Şimşek, U. & Baydar, A. (2019). Impact of jigsaw and teams-games tournaments (TGT) on social studies preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 6(2), 405-414. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/524 Received: 16.09.2018 Received in revised form: 12.02.2019 Accepted: 18.03.2019 IMPACTS OF JIGSAW AND TEAMS-GAMES-TOURNAMENTS (TGT) ON SOCIAL STUDIES PRESERVİCE TEACHERS’ EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS Research Article Ufuk Şimşek Ataturk University ufuk@atauni.edu.tr Aşkın Baydar Artvin Çoruh University askinbay@gmail.com Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ufuk Şimşek received his MA and PhD in social studies education from Atatürk University He currently works in Atatürk University. His research interests include social studies and civic education. Asst. Prof. Dr. Aşkın Baydar received his MA from University of Missouri and his PhD from Atatürk University. He currently works in Artvin Çoruh University and his research interest include social studies education and primary school education. Copyright by Informascope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/524 mailto:ufuk@atauni.edu.tr mailto:askinbay@gmail.com 0000-0002-4699-0674 0000-0002-5795-8282 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2019, 6(2), 405-414 405 IMPACTS OF JIGSAW AND TEAMS-GAMES-TOURNAMENTS (TGT) ON SOCIAL STUDIES PRESERVİCE TEACHERS’ EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS Ufuk Şimşek ufuk@atauni.edu.tr Aşkın Baydar askinbay@gmail.com Abstract Classroom practices of teachers are affected by their personal epistemological beliefs and cooperative learning methods are taking a large place in today’s education world. By implementing two different cooperative learning methods in a college of education course, this study examined the effects of jigsaw and teams games tournaments (TGT) on epistemological beliefs of social studies preservice teachers. 30 students participated in the research who attended 4th grade at Artvin Coruh University Social Studies Education department at 2015-2016 academic year. Data were collected with Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire and analyzed by independent groups t-test. The findings elicited that jigsaw is significantly more effective that TGT on social studies preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs in general and for two of the dimensions measured: “the belief that learning depends on effort”, and "the belief that learning depends on ability". But for the dimension, "the belief that there is only one unchanging truth", there was no significant differences between two methods. Keywords: cooperative learning, jigsaw, TGT, epistemological beliefs, teacher education. 1. Introduction Researches regarding teacher education show that belief focused structures affect teachers’ in class behaviors and activities; and teachers’ epistemological beliefs affect their in-class activities and pedagogical applications (Chan, & Elliott, 2004; Hofer, 2001). Thus, preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs are important, because they affect teachers’ learning to teach in class behaviors, teaching methods and applications (Aypay, 2010; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes, 1992; Tanasa & Wang, 2010). “Epistemology is a philosophical concept concerned with the nature and justification of human knowledge” (Bakari, 2000, p.1). And epistemological beliefs could be explained as “individuals’ thinking and beliefs about knowledge and knowing, which typically includes beliefs about the definition of knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, how knowledge is evaluated, where knowledge resides, and how knowing occurs” (Burr & Hofer, 2002, p. 201). Developmental approaches regarding beliefs on epistemology assert that epistemological development is unidimensional and occurs in an orderly manner. On the contrary, Marlene Schommer suggested a multidimensional classification as a system approach: In the first dimension, individual believes that structure of the knowledge is simple or complex. In the second mailto:ufuk@atauni.edu.tr mailto:askinbay@gmail.com Şimşek & Baydar 406 dimension, knowledge is certain or not, in the third dimension, learning occurs fast or in time, and in the fourth dimension, learning ability is inborn or can be developed in time (Schommer-Aikins, 2004). According this classification, it is assumed that individuals have multiple epistemological beliefs and rather than an ordinary process, they can skip contextual steps. The structures of personal epistemological beliefs are multi-dimensional and they develop simultaneously (Hofer, 2000; Hofer, 2001; Tanase & Wang, 2010). Studies related with teacher education indicate that epistemological beliefs of pre-service teachers show parallelism with their beliefs on teaching and their in-class applications (Chan & Elliot, 2004; Chai, 2010; Önen, 2011). Furthermore, these studies show that epistemological beliefs which affect teachers’ in-class applications in such manner are affected preservice teachers’ applications during the education they got as well. Zeichner and Tabachnick (as cited in Ng, Nicholas & Williams, 2010) stated that “preservice teachers’ beliefs are shaped by the many hours they experienced as students and that these beliefs remain hidden while