Research on cooperative learning pdf

They compared four conditions in which students worked in dyads to learn math. In one, students were rewarded with opportunities to engage in special activities of their choice if the sum of the dyad's scores on daily quizzes exceeded a criterion. In another, students were taught a structured method of tutoring each other, correcting efforts, and alternating tutor-tutee roles.

A third condition involved a combination of rewards and structure, and a fourth was a control condition in which students worked in pairs but were given neither rewards nor structure. Other studies also found greater achievement for cooperative methods using group goals and individual accountability than for those that do not.

O'Donnell in press compared dyads working with and without incentives. Students who received explicit incentives based on their learning learned significantly more than those who did not in three experimental studies. Okebukola , studying science in Nigeria, found substantially greater achievement in STAD and TGT, methods using group goals and individual accountability, than in forms of Jigsaw and Johnsons' methods that did not.

A few reviewers e. There is no evidence that they do so, and they certainly do not undermine long-term achievement.

Cohen b raises the possibility that while group rewards and individual accountability may be necessary for lower-level skills, they may not be for higher-level ones. As evidence of this she cites a study by Sharan et al. On "high level" items, GI students performed non-significantly higher than STAD students, with a difference of less than half of a point on a 15 point test.

Otherwise there is no evidence that group rewards are less important for higher order skills, although the possibility is intriguing.

Structuring Group Interactions While it is clear that all other things being equal, group rewards and individual accountability greatly enhance the achievement outcomes of cooperative learning, there is some evidence that carefully structuring the interactions among students in cooperative groups can also be effective, even in the absence of group rewards. In one, students were taught specific reading comprehension strategies and given "think sheets" to remind them to use these strategies e.

In the other group, students earned team scores if their members improved each week on quizzes. In this method, the teacher works with small groups of students and models such cognitive strategies as question generation and summarization. The teacher then gradually turns over responsibility to the students to carry on these activities with each other.

The effects of group rewards based on the individual learning of all group members are clearly indirect; they only motivate students to engage in certain behaviors, such as providing each other with elaborated explanation.

The research by Meloth and Deering , Berg , and others suggests that students can be directly taught to engage in cognitive and interpersonal behaviors that lead to higher achievement, without the need for group rewards. However, there is also a growing body of evidence to suggest that a combination of group rewards and strategy training produces much better outcomes than either alone.

First, the Fantuzzo et al. Further, the outcomes of the RPT and CWPT dyadic learning methods, which use group rewards as well as strategy instruction, produced some of the largest positive effects of any cooperative methods, much larger than those found in the Berg study that provided groups with structure but not rewards.

As noted earlier, studies of scripted dyads also find that adding incentives adds to the effects of these strategies O'Donnell, in press. The consistent positive findings for CIRC, which uses both group rewards and strategy instruction, also argue for this combination. Several studies have focused on the question of which students gain the most from cooperative learning.

One particularly important question relates to whether cooperative learning is beneficial to students at all levels of prior achievement. It would be possible to argue see, for example, Allan, ; Robinson, that high achievers could be held back by having to explain material to their low-achieving groupmates. However, it would be equally possible to argue that because students who give elaborated explanations typically learn more than those who receive them Webb, , high achievers should be the students who benefit most from cooperative learning because they give the most frequent elaborated explanations.

The evidence from experimental studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review support neither position. A few studies found better outcomes for high achievers than for low and a few found that low achievers gained the most see Slavin, Most, however, found equal benefits for high, average, and low achievers in comparison to their counterparts in control groups. A few studies have looked for possible differences in the effects of cooperative learning on students of different ethnicities.

Several have found particularly large effects for black students. However, other studies have found equal effects of cooperative learning for students of different backgrounds Slavin, Other studies have examined a variety of factors that might interact with achievement gain in cooperative learning. Finally, a small number of studies have compared variations in cooperative procedures. Kaminski and Rich et al. Jones compared cooperative learning using group competition to an otherwise identical method that compared groups to a set standard as in STAD.

There were no achievement differences, but a few attitude differences favored the group competition. The previous discussion has summarized evidence that generally supports the motivationalist view that group goals and individual accountability are necessary for cooperative learning to result in achievement gains, at least in applications of several weeks or months my review considered only studies of at least four weeks' duration.

