Objective Y 00 00 5th Week Learning Objective Z Benefits of Jigsaw Collaborative Learning In a study of Hinze, Bischoff, & Blakowski (2002), jigsaw collaboration is proved to be an efficient group method to intensify collaboration in computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Furthermore, jigsaw collaborative learning could result in one possibility for enhancing interaction, idea sharing and knowledge construction among learners. Clarke (1994) states that jigsaw approach may help build a classroom as a community of learners where they are all valued. In jigsaw collaborative learning, complimentary jigsaw groups are organized beside main groups for sharing knowledge between their members, but coming from different main groups. As what Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, & Tinker (2000) have argued that, support of field experts or mentors for groups to query and challenge can greatly intensify collaboration among the participants.

Using Jigsaw Collaborative Learning Strategy / 229 FIGURE 3. TASK-ORIENTED JIGSAW COOPERATIVE LEARNING (NOT USED IN THIS STUDY) Group #1 Group #2 Group #3 Group #4 Group #5 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 Each project group delegates a representative ( i) The expert group composed of 5 members coming from each project group (totally 3 expert groups) (2) There are three expert groups in 3rd week, 4th week, 5th week (3) Five members of each expert group share and discussion each other based on some project task (4) Each representative bring outcomes back to project group after discussion (5) Each project group must have the same assinations of project tasks --------------------------- 000 000 0 0 0 00 00 000 roup 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0-00 00 000 O0 O0 O0 1 000 0 0 0 0 0 0Shk 00 00a 00 LJ Task X Task Y Task Z IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS As what Palloff and Pratt (1999) have figured, learning community-centered learning is applied to WEPBL mainly for construction of a social learning environment and enhancement of social interaction, where group members of different backgrounds can learn reciprocally and grow jointly through the project-based learning (PBL) process. In case the application of WEPBL is offered based on the learning community-centered theory, teachers should encourage PBL group members to share knowledge, and should highlight learning approaches of "learn how to learn" and design a series of PBL activities, which will facilitate group members' aggressive participation in discussion and knowledge sharing, to create a favorable environment and mechanism for community members. As what Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka and Conceicao-Runlee (2000) have argued, participants in a learning community-centered online course are encouraged to share their expertise and to help peers share what they have learned with each other. Synthesizing arguments in previous sections, the mechanism facilitating and vitalizing the establishment of the online learning community will be the inter-

230 / Chi-Cheng Chang, Ph.D. active discussion, dialogue and sharing activities in the online discussion board/forum. McAlpine & Ashcroft (2002) claims that online discussion forum is a critical vehicle to promote knowledge construction and active learning. Moursund (1999) indicates that online information sharing is an aspect of the collaborative nature of doing projects in PBL lessons. Hung & Wong (2000) claim that through online learning community, project teams can communicate and share knowledge. Schweizer (1999) notes that students share experiences via discussions on the Internet in a collaborative project group. In other words, project-based collaborative learning and online discussion may facilitate the establishment of a learning community online. During the online discussion of Web-enabled PBL, knowledge and ideas are exchanged through dialogue, and learners provide feedback to each other. According to Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka, & Conceicao-Runlee (2000), participants should be assigned different roles to play in online discussion. Moreover, posting guidelines must be provided for prosperous progress of online discussions. Schweizer (1999) also states similar ideas regarding assigning collaborative group member the roles and responsibilities as well as establishing specific guideline for online discussion. Well-organized online discussion should be keep to avoid a chaotic jumble of message, therefore, discussion must be carefully planned out beforehand. For instance, removing message posted in the wrong location or by inappropriate remarks (Kearsley, 2000). Krajcik, Czemiak, & Berger (2003) propose several techniques such as wait-time after asking questions, probing learner responses, and redirecting questions or answers to other learners that may help teachers engage more learners in discussions and encourage better dialogue among them. Wait-time allows learners to think, reflect and elaborate on answers; probing involve asking learners to elaborate on their answers; redirecting enable learners to dialogue each other and intensify learner-to-learner discussion. Brooks, Nolan, & Gallagher (2001) suggest some strategies for effectively implementing web-based discussion, for instance, collaborative learning, shared tasks or projects, peer review and comment, student led discussion, using a taxonomy, and problem-based learning. Krajcik, Czemiak, & Berger (2003) also argue that leading a discussion which fosters thinking and interaction may take much more thought. Among these strategies, creating shared tasks or projects as a Web course requirement may foster information exchanges and online discussions. In this view, PBL mentioned in this paper might be an approach to foster students' online discussions. Organizing a team is critical to the successful implementation of team-based learning or project-based learning. The criteria for organizing teams might consider: common interest, common majors, experiences with technology, geography, topical focus, and professional discipline. The members of a team should take on different roles to develop learners' collaborative skills, while these roles should rotate for acquiring different professional skills (Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka & Conceicao-Runlee, 2000, p.54). In these views, jigsaw might be a possible method to achieve above arguments.