they are undergoing teacher education courses, but surface when they start teaching and have classes of their own.” In his study, Şimşek (2013) compared the effects of conventional method, jigsaw, and reading-writing-presenting (RWP) methods on of 193 students’ epistemological beliefs in civic education course and he found that jigsaw and RWP are more effective than the conventional method. Again, Bergom, Wright, Brown, and Brooks (2011) measured the effects of a cooperative method named “hevruta” on college students’ epistemological beliefs and founded positive results. Keen-Rocha (2008) determined positive effects of cooperative learning applied in chemistry course on epistemological beliefs of college students. And Bakari (2000) specified the improvement of college students’ epistemological beliefs in campus life via cooperative experiences. In cooperative learning, students simply work in small groups and actualize learning by helping each other’s learning. Cooperative classrooms are places that students convene and interact in groups; and teacher strolls among the groups and helps who needs (Açıkgöz, 2003). Also, in cooperative learning these “five variables mediate the effectiveness of cooperation: positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, the appropriate use of social skills, and group processing” (Johnson & Johnson, 2009, p. 366). And in cooperative learning “the role of the teacher as a facilitator, assisting students with small group and social skills and helping to solve any contentious issues that may arise is extremely important” (Ferguson-Patrick, 2018, p. 93). Student teams achievement divisions (STAD) and jigsaw are “two well-researched and highly touted cooperative learning methods” (Zetty, 1992, p. 2) And teams games tournaments (TGT) are similar to STAD but in TGT student representatives compete between groups (Bayrakçeken, Doymuş & Doğan, 2013). That means it is different from not only STAD but also from the other cooperative methods; TGT has cooperation in groups but also competition between groups. Studies regarding TGT show that the method has positive effects on academic achievement (Salam, Hossain, & Rahman, 2015; Gonzales, Jennings & Manriquez, 2014); attitude towards mathematics (Salam, Hossain, & Rahman, 2015); anger control, coping with depression (Wodarski & Feit, 2011); satisfaction (Gonzales et al., 2014); working together, individual and social reliance (Şahin, 2011); effective learning, peer relations and satisfaction in classroom (Harmandar & Çil, 2008). Jigsaw, on the other hand, is an appropriate method to be used especially in social studies course (Lie, 1992). It “was developed by Aronson” (Avşar & Alkış, 2007, p. 198). Studies regarding TGT show that the method has positive effects on academic achievement, self- confidence, social development (Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 2000), study habits and active International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2019, 6(2), 405-414 407 participations to the course (Şimşek, Örten, Topkaya, & Yılar, 2014), creativity (Demir, 2012), speech ability, construction positive learning environment, student-teacher interaction, and understanding ability (Lin, 2010). It is an expected situation that these two methods which have several benefits in cognitive and affective domains to affect students’ epistemological beliefs as well. Thus, the purpose of this study is to determine the effects of jigsaw and TGT on epistemological beliefs of social studies preservice teachers. Research questions were developed as following: 1. Is there any significant difference between jigsaw and TGT groups’ pretest and posttest score means of epistemological beliefs? 2. Is there any significant difference between jigsaw and TGT groups’ pretest and posttest score means of the sub-dimension “beliefs that pertain to learning depend on afford” of epistemological beliefs? 3. Is there any significant difference between jigsaw and TGT groups’ pretest and posttest score means of the sub-dimension “beliefs that pertain to learning depends on ability” of epistemological beliefs? 4. Is there any significant difference between jigsaw and TGT groups’ pretest and posttest score means of the sub-dimension “beliefs that pertain to single certain truth” of epistemological beliefs? 2. Method The independent variables of the study were two cooperative learning methods, jigsaw and TGT. And the dependent variable of study was epistemological beliefs of social studies preservice teachers. To measure the effects of these two methods on independent variable without a control group a pretest posttest design was chosen. 