Yet there are a few cases in which achievement gains in comparison to control groups have been found for cooperative learning treatments that lack one or both of these elements. Are there conditions under which they may not be necessary?

Before exploring this question, it is important to further consider the theoretical rationale for the importance of group goals and individual accountability. Both are principally designed to motivate students to teach each other, to be concerned about the learning of their groupmates.

The assumption behind them is that while groupmates may readily interact with each other and help each other, without appropriate structuring this interaction and help may take the form of sharing answers or doing each other's work rather than making certain that groupmates can independently solve problems or know the material. In cooperative learning techniques in which groups are rewarded based on the individual learning of each group member, the group members want the group to succeed, and the only way they can make this happen is to teach and assess one another to make certain that every group member can independently show mastery of whatever the group is studying.

The theoretical and empirical support for the centrality of group goals and individual accountability is strong for a broad range of school tasks. Yet there may be some kinds of tasks that do not require these elements. Controversial Tasks Without Single Answers. One category of tasks that may not require group goals and individual accountability is tasks in which it is likely that students will benefit by hearing others thinking aloud.

This is the classic Vygotskian paradigm; students in collaborating groups make overt their private speech, giving peers operating at a slightly lower cognitive level on a given task a stepping stone to understanding and incorporating higher-quality solutions in their own private speech see Bershon, Tasks of this kind would be ones at a very high level of cognitive complexity but without a well-defined path to a solution or a single correct answer, especially tasks on which there are likely to be differences of opinion.

Perhaps the best classroom evidence on this type of task is from Johnson and Johnson's studies of structured controversy, in which students argue both sides of a controversial issue using a structured method of argumentation.

Other examples of such tasks might include group projects without a single right answer e. In each of these cases it may be that hearing others' thinking processes is beneficial even if co-teaching does not take place. It is still important to note that use of group goals and individual accountability is unlikely to interfere with modeling of higher-level thinking, and is likely to add teaching and elaborated explanation Webb, Groups received certificates based on the performance of their members on individual quizzes.

The consensus procedure evoked arguments and explanations, modeling higher quality thinking, but the teaching procedure made sure that students could each apply their new understandings.

The program's effects on tests of main idea and inference skills were substantial. Voluntary Study Groups. A second category of cooperative tasks that may not require group goals and individual accountability is situations in which students are strongly motivated to perform well on an external assessment and can clearly see the benefit of working together. The classic instance of this is voluntary study groups common in postsecondary education, especially in medical and law schools.

Medical and law students must master an enormous common body of information, and it is obvious to many students that participating in a study group will be beneficial. While there is little extrinsic reason for students to be concerned about the success of other study group members, there is typically a norm within study groups that each member must do a good job of presenting to the group. Because study group membership is typically voluntary, study group members who do not participate effectively may be concerned that next term they may not be invited back.

There is little research on voluntary study groups in postsecondary institutions, and it is unclear how well this idea would apply at the elementary or secondary levels. In the U. Another problem, however, is that voluntary study groups can and do reject or fail to select members who are felt to have little to contribute to the group.

This could not be allowed to happen in study groups sponsored by the school.. Structured Dyadic Tasks. A third category of cooperative tasks that may not require group goals and individual accountability is tasks that are so structured that learning is likely to result if students engage in them, regardless of their motivation to help their partners learn. Examples of this were discussed earlier.

In contrast to cooperative methods using group goals and individual accountability to indirectly motivate students to teach each other, these methods allow the teacher to directly motivate students to engage in structured turn taking behaviors known to increase learning. The successful use of structured dyadic tasks in elementary schools seems largely limited to lower level, rote skills such as memorizing multiplication tables, spelling lists, or place names.

As in the case of controversial tasks without single correct answers, there is evidence that adding group rewards to structured dyadic tasks enhances the effects of these strategies. A simple pair study format did not increase student arithmetic achievement, but when successful dyads were awarded stickers and classroom privileges, their achievement markedly increased.

