








































Teaching Techniques 
 

Amy L. Beard, Graduate Student, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA; email 
ab00542@my.westga.edu. 
 

Using the Jigsaw Strategy in the 
English Language Learner 
Classroom to Teach Content-
Specific Vocabulary 

GATESOL Journal 
2022, Vol. 32(2), pp. 51–56  

doi:10.52242/gatesol.134 
ISSN: 2331-6845 

 

 
Amy Beard 
University of West Georgia 
 
 

Abstract 
Multilingual learners (ML) at the secondary level come to the classroom with a variety of 
learning experiences and language capabilities. An obstacle ML students could face is learning 
the everyday usage of an additional language while simultaneously learning the academic and 
content language, which can cause a potential challenge in the classroom. Thus, teachers must 
be able to adapt their teaching pedagogy to assist MLs, which can prove to be challenging. 
Academic vocabulary and conversational language are two different aspects of learning a new 
language, with academic being the more difficult to obtain since it is not as tangible as 
conversational language. This teaching techniques piece explains a modified jigsaw 
vocabulary activity that was used successfully in a sheltered ML secondary science class; 
additionally, this strategy can be modified and used across content disciplines and grade 
levels, and abilities. This activity utilizes cooperative learning, graphic organizers, and peer-
to-peer engagement to create an optimal learning environment for ML students.  
 
Keywords 
jigsaw, ML, ESL, vocabulary, genetics, cooperative groups 

 
Wilcox and Morrison (2013) outlined four guiding facets for teaching vocabulary: experience, 
environment, exposure, and engagement (p. 53). In a direct instruction lesson, the guiding 
principles of experience and environment are easily addressed. To meet the principles of exposure 
and engagement, a different strategy should be incorporated. Tabiolo and Rogayan (2019) point 
out that “innovative, student-centered, and engaging teaching strategies will increase students’ 
performance in science” (p. 30). The modified jigsaw activity described in this paper was created 
for this purpose. 
 
Strategy Description 
The modified jigsaw activity was developed for a sheltered 9th-grade biology class composed of 
Multilingual Learners (ML) at WIDA Level 3 or higher. The purpose was to enhance students’ 
vocabulary retention at the beginning of a unit on genetics and the activity consisted of establishing 
cooperative groups, utilizing graphic organizers, and incorporating jigsaw learning. 
 
Group Selection and Cooperative Learning 
Student groups were selected based on the following criteria: class performance, ability to work 
with certain individuals in a group setting, and ability to stay on task. The students in this particular 
class were at WIDA Level 3 or higher. The academic and content knowledge necessary to be able 
to participate in this specific activity, would not be suitable for a student at WIDA Level 1 or 2 

mailto:ab00542@my.westga.edu


52 GATESOL Journal 32(2)  
 

because of the amount of prior English language needed. Within each group, there was an equitable 
distribution of learning levels based on current grades in the class. There were three groups of four 
students. For the remainder of this paper, these groups will be referred to as Group A, Group B, 
and Group C. Tjandrawati (2017) noted that “the core in cooperative learning is the existence of 
positive cooperation and mutual help between members of a group” (pp. 152–153). The teacher 
chose cooperative groups that would foster a positive learning environment for all members. 

When this activity was first implemented, it was to a class of 12 ML students, all from 
different backgrounds of ethnicity, education, and WIDA-level of English. This activity has since 
been modified and used in classes of more than 30 students; the teacher has concluded that 
regardless of class size, for this strategy to work cooperative groups work best when group size is 
limited to four or less; smaller groups allow for less distractions and places the importance of work 
on all group members equally. Ultimately, to benefit from cooperative learning, the students within 
each group need to work with one another; for students to work well the teacher needs to 
appropriately select groups to limit distractions during cooperative learning (Talebi & Sobhani, 
2012). 
 
Graphic Organizers 
Each group was provided a graphic organizer because the vocabulary being introduced included 
words that were antonyms or groups of words with similar meanings yet were different enough in 
definition based on their context. For example: heterozygous, homozygous, genotype, allele, 
phenotype, trait, dominant and recessive. Specifically, the T-chart was employed to help students 
visually manage the differences between the content vocabulary and concepts (Pang, 2013). T-
charts were made as shown below in Figures 1–6. The last row of each Figure in the T-charts gives 
the words or symbols that must be put into the appropriate categories by the groups of students. 
Each group received one paper with two of the figures below. Figures 1 and 2 were completed by 
Group A at the beginning of the activity. Group B completed Figures 3 and 4 and Group C 
completed Figures 5 and 6. 
 
Figure 1 
Contrasting of Heterozygous and Homozygous Genotypes 

Heterozygous Homozygous 

  

AA         Aa               aa             BB           bb               Dd                dd                    Ff 

GG              Hh              hh              ee                TT                DD                gg 

Note. Pairs of letters the same size are homozygous and the different sized pairs are heterozygous. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Beard 53 
 

Figure 2 
Contrasting Genotypes and Alleles 

Genotype Allele 
 

 

 

AA         a              pp             B           bb               Dd                d                   H 

G              Hh              h             ff               T                DD                gg 

Note. Genotype is represented by a pair of letters. An allele is represented by one letter.  

 
Figure 3 
Contrasting Genotypes and Phenotype 

Genotype Phenotype 

 

 

 

brown eyes           bb               A+ blood               checkered chicken 

AB blood                  RW             roan cattle             ii                   IAIB 

Note. Genotype is written as a pair of letters. Phenotype is a physical description of the genotype. 
 
 
Figure 4 
Contrasting Phenotype and Trait 
 

Phenotype Trait 

 

 

 

blood Type              black hair               attached ear lobes             A blood 

hair color                           eye color                      tall                              height 

Note. Phenotype is the physical appearance. A trait is a broad category to describe phenotype. 
 