2.1. Study Group Thirty 4th graders who attended in Artvin Çoruh University Faculty of Education Social Studies department in 2015-2016 academic year participated in the study. The participants were divided into two homogenous groups: jigsaw (n=15) and TGT (n=15) implementation groups. The homogeneousness of two groups was determined according to the grade point averages of the previous year. 2.2. Data Collection Tool The original form of the scale namely Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire (SEQ) that measure epistemological beliefs overall and four independent dimensions; “fixed ability,” “simple knowledge,” “certain knowledge,” and “quick learning”, is 5-Point Likert type scale and was developed by Schommer (1990). Deryakulu and Büyüköztürk (2002) translated and adapted the scale into Turkish. They did validity and reliability studies and determined that the Turkish version of the scale has three factors consisted of 34 items. Due to the difference in structure of the new scale from the original one, different names given to the factors (Deryakulu, 2004). The first factor “beliefs that pertain to learning depend on afford” includes 18 items, the second factor “beliefs that pertain to learning depends on ability” includes 9 items, and the third factor “beliefs that pertain to single certain truth” includes 7 items. First 17 items in the first factor are reverse, 18th item is straight coded. All the items in the second and the third factors are straight coded. Higher scores show immature, undeveloped, naïve beliefs and lower scores show mature, developed, sophisticated beliefs. Cronbach’s Alpha values of the scale are found as 0.83 (1st factor), 0.62 (2nd factor), 0.59 (3rd factor), and 0,71 (overall scale). Şimşek & Baydar 408 2.3. Implementation The SEQ was applied to jigsaw and the TOT groups as pretest, then “Developing Thinking Skills” course is taught both experimental groups for 12 weeks, two hours a week. At the end of the implementation process the SEQ applied to both groups as posttest. Data were analyzed using SPSS 17.0. software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Implementation process of two methods in experimental groups are described as following. 2.3.1. Jigsaw Students in jigsaw group were separated into five heterogeneous original groups according to the previous year's GPA". Each group has 3 members. Tittles 1st OG 2nd OG 3rd OG 4th OG 5th OG 1st subtittle Apt1 Bpt1 Cpt1 Dpt1 Ept1 2nd subtittle Apt2 Bpt2 Cpt2 Dpt2 Ept2 3rd subtittle Apt3 Bpt3 Cpt3 Dpt3 Ept3 Figure 1. Jigsaw original groups and distribution of tittles Creating the original groups, subtitles were distributed to each member of the original groups as in Figure 1. Then resources, materials and subtitles they were responsible of were given each member of the groups. After that, members left from the original groups and went the expert groups created as in Figure 2. Each expert group was responsible of one of the subtitles. 1st Expert group: Apt1, Bpt1, Cpt1, Dpt1, Ept1 2nd Expert group: Apt2, Bpt2, Cpt2, Dp2, Ep2 3rd Expert group: Apt3, Bpt3, Cpt3, Dpt3, Ep3 Figure 2. Creating jigsaw expert groups Members of each expert groups were prepared to their subtitle together. This preparation included individual and group studies in homes, dormitories and libraries. They took their materials to next class, studies on them together, discussed, put their studies together and reviewed in 30 minutes. After these studies, each expert group prepared reports regarding their subtitles. During the studies the researcher worked as a guide when required. Finishing their studies in expert groups, the participants returned to the original groups and made presentations about their expertise area. This part of the study took also 30 minutes. This included questions-answers and discussions. At the end of the process, all participants took a four-question multiple-choice quiz. 2.3.2. TGT In TGT dividing participants into groups was like in jigsaw implementation. Classes started with researcher’s 30-minute presentation. Then, getting ready for the tournaments participants worked on the work sheets that handed out for another 30 minutes. Again, during these studies the researcher worked as a guide when required. For the tournament stage by receiving one person from each group (like constructing expert groups jigsaw), tournament International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2019, 6(2), 405-414 409 tables were designed. Each participant represented her own group at these tables. Participants tried to gain points for their groups with answering the questions prepared by the researcher beforehand. Points gained were compared and groups were put in an order to their achievement level. 3. Findings For the first problem of the research, scores that received from overall epistemological scale which was applied as pretest and posttest were compared. The independent t-test results were given in Table 1. Table 1. Independent t-test results of the overall SEQ scores Test type Groups N t p Pretest Jigsaw TGT 15 127,47 ,310 ,207 15 125,80 Posttest Jigsaw 15 150,87 4,963 ,014 TGT 15 130,47 According to the data in Table 1, while there is no significant difference found between jigsaw and TGT pretest scores (t=3,1; p>0,05), there is a significant difference between the posttest scores (t=4,963; p<0,05). For the second problem of the research, scores that received from “beliefs that pertain to learning depend on afford” sub-dimension of the scale which was applied as pretest and posttest were compared. The independent t-test results were given in Table 2. Table 2. Independent t-test results of the scores of the first sub-dimension of the SEQ Test type Groups N t p Pretest Jigsaw 15 72,13 -,632 ,286 TGT 15 73,93 Posttest Jigsaw 15 84,87 5,059 ,006 TGT 15 75,40 According to the data in Table 2, for the first factor of the SEQ, while there is no significant difference found between jigsaw and TGT pretest scores (t= -0,632; p>0,05), there is a significant difference between