Needs for Additional Research The four theoretical models explaining the achievement effects of cooperative learning described in this paper are all useful in expanding our understanding of the conditions under which various forms of cooperative learning may affect student achievement. Figure 1, which links these theoretical perspectives in a causal model, provides a framework for predicting different causal paths by which cooperative learning might affect achievement.

In particular, the model shows the importance of group goals and individual accountability, but also suggests ways that achievement might be affected more directly by introducing peer activities that may not require extrinsic motivation. This paper explores three types of tasks or situations in which group goals and individual accountability may not be necessary: controversial tasks lacking single right answers, voluntary study groups, and structured dyadic tasks.

There is no research on voluntary study groups such as medical or law school study groups , but research does find instances in which the other two types of cooperative tasks are effective without group goals and individual accountability. However, there is also evidence that adding group goals and individual accountability to these tasks further enhances their instructional effectiveness.

Clearly, there is a need for further research on conditions under which group goals and individual accountability may not be necessary.

As a practical matter, it is probably the case that most teachers using cooperative learning do not provide group rewards based on the individual learning of all group members, and feel that it is unnecessary and cumbersome to do so.

For both theoretical and practical reasons it would be important to know how to make "reward-free" cooperative learning methods effective.

A related need for research concerns effective uses of project-based learning. Most research on cooperative learning has involved the use of these methods to help children master fairly well-defined skills or information. Cooperative learning practice has increasingly shifted toward project-based or active learning Stern, in press , in which students work together to produce reports, projects, experiments, and so on.

However, there is a great deal of work yet to be done to identify effective, replicable methods, to understand the conditions necessary for success in project-based learning, and to develop a more powerful theory and rationale to support project-based learning. There is a need for both development and research at the intersection of cooperative learning and curriculum.

Our own work has for many years focused on development and evaluation of cooperative learning methods that are tied to particular subjects and grade levels, such as Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition Stevens et al. These contrast with most cooperative learning models which typically provide some general guidance for how to adapt cooperative learning to different subjects and grade levels but rarely provide actual student materials.

How is cooperative learning affected by the existence of specific materials? Does use of these materials improve the learning outcomes of cooperative learning? Does it make cooperative learning more likely to be implemented well in the first place and maintained over time? These questions are more important for practice than for theory but they are very important for practice.

Not incidentally, there is a need for development of high-quality well-developed, well-researched cooperative curricula in many subjects and grade levels, especially at the secondary level. Related to the need for research on curriculum-based methods is a need for research on effective strategies for professional development and follow up to support cooperative learning. Nearly all cooperative learning training programs make extensive use of simulations, and this seems so obviously effective that perhaps it is not worth studying although perhaps it is at least worth documenting.

There has been some research on the effectiveness of peer coaching to support implementations of cooperative learning e. Yet there is much more work to be done to identify strategies for professional development likely to lead to high-quality, thoughtful, and sustained implementation.

Perhaps the only determined opposition to cooperative learning within the community of professional educators has come from advocates for gifted students. However, much more research is needed in this area to understand, for example, whether different cooperative methods have different effects for gifted students and how the effects of cooperative learning might be different in homogeneous and heterogeneous settings.

On this last question, there is a broader need to study cooperative learning in the context of attempts to replace homogeneous with heterogeneous grouping, especially in middle and high schools, and to use cooperative learning instead of homogeneous reading groups in elementary schools. This paper has focused on the achievement outcomes of cooperative learning, but there are of course many other outcomes that are in need further research.

In general, there is a need for more research on all outcomes in senior high schools and in post- secondary institutions, and a need for development and evaluations of cooperative methods for young children, especially those in prekindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade. In summary, although cooperative learning has been studied in an extraordinary number of field experiments of high methodological quality, there is still much more to be done.

Cooperative learning has the potential to become a primary format used by the teachers to achieve both traditional and innovative goals. Research must continue to provide the practical, theoretical, and intellectual underpinnings to enable educators to achieve this potential. References Allen, S. Ability grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping and the gifted?

Educational Leadership, 48 6 , Ames, G. When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18, Aronson, E. The Jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bell, N. Socio-cognitive conflict and intellectual growth. Berkowitz ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Berg, K. Structured cooperative learning and achievement in a high school mathematics class. Bershon, B.

