Volume 19, Issue 1 (2026)                   J Med Edu Dev 2026, 19(1): 44-55 | Back to browse issues page

Ethics code: 01/12/KEP-FKIKUAJ/2023


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Nur Fauziyah A T, Jani Juliawati V D, David Kurniawan C, Rosari B P, Darmadi D, Surja S S. PAL-Jigsaw: a hybrid cooperative learning model in medical education. , J Med Edu Dev. 2026; 19 (1) :44-55
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2545-en.html
1- School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia , amandatifanny2003@gmail.com
2- Medical Education Unit, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
3- Department of Anatomical Pathology, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
4- Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia
5- Department of Parasitology, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
Abstract:   (899 Views)

Background & Objective: The rapid advances in medicine have led to changes in medical education, with a shift from teacher-centered to student-centered learning. This study combined Peer-Assisted Learning (PAL)—known for its comfortable learning environment—with the jigsaw method, which fosters cooperative learning. The aim of this study was to implement the PAL-jigsaw method and assess its effectiveness based on students’ perceptions.
Materials & Methods: This study employed a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design. The sample consisted of second-year undergraduate students who completed the infectious disease module. The learning session was conducted using the PAL-jigsaw method. Students' perceptions were evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitative data were collected using a 5-point agreement Likert scale questionnaire. The level of agreement was presented descriptively, and the difference between groups was subsequently analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Qualitative data collection was conducted through Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and was analyzed thematically.
Results: This study involved 18 groups consisting of 178 medical students. The majority of students agreed with 19 of 21 questionnaire items, particularly regarding the learning environment. Most students agreed that PAL-jigsaw created a comfortable atmosphere for asking questions (n = 88, 49.4%), that the session was exciting (n = 75, 42.1%) and fun (n = 60, 33.7%), and allowed tutees to learn while teaching their peers (n = 87, 48.9%). There was no difference between groups (p > 0.05). In the qualitative findings, thematic analysis of the FGD data from tutees and tutors yielded two major themes: 1) Positive aspects and advantages of the PAL-jigsaw method, and 2) Challenges and limitations of the PAL-jigsaw method.
Conclusion: Most students had positive perceptions of the PAL-jigsaw method, such as learning with friends, a comfortable learning atmosphere, and the communication and language used during the sessions. Overall, students and tutors agreed that the PAL-jigsaw method has great potential and could be re-implemented in the following year with improvements on certain aspects, such as timing, tutor preparation, and assessment structure.

 
Full-Text [PDF 596 kb]   (309 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (108 Views)  
Editorial: Original Research | Subject: Medical Education
Received: 2025/07/26 | Accepted: 2025/11/29 | Published: 2026/01/1

