The total number of students registered in clinical pharmacology course was eighty seven. Out of the total number, seventy six agreed to participate in the survey, which accounted for approximately 87% response rate. In the qualitative phase, saturation was attained after seven interviews.
(Insert Table one here)
3.1 Jigsaw learning assessment
Table 1 shows the mean and standard deviation for each item in Jigsaw learning assessment scale based on student’s response. The average value of the overall score on the Jigsaw learning assessment scale (mean=2.12, SD= 1.042) was lower than the mean value (3) of the five point Likert scale.
3.1.1 Attitude: Among the four subscales of Jigsaw learning assessment tool, the lowest overall score (most positive response) was for the subscale measuring attitude towards Jigsaw learning (mean=2.07, SD=1.02). This was further supported by interview narratives:
‘Maybe after three weeks, I started to feel something new about myself. I found out that I can actually help someone learn difficult things about drugs. I met the teacher inside me for the first time. I started feeling positive about this class activity after that.’(Alice)
‘I was getting better in learning alone and also with others, sometimes it was interesting to see how others used funny ways to remember drug names, but you know it really works. It is much better than listening to lectures by just sitting in the class.’(Rosalie)
For the survey item-3, that measured student’s attitude towards teamwork, highly positive response (mean=1.9, SD=0.98) was noted with the subscale that measured attitude. It was elaborated in the interviews:
‘I never talked to some girls in the class, but when we were together in the expert group; we started talking and helped each other learn. Even afterwards, we sat together, talking about how different things happened when we explained the same things to the home group. We also exchanged ideas on what worked well and what did not. It helped us learn better next time.’(Jessica)
3.1.2 Knowledge: The overall mean score for the subscale measuring knowledge was 2.14+ 1.06, which was lower than the mean value (3) of the five point Likert scale. Within the subscale that measured knowledge, lowest score (mean=2.0, SD=1.11) was for the survey item-9 (Jigsaw Technique has helped me to understand the examples of drug interaction). During the interviews, this notion was supported:
‘The teacher asked each one of us in the expert group to discusses ‘drug to drug’ and ‘drug to food’ interactions, but we were told to search online for different examples. It was like a competition for us because of time limit. But then, we also looked at each other’s examples, and there was a lot of discussion on which was the best to share with the home group. I still remember many examples. It helped me solve the case studies in the exam.’(Karen)
3.1.3 Skills: The overall score for the subscale measuring skills was lower than the mean value (3) of the five point Likert scale (mean=2.12, SD=1.01). The lowest score (mean=1.9, SD=0.88) was for survey item 13- (Jigsaw Technique has helped me develop patient education skills). This was stated more saliently as a positive aspect of jigsaw learning, during the interviews:
‘whenever someone asked us about patient education before drug administration, the toughest part for all of us was to decide, what information to give and what can be left out, …. Now we can select the most important and practical things about drugs in a short time, because we practiced teaching so many times with the home group’. (Alice)
‘In my home group, some girls asked so many questions and some just listened and did not say anything. I was confused if they even understood me. But after how they did in pop quiz, I got confident. I know, how to give information about drugs now, I know, I can use it for patient education.’(Amber)
3.1.4 Satisfaction: The overall score for the subscale measuring knowledge was lower than the mean value of the questionnaire scale (mean=2.14, SD= 1.06). In response to interview questions regarding overall satisfaction with jigsaw learning, the students said that:
‘I was not happy in the beginning, it was new for us, but after few classes, we started feeling that the information is sticking in our brains, it helped us in our tests, we are very happy with it now.’(Jessica)
‘Some girls did not teach us in a good way, and they were not happy when we told them that we lost in pop quiz because they never gave us the complete information.’(Karen)
The most positive response within the subscale measuring overall satisfaction was for survey item-19, with a low score (mean=1.8, SD=0.86). Within the same subscale, low positive satisfaction was noted for survey item-16 (mean=2.3, SD=1.07) and survey item-17(mean=2.4, SD=1.11). During the interviews similar narratives were as follows:
‘Some girls did not download everything from the blackboard. And they were not prepared to teach us in the home group.’(Karen)
‘I think that information on the blackboard should be in points only, because we do not have much time when we reviewing it in the expert group.’ (Amber)
‘I do not think it should be done in all courses because teachers need to explain, they know many things that we cannot learn ourselves. The time for us to learn is also little and we had to go teach in home group. For pharmacology we have the same format for drug profile, you know, MOA, dose, route, adverse effects etc.’ (Angela)
‘For me, it depends on the teacher who is doing the course, you know sometimes the course is tough and teacher says you should have that information because you already studied it last year, so it is better to have only lectures from them.’(Rosalie)
3.2 Difference between questionnaire responses of group A and Group B
Table 2 shows the responses of the students to the questionnaire items. It illustrates the difference between group A and group B.
(Insert Table two here)
The difference between the two groups of students was significant for survey item-4 (p=0.04) and item- 8 (p=0.001) within the subscales of attitude and knowledge respectively. There was statistically significant difference between the two groups of students for survey item-12 (p=0.01) and survey item-13 (p=0.02), which were related to subscale measuring skills. For the survey item-16, within the subscale that measured student’s satisfaction, the difference in the mean scores between the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.03).
3.3 Comparative test scores between jigsaw and traditional classrooms
Total possible score in the 60-items MCQ based test was 60. The mean score + standard deviation was 45.38+7.60. Reliability coefficient (Kuder-Richardson Formula 20) was 0.86.
Difference in the mean percentile scores for course content delivered in jigsaw classroom compared to course content delivered in traditional classroom is shown in Table 2. The difference between the total scores is highly significant (p<0.001).
(Insert Table three here)