Cooperative problem solving: A link to inner speech. Miller Eds. Interaction in cooperative groups pp.

New York: Cambridge University Press. Burns, M. Groups of four: Solving the management problem. Learning, Mentoring and coaching minority teachers. Cummins Eds. Cameron, J. Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, Cavanagh, B.

Effects of interdependent group contingencies on the achievement of elementary school children. Dissertation Abstracts, 46, Chambers, B. The relationship between Student Team Learning outcomes and achievement, causal attributions, and affect.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, Cohen, E. Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom 2nd Ed. Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64 1 , Coleman, J. The Adolescent Society. New York: Free Press. Damon, W. Peer education: The untapped potential.

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, Dansereau, D. Cooperative learning strategies. Weinstein, E. Alexander Eds. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Davidson, N. Small-group learning and teaching in mathematics: A selective review of the research. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Schmuck Eds. Learning to cooperating to learn pp.

New York: Plenum. De Avila, E. Devin-Sheehan, L. Research on children tutoring children: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 46 3 , Ellis, A. Research on educational innovations. Fantuzzo, J. Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics and school adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, An evaluation of reciprocal peer tutoring across elementary school settings. Journal of School Psychology, 28, Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: A component analysis.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, Foyle, H. Homework and cooperative learning: A classroom field experiment. Illinois School Research and Development, 29 3 , Gallagher, J.

Educational of gifted students: A civil rights issue? Our research question was the following: Does the WebQuest foster the self-regulated, cooperative work of secondary school students 16 years old when making a scientific video?

Data collection and analysis The purpose of introducing a WebQuest is to aid and guide students in their research work as well as in video production, so that they work in a cooperative way. Another way to know to what extent the students had learned the task that they had to do, in- dependently and correctly, was to correlate the grade expected by the group with the grade that the teacher finally gave.

For this reason, the questionnaires try to analyze how work had been carried out within the group: whether or not it was done in a cooperative way, distribut- ing tasks, and whether they had enough guidelines to carry out their research work and pro- duction of the videos. Two questionnaires were designed to collect these data.

The first questionnaire is divided into three sets of questions. Each student answered this questionnaire individually, therefore, 24 questionnaires were collected. It asks students whether they worked in a cooperative way. It asks the student for a general evaluation of this manner of working. It also asks about the grade that they expect to get for their work.

All three members of the group answered this questionnaire collectively, and hence we obtained eight questionnaires, one for each group. Results and discussion First questionnaire First set: Cooperative learning features The results obtained in this first set of questions indicate that most students perceived that they had worked cooperatively see Fig.

Taking into account that the questionnaire uses a six-point scale, 0 meaning zero frequency, and 5 meaning permanent frequency, the average obtained for the eleven questions was 3. By and large, it may be said that students perceived that they worked cooperatively. I am happy about the success of the group. I have made positive contributions to the group.

I contribute towards making each member of my group do his set piece of work. I resolve conflicts in a positive manner. I have good ideas; I am constructive. I share my information, and take into account the information of others. I help in seeking solutions; I make suggestions 3.

I value the contributions of the other members of the group. I share the load of the work. I listen to, and respect, the ideas of others.

I share the load of work. I help in seeking solutions; I make suggestions. I share my information, and take into account information 24 3. I contribute towards making each member of my group do 24 3. All these results confirm what was stated above, that students con- sistently give positive evaluations of their perceptions of having worked cooperatively. Table 3. I share my information, and take into account information from others. Keeping in mind that this questionnaire uses a five-point scale, where 1 means an unsatisfactory evaluation, and 5 an excellent evaluation; the average for these five questions was 3.

Therefore, it may be said that students positively evaluate this way of learning. Specifically, students make a very positive evaluation of group work compared to individual work. Furthermore, this instructional strategy helped them to better understand the subject, and at the same time, they indicate that they learnt really valuable things. The answers show that students were involved in the learning process and that they enjoyed this way of learning.

I have learnt things of real value This way of learning has helped me to understand the subject better Questions This way of learning, as opposed to individual work, is My contribution towards the group's success has been The realization of my role in the group has been 24 3. This way of learning, as opposed to individual work, is 24 4.