References
1. Sari MI, Lisiswanti R, Oktaria D. Pembelajaran di fakultas kedokteran: pengenalan bagi mahasiswa baru. J Kedokt Univ Lampung. 2016;1:399-403. https://doi.org/10.23960/jkunila.v1i2.pp399-403 [DOI:10.23960/jkunila12399-403]
2. Konsil Kedokteran Indonesia (KKI). Standar Kompetensi Dokter Indonesia. 2nd ed. Jakarta Pusat: Konsil Kedokteran Indonesia; 2012.
3. Trullàs JC, Blay C, Sarri E, Pujol R. Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22:104. [DOI:10.1186/s12909-022-03154-8] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Elshami W, Abuzaid M, Abdalla ME. Radiography students' perceptions of peer assisted learning. Radiography. 2020;26:109-13. [DOI:10.1016/j.radi.2019.12.002] [PMID]
5. Jawhari AA, Safhi MA, Magadmi MM, Alobaidi RH, Alghamdi KM, Basyouni RN, et al. Effect of peer-assisted learning on enhancing clinical research skills among medical students: students' and tutors' perceptions. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021;12:685-96. [DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S315041] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Drouet OC, Lentillon-Kaestner V, Margas N. Effects of the jigsaw method on student educational outcomes: systematic review and meta-analyses. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1216437. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1216437] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Krishnan DG, Keloth AV, Ubedulla S, Mohandas P. Effectiveness of jigsaw active learning method in promoting knowledge gain and retention among medical students: a quasi-experimental study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2021;15:JC05-8. [DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2021/52422.15779]
8. Tarhan L, Ayyıldız Y, Ogunc A, Sesen BA. A jigsaw cooperative learning application in elementary science and technology lessons: physical and chemical changes. Res Sci Technol Educ. 2013;31:184-203. [DOI:10.1080/02635143.2013.811404]
9. Srivijayan A, Venugopal S, Sakthivadivel V. Role of jigsaw method of teaching in improving clinical diagnosis among final year medical students - a prospective observational study. Asian J Med Sci. 2021;12:44-9. [DOI:10.3126/ajms.v12i12.39080]
10. Woods HB. Expediting learning through peer teaching: experiences with the Jigsaw technique. Health Inf Libr J. 2019;36:378-82. [DOI:10.1111/hir.12283] [PMID]
11. Soriano-Moreno AN, Delgado-Raygada JE, Peralta CI, Serrano-Díaz ES, Canaza-Apaza JM, Toro-Huamanchumo CJ. Perception of medical students about courses based on peer-assisted learning in five Peruvian universities. BMC Res Notes. 2020;13:391. [DOI:10.1186/s13104-020-05237-5] [PMID] [PMCID]
12. Savin-Baden M, Howell Major C. Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2023. [DOI:10.4324/9781003377986] [PMID]
13. Guest G, MacQueen K, Namey E. Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2012. [DOI:10.4135/9781483384436]
14. Jeppu AK, Kumar KA, Sethi A. 'We work together as a group': implications of jigsaw cooperative learning. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23:734. [DOI:10.1186/s12909-023-04734-y] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. Loda T, Erschens R, Nikendei C, Zipfel S, Herrmann-Werner A. Qualitative analysis of cognitive and social congruence in peer-assisted learning - the perspectives of medical students, student tutors and lecturers. Med Educ Online. 2020;25:1801306. [DOI:10.1080/10872981.2020.1801306] [PMID] [PMCID]
16. Loda T, Erschens R, Nikendei C, Giel K, Junne F, Zipfel S, et al. A novel instrument of cognitive and social congruence within peer-assisted learning in medical training: construction of a questionnaire by factor analyses. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:214. [DOI:10.1186/s12909-020-02129-x] [PMID] [PMCID]
17. Moin H, Majeed S, Zahra T, Zafar S, Nadeem A, Majeed S. Assessing the impact of jigsaw technique for cooperative learning in undergraduate medical education: merits, challenges, and forward prospects. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24:853. [DOI:10.1186/s12909-024-05831-2] [PMID] [PMCID]
18. Kumar CV, Kalasuramath S, Patil S, Kumar KR, Taj KS, Jayasimha VL, et al. Effect of jigsaw co-operative learning method in improving cognitive skills among medical students. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6:164-73. [DOI:10.20546/ijcmas.2017.603.018]
19. Hennrikus EF, Skolka MP, Hennrikus N. Social constructivism in medical school where students become patients with dietary restrictions. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2020;11:505-11. [DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S259727] [PMID] [PMCID]
20. Vygotsky LS. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1978.
21. Matsuyama Y, Nakaya M, Okazaki H, Lebowitz AJ, Leppink J, Van Der Vleuten C. Does changing from a teacher-centered to a learner-centered context promote self-regulated learning: a qualitative study in a Japanese undergraduate setting. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:152. [DOI:10.1186/s12909-019-1550-x] [PMID] [PMCID]
22. Widyanto IP. Peningkatan mutu pendidikan Hindu melalui pengelolaan pembelajaran. J Penjaminan Mutu. 2020;6:48. [DOI:10.25078/jpm.v6i1.1151]
23. Grieve R, Woodley J, Hunt SE, McKay A. Student fears of oral presentations and public speaking in higher education: a qualitative survey. J Furth High Educ. 2021;45:1281-93. [DOI:10.1080/0309877X.2021.1948509]
24. Rahayu D, Pangestu DRA, Rejeki Y. Students' fear in public speaking: reasons and strategies [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2025 Apr 15]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337331155_Students'_Fear_in_Public_Speaking_Reasons_and_Strategies

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2026 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Medical Education Development | All rights reserved.