the posttest scores (t=5,059; p<0,05). For the third problem of the research, scores that received from “beliefs that pertain to learning depends on ability” sub-dimension of the scale which was applied as pretest and posttest were compared. The independent t-test results were given in Table 3. Şimşek & Baydar 410 Table 3. Independent t-test results of the scores of the second sub-dimension of the SEQ Test type Groups N t p Pretest Jigsaw 15 35,13 1,219 ,023 TGT 15 32,60 Posttest Jigsaw 15 40,27 3,107 ,000 TGT 15 34,40 According to the data in Table 3, for the second factor of the SEQ, there are significant differences found between jigsaw and TGT pretest (t=1,219; p<0,05) and posttest (t=3,107; p<0,05) scores. For the fourth problem of the research, scores that received from “beliefs that pertain to single certain truth” sub-dimension of the scale which was applied as pretest and posttest were compared. The independent t-test results were given in Table 4. Table 4. Independent t-test results of the scores of the third sub-dimension of the SEQ Test type Groups N t p Pretest Jigsaw 15 20,20 ,533 ,373 TGT 15 19,27 Posttest Jigsaw 15 25,73 3,213 ,289 TGT 15 20,67 According to the data in Table 4, for the third factor of the SEQ, there is no significant difference found between jigsaw and TGT pretest (t=0,533; p>0,05) and posttest (t=3,213; p>0,05) scores. 4. Results, discussion and implications As the result of this study which compares two cooperative learning methods, jigsaw and TGT regarding their impacts epistemological beliefs of social studies preservice teachers, it can be said that in overall epistemological beliefs and first two dimensions, which are “beliefs that pertain to learning depend on afford” and “beliefs that pertain to learning depends on ability”, jigsaw is more effective than TGT. But, in the third dimension, “beliefs that pertain to single certain truth”, a significant difference does not seem between the effects of two methods. With these results, the study supports Slavin’s (as cited in Baydar & Şimşek, 2018, p. 66) opinions since “jigsaw contains more constructed peer tutoring and reading practices for meaning than TGT”, it seems jigsaw is more appropriate than TGT for social studies teaching. This superiority of jigsaw and its convenience, especially for social studies courses, were expressed by different researchers as well. According to Ascher (1986, p. 3), jigsaw is useful for “social studies, and other subjects in which a subject can be divided into discrete areas of expertise.” As it was explained in the implementation section, in jigsaw, each student was assigned to read a different text. Students who are responsible of the same texts were collected together in expert groups. They discussed in those groups and became experts of their parts. As Lee, Ng, and Jakops (1997, p. 11) stated “the expert team's job was International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2019, 6(2), 405-414 411 to learn, create, or discover concepts and information which they would later teach to the members of their home team.” Finishing their job in expert groups, they returned to their original groups. The important thing in this part of the study is each member of the original groups understands the whole text. Each member is responsible of her part, her friends’ success and their comprehensions. For this reason, jigsaw is suitable also for the processes such as cognitive awareness, critical and creative thinking, questioning, decision making, problem solving, and concept development (Alkaya, 2006). “Further, the use of heterogeneous groups improves the chances that students will encounter of range of perspectives, thus, hopefully improving their perspective-taking ability” (Lee et al., 1997, p. 11). With these characteristics, jigsaw’s effects on students’ beliefs about “what knowledge is, how knowledge is constructed and evaluated, where it resides, and how knowing occurs” (Burr & Hofer, 2002, p. 201), is an expected result. The findings of the study show similarity with Baydar and Şimşek’s (2018) study which measures the impacts of jigsaw and the STAD on epistemological beliefs of social studies preservice teachers. In the study, the same scale was used as in this study and for all three of the dimensions, jigsaw’s effects are significantly higher. This study’s findings overlap with the findings of Koç’s (2013) study which shows significant difference between effects of jigsaw II and the conventional teaching method on epistemological attitude in science education course. The results of this study support findings of Şimşek’s (2013) study, as well. In the study, Şimşek compared three cooperative learning methods, jigsaw, reading-writing- presentation, and the conventional teaching method in terms of their effects on college students’ epistemological beliefs in civic education course. This study is a concrete example of how jigsaw changes preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs in social studies teacher education and suggests studies with different cooperative methods that would serve for the same area. Şimşek & Baydar 412 References Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2003). Aktif öğrenme [Active learning]. İzmir: Eğitim Dünyası Yayınları. Alkaya, F. (2006). Eleştirel düşünme becerilerini temel alan fen bilgisi öğretiminin öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına etkisi [Impact of science teaching based on critical thinking skills on students’ academic achievement]. (Yüksek lisans tezi). Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Hatay. Ascher, C. (1986). Cooperative learning in the urban classroom. Clearinghouse on Urban Education. New York. Aypay, A. (2010). Teacher education student's epistemological beliefs and their conceptions about teaching and learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), 2599- 2604. Avşar, Z., & Alkış, S. (2007). İşbirlikli öğrenme yöntemi “Birleştirme I” tekniğinin sosyal bilgiler derslerinde öğrenci başarısına etkisi. [The Effect of Cooperative Learning “Jigsaw I” Technique on Student Success in Social Studies Course]. İlköğretim Online, 6(2). Bakari, R. S. (2000). Epistemological development of African-American student: Perspectives on knowledge, culture, and experiences (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Northern Colorado, Greeley. Baydar, A. & Şimşek, U. (2018). Birleştirme ve öğrenci takımları başarı bölümleri yöntemlerinin sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının akademik başarılarına etkisi. [The impact of Jigsaw and STAD on social studies pre-service teachers' academic achievement]. Studies in Educational Research and Development, 2(1), 32-46. Baydar, A. & Şimşek, U. (2018). Birleştirme ve öğrenci takımları başarı bölümleri yöntemlerinin sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının epistemolojik inançlarına etkisi. [The Impact of Jigsaw and Student Teams Achievement Divisions on Social Studies Pre-service Teachers' Epistemological Beliefs]. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 12(23), 57-73. Bayrakçeken, S., Doymuş, K., & Doğan, A. (2013). İşbirlikli öğrenme modeli ve uygulanması [Cooperative learning model and its application]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları. Bergom, I., Wright, M. C., Brown, M. K., & Brooks, M. (2011). Promoting college student development through collaborative learning: A case study of hevruta. About campus, 15 (6), 19-25. Burr, J. E., & Hofer, B. K. (2002). Personal epistemology and theory of mind: Deciphering young children's beliefs about knowledge and knowing. New Ideas in Psychology, 20 (2), 199-224. Chai, C. S. (2010). Teachers' epistemic beliefs and their pedagogical beliefs: A qualitative case study among Singaporean teachers in the context of ICT-supported reforms. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9 (4), 128-139. Chan, K. W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epis temology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 817- 831. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2019, 6(2), 405-414 413 Demir, K. (2012). An evaluation of the combined use of creative drama and jigsaw II techniques according to the student views: case of a measurement and evaluationcourse. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 455-459. Deryakulu, D. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Epistemolojik inanç ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Validity and reliability of epistemological belief scale.]. Eğitim Araştırmaları, 2(8): 111-125. Deryakulu, D. (2004). Üniversite öğrencilerinin öğrenme ve ders çalışma stratejileri ile epistemolojik inançları arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between university students’ learning and study strategies and epistemological beliefs]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 10 (2), 230-249. Ferguson-Patrick, K. (2018). The importance of teacher role in cooperative learning: the effects of high-stakes testing on pedagogical approaches of early career teachers in primary schools. Education 3-13, 46(1), 89-101. González, A., Jennings, D., & Manriquez, L. (2014). Multi-faceted impact of a team game tournament on the ability of the learners to engage and develop their own critical skill set. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(5) 2014, 1213-1224. Harmandar, M., & Çil, E., (2008). The effects of science teaching through team game tournament technique on success levels and affective characteristics of students. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5(2), 26. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88 – 140. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405. Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353-383. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Stanne, M.B. (2000). Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis: Cooperative Learning Center, www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html. Johnson, D. W. ve Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38 (5), 365-379. Keen-Rocha, L. S. (2008). Personal epistemological growth in a college chemistry laboratory environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of South Florida, Tampa. Koç, Y. (2013). Fen bilimleri dersinin öğretiminde Jigsaw II tekniğinin etkisi [The impact of Jigsaw technique II on science teaching]. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(24), 165-179. Lee, C., Ng, M., & Jacobs, G. M. (1997). Cooperative learning in the thinking classroom: research and theoretical perspectives. Paper presented at the International Conference on Thinking, Singapore. Lie, A. (1992). Jigsaw: Cooperative learning for