It has helped me to understand the subject better. I have learnt things of real value. Third set: Digital video work Tables 5, 6, and 7 present the answers given by all 24 students. The main reason given is that they enjoyed carrying out the project Other answers refer to learning how to use computers and networks, learning in a different way, having new experiences, and a way to learn content more easily.

Table 5. Answer Frequency Percentage Enjoyable way to work 15 Ten groups point out that some parts of the video involved some difficulty. Most say that introduc- ing audio in the video, as well as editing, was difficult. Some groups answered that they would have needed more time to better complete the work. The groups that experienced difficulties referred to their classmates to answer questions 7 answers , to the teacher 5 answers , exercised more patience and more work and effort 2 answers or did not solve the prob- lem at all 1 answer.

These answers show once again that students worked cooperatively and independently, since they more frequently refer to their peers and intensify their effort rather than referring to the teacher to overcome difficulties. Table 6. ISSN:1 What do you prefer? All students say that the use of computers as well as software to edit videos was easy. Both be- haviors are essential and characteristic of cooperative learning see Table 8.

One of the goals of using WebQuest was precisely to foster both a cooperative manner of working as well as setting guidelines and steps to help students work with some autonomy. Table 8. Other an- swers refer to difficulty in meetings, wasting time in arguments, lack of effort, and difficulty in sharing computers see Table 9. Table 9. This fact could be attributed as a consequence of working with WebQuest.

Spe- cifically, the structure of well defined work provided by WebQuest helps students to under- stand clearly what is expected from them, and it also helps them to better evaluate their work. Along these lines, the WebQuest that we designed includes a part with evaluation criteria, detailing all aspects that the teacher would take into account in evaluating the final work see Fig. Summary As we pointed out at the beginning of this article, the Headmaster of Erain School was concerned about students being more interested in producing videos than in doing the re- search required to build the video content.

For this reason, he was searching for a way to give students guidelines for their work. The results of this study show how WebQuest —designed to foster self-regulated learning and cooperative work in video production— has been effective to reach our goal.

However, this study has its limitations. Using digital video is in itself motivating for students, since it implies a way of working that is completely different from work carried out on paper. In spite of the limitations of this article in terms of transferring the results, the Headmaster of Erain School and the teacher involved in this investigation considered that they had reached their initial objective: that WebQuest would prove to be an instructional strategy for improving self-regulated, cooperative work of students of Secondary Education 16 years old in the production of scientific videos.

Furthermore, most of the research results are consistent with those obtained in the literature on the effectiveness of WebQuest to foster cooperative learning and self-regulated learning: - Specifically, we refer to cognitive as well as affective variables. On the one hand, data show that students think that they more easily learn and retain whatever content is worked on this way. There is a greater involvement in the task, they make a greater ef- fort, and they search for alternative ways of finding information.

They learn valuable things. It makes undertanding a course easier, and students know how to organize work. On the other hand, students are more motivated to work in a group producing a video.

They attribute success to effort and work done, since they know what is ex- pected from them and they know the evaluation criteria. Better relationships within groups are fostered, since most acknowledge that they respect the opinions of other group members, that they contribute to the success of the group, and that they refer to other classmates when difficulties arise.

Most students say that they managed to organize and distribute tasks among group members. The story is a series of events or events chronologically, both facts and fiction or fiction. Like narrative essays, writing interesting experiences is writing chronological events based on events that are truly experienced.

This strategy is based on Vygotsky's learning theory , which emphasizes social interaction as a mechanism to support cognitive development. In addition, this method is also supported by information processing learning theory and cognitive theory of learning. In the implementation of this method helps students to more easily process the information obtained, because the encoding process will be supported by interactions that occur in cooperative Learning.

Jigsaw Jigsaw is a type of cooperative and flexible learning strategy. In Jigsaw learning, students are divided into groups whose members have heterogeneous characteristics. Each student is responsible for learning the topics assigned and teaching the group so that they can interact and help each other. Jigsaw was first developed and tested by Elliot Aronson and his friends at the University of Texas, then adapted by Slavin and his friends at Jhon Hopkins University Arends, Jigsaw was designed to increase students' sense of responsibility for their own learning and other people's learning.