 
 
 



54 GATESOL Journal 32(2)  
 

Figure 5 
Contrasting Dominant and Recessive Genotypes 
 

Dominant Recessive 

 

 

 

AA         Aa               a             BB           bb               D               dd                    Ff 

G              Hh              h              ee                T                DD                gg 

Note. Dominant genotypes have at least 1 capital letter and recessive genotypes have two lower 
case letters. 
 
 
Figure 6 
Differentiating Between Genotype, Phenotype and Trait 
 

Genotype Phenotype Trait 
 

 

  

hair color           blue eyes              Aa               red hair           skin color 

brown eyes            bb         eye color          BB               curly hair             straight hair 

Note. Pairs of letters belong to the Genotype. Words that describe actual physical appearance 
belong in the Phenotype. General characteristics belong in the Traits category. 
 
Rounds 1–3: Group Interactions 
 
Round 1 
The initial groups worked on their individual sheets. Round 1 took about 5–10 minutes. Each 
person had their own sheet to fill out. Before the group could check their answers with the teacher, 
they were told to work together to determine if all members had the same answers. Once all 
members had the same answers, the group then asked the teacher for the key to the assignment. 
The group checked their answers and corrected any mistakes on all the members’ papers. This is 
very important as it sets the stage for the remaining rounds. 
 
Rounds 2 and 3 
The groups were then split up and half of each group went to the table of another group. This 
happened for all groups, so that after the first rotation, each group had two new members. Two 
members from Group A went to Group B; two members from Group B went to Group C and two 
members from Group C went to Group A. Round 2 began with members of the new groups giving 
each other their sheets to work on. For example, the original members of Group A, who did not 



Beard 55 
 

rotate, gave a blank version of their sheet to the members of Group C who rotated into their group. 
The Group C members gave a blank version of their sheet to the Group A members. Each person 
repeated the process and completed their new sheets; conferred with their partner from their 
original group and ensured that they had the same answers. Then, when all four members of a 
group completed their respective sheets, they graded each other’s sheets by marking incorrect 
answers. Each pair within the groups then had time to correct their answers and to ask questions 
of their peers if something did not make sense. The third and final round repeated the same as 
Round 2. 

To alleviate some of the confusion that can happen with a new activity, the teacher used 
three different colored papers to correspond to Groups A, B and C. This helped the teacher to know 
which graphic organizer each group had and the students knew what colored key to ask for when 
correcting answers. The teacher also spent time explaining how the activity would work, the roles 
of each student in the group and that if one student chose not to fully participate, the strategy could 
not work well.  
 
Practical Application in the Classroom 
The benefit of using this modified jigsaw approach is that it can be used across all disciplines and 
levels of education. Below in Figure 7 is an outline of the steps the teacher followed in planning 
and preparing for incorporating this pedagogical approach into the classroom. 
 
Figure 7 
Directions to Implement the Modified Jigsaw 

 
 
 



56 GATESOL Journal 32(2)  
 

Conclusion 
After completing this activity, the students were able to identify similarities and differences 
between the different words in the previous day’s activity and were no longer caught up with an 
onslaught of new vocabulary A contributing factor to the success of this activity was its design to 
have students interact with the vocabulary and one another (Ranney, 2012). According to Bautista 
and Castañeda (2011), learning another language requires interaction with the vocabulary by 
internalizing it and then using it. For the students to have fully learned their genetics vocabulary, 
the pedagogical practices of the teacher had to move beyond the simple direct instruction method. 
Creating this modified jigsaw activity allowed the teacher the flexibility needed to ensure that the 
students were learning at the appropriate level. Using the jigsaw method allows for teacher 
flexibility in grouping students and employing different pedagogical strategies (Woods, 2019). 

 
References 
 
Bautista, N., & Castañeda, M (2011). Teaching science to ELLs, Part I: Key strategies every 

science teacher should know. The Science Teacher, 78(2), 35–39. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/24148089 

Pang, Y. (2013). Graphic organizers and other visual strategies to improve young ELLs’ reading 
comprehension. New England Reading Association Journal, 48(2), 52. 

Ranney, S. (2012). Defining and teaching academic language: Developments in K‐12 ESL. 
Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(9), 560–574. 

Tabiolo, J. L., & Rogayan, D. J. (2019). Enhancing students’ science achievement through jigsaw 
II strategy. Journal of Science Learning, 3(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.17509/
jsl.v3i1.17680 

Talebi, F., & Sobhani, A. (2012). The impacts of cooperative learning on oral proficiency. 
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 75. 

Tjandrawati, T. (2017). The implementation of cooperative learning with jigsaw type to improve 
student learning outcomes on natural science subject. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pembelajaran 
IPA, 3(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.30870/jppi.v3i2.2579 

Wilcox, B., & Morrison, T. G. (2013). The four Es of effective vocabulary instruction. Journal of 
Reading Education, 38(2), 53–57. 

Woods, H. B. (2019). Expediting learning through peer teaching: Experiences with the jigsaw 
technique. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(4), 378–382. https://doi.org/
10.1111/hir.12283 

____________________________________________________________________________ 
 

Received: October 17, 2021 | Accepted: May 12, 2022 | Published: October 26, 2022 

https://www.jstor.org/%E2%80%8Cstable/24148089
https://www.jstor.org/%E2%80%8Cstable/24148089
https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v3i1.17680
https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v3i1.17680
https://doi.org/10.30870/jppi.v3i2.2579
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1111/hir.12283
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1111/hir.12283

	Using the Jigsaw Strategy in the English Language Learner Classroom to Teach Content-Specific Vocabulary
	GATESOL Journal2022, Vol. 32(2), pp. 51–56 
	doi:10.52242/gatesol.134
	ISSN: 2331-6845