Using Jigsaw Collaborative Learning Strategy / 231 Hinze, Bischoff, & Blakowski (2002) argue, the jigsaw group method is not only a meaningful learning method but also feasible on-line. Therefore, it could be used in the organization of groups when implementing of collaborative activities in the Web learning. According Chang's (2006) research, the frequency of jigsaw group discussion is higher than that of the project-based group. This further suggests the importance of the jigsaw group discussion for learners involving project-based collaborative learning. However, his research result reveals that there is not a close correlation between the jigsaw group's discussion and the project-based group's work performance. A study of Hinze, Bischoff, & Blakowski (2002) indicate that group cohesion, individual competence, and awareness have a significant influence on the outcome of jigsaw group method. Some basic requirements for successful implementation of jigsaw are, for instance, accurate scheduling, adequate time, precise formulation of the task, as well as sufficient material and sources for working in groups. These factors may be verified in further studies. Direct Reprint Requests to: Chi-Cheng Chang, Ph.D. Professor Institute of Technological and Vocational Education National Taipei University of Technology No 1, Sec 3, Chung-Hsiao E. Rd Taipei, Taiwan 106 Email: f10980@ntut.edu.tw

232 / Chi-Cheng Chang, Ph.D. REFERENCES A]-Balooshi, F. (2002) The role of discussion rooms in developing e-learning community: The experience of university of Bahrain. In R. Kinshuk et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 124 1-1244). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society. Chang, C. (2006). A case study on the relationship between participation in online discussion and achievement of project work. International Journal of Instructional Media. (to appear) Chang, C., & Chan, Y. (2003) Web-enabled project based learning strategies and activities - Learning objective-oriented jigsaw collaborative learning. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference of Computer-Assisted Instruction. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan. Chang, L. J., Yang, J. C., & Chang, T. W. (2002) Multilayer education service platforms and its implementation. In R. Kinshuk et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 1241-1244). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society. Clarke, J. (1994) The jigsaw method. In S. Sharan (Ed.). Handbook of collaborative learning methods. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Collis, B. (1997) Supporting project-based collaborative learning via a world wide web environment. In B. Khan (Eds.), Web-Based Instruction (pp. 213-219). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000) Facilitating online learning: Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing. Daniels, T. (2002) A project based approach: Training teachers in classroom computer applications. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Ed.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA (pp.373-375). Norfolk, VA: AACE. Fogarty, R. (1997) Problem-based learning & other curriculum models for multiple intelligences classroom. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/SkyLight Training and Publishing, Inc. George, S. (2002) SPLACH: A computer environment supporting distance project based learning. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA (pp.588-594). Norfolk, VA: AACE. Graves, L. (1994) Creating a community context for collaborative learning. In S. Sharan (Ed.). Handbook of collaborative learning methods. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Hanna, D., Glowacki-Dudka, M., & Conceicao-Runlee, S. (2000) 147 Practical tips for teaching online groups: Essentials of web-based education. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing. Hinze, U., Bischoff, M., & Blakowski, G. (2002) Jigsaw method in the context of CSCL. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA (pp.789-7 94 ). Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Using Jigsaw Collaborative Learning Strategy / 233 Hung, D., & Wong, A. (2000) Activity theory as a framework for project work in learning environments. Educational Technology, 40(2), 33-37. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1994) Collaborative learning in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999) Learning with technology - A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kearsley, G. (2000) Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Krajcik, J., Czemiak, C., & Berger, C. (2003) Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Markkanen, H., Ponta, D., & Donzellini, G. (2001) NetPro: Methodologies and tools for project-based learning in Internet. In C. Montgomerie & J. Viteli (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA (pp. 1230-1235). Norfolk, VA: AACE. McAlpine, I., & Ashcroft, B. (2002) Turing points: Learning from online discussions in an off-campus course. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of ED- MEDIA (pp. 1251-1257). Norfolk, VA: AACE. Moursund, D. (1999) Project-Based Learning Using Information Technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999) Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass Publishers. Polhemus, L., & Swan, K. (2002) Student roles in online learning communities: Navigating threaded discussions. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of ED- MEDIA (pp. 1589-1591). Norfolk, VA: AACE. Schweizer, H. (1999) Designing and teaching an online course: Spinning your web classroom. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Silberman, M. (1996) Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Silberman, M. (1998) Active training: A handbook o techniques, designs, case examples, and Tips. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Stratfold, M. (1998) Promoting learner dialogues on the web. In Marc Eisenstadt & Tom Vincent (Editors). The Knowledge Web: Learning and Collaborative on the Net. Loondon, UK: Kogan Page. Yang, Y. (2002) A case study for promoting collaboration on online project-based learning. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings ofed-media (pp. 52107-2112). Norfolk, VA: AACE.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION TITLE: Using jigsaw collaborative learning strategy in online discussion to foster a project-based learning community on the web SOURCE: Int J Instr Media 36 no2 2009 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: http://www.adprima.com/ijim.htm