Students not only learn the material that has been given, but they must also be ready to provide and teach the material to other group members. Thus students depend on one another and must cooperate cooperatively to study the material assigned Lie, Cooperative learning model with jigsaw technique is used in an effort to give stimulus to learners reasoning power of a more directed event that can generate responses in the form of ideas that poured into the form of writing and also increase the motivation of learners in following the English lesson.

In cooperative learning model, students learn in small groups consisting of people heterogeneously and work together in positive interdependence and are responsible for completing the subject matter part that must be learned and convey the material to other group members Arends, The members of different teams with the same topic meet for discussion help each other about the learning topics assigned to them.

In cooperative learning model with jigsaw technique there are groups of origin and expert groups, the original group is the parent group of students with diverse abilities, origins, and family backgrounds.

The original group is a combination of several experts. Action research is an examination of learning activities in the form of an action, which is deliberately raised and occurs in a class at the same time. The implementation will use the action model of Kemmis Mc Taggart, which consists of: 1 planning, 2 action implementation, 3 observation, 4 reflection.

Subject of the research is class VI with the number of students 32 people. The study was conducted in 2 cycles consisting of 2 meetings in each cycle. The data in this research is divided into two types: quantitative data and qualitative data.

Quantitative data sources are the results of a text writing test narrative English learners as the subject of research. Meanwhile, the source of qualitative data comes from the observation of learning process writing using cooperative learning model with jigsaw technique conducted by researchers and collaborators.

The indicators of the success of the process in this action research are as follows; 1 Aspects of the learning process, if students or students show a positive and active response during the learning process using a cooperative learning model with jigsaw techniques. Components assessed in writing skills according to Harris 68 includes: generic structure, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and relevance.

The research instruments used were lesson plan assessment sheet, observation sheet of student learning activities, and test of result of learning. Based on these studies it can be concluded that there is a significant effect using the jigsaw learning model and have good contribute for English learning.

For this reason, researchers try to conduct research with a jigsaw cooperative learning model. The Process of Improving Narrative Text Writing Skills through Cooperative Learning Models with Jigsaw Techniques In the planning of learning to write narrative text with theme interesting experience on pre observation, cycle 1, and 2 the researcher develop the learning plan according to student requirement. The result of increasing student activity in the learning process in each cycle is shown in the following graph: Graph 1 Student Learning Activities In the graph above shows there is a significant increase for learning process activities in each cycle.

Improving the Result of Narrative text Writing Skill through Cooperative Learning Model with Jigsaw Technique The implementation of pre-cycle activities in this study was carried out by collecting data which related to strategies, methods or learning media used in English learning training in narrative writing skills in Using English. It can be seen the completeness of student learning outcomes in writing in using English is less effective so it has not reached the mastery that has been determined by the school.

This can be seen from 32 students in grade VI, there are only 11 students who have achieved completion standard and 21 students who have not yet reached completion standard. The average grade obtained by Grade VI students in English subjects The average value of pre-test results of learners is Assessment in the first cycle of narrative text writing skill has done at third meeting. From the above data it can be seen that by cooperative learning of jigsaw types on narrative writing skill by theme interesting experiences in English subjects at SDN 01 Tugu Utara in cycle I students are clearly visible in the v ocabulary and grammar understanding when writing so that the accuracy of writing and the accuracy of mastery of mechanics or punctuation can be seen clearly, in the pre- cycle mastery of grammar and vocabulary is still below average but in cycle I has reached completeness there is only a decrease in the level of relevance.

In the assessment of the narrative text writing skills that were completed there were only 18 students where the average number reached For this reason the teacher would continue his research on cycle II to achieve minimal completion standard. The average value of cycle I results of learners is The average value obtained from the first cycle is From the overall result of learning reflection that has been done, the researcher can conclude that the action on cycle I goes well.

Learners are able to follow the learning process with enthusiasm. Therefore it was decided that the study will continue to cycle II. The second cycle of writing skill test is done at the third meeting of cycle II. From the data above, it can be seen by Jigsaw cooperative learning about interesting writing learning in class VI of Tugu Utara Elementary School in Cycle II obtained an average value of The completeness value determined by the school is 70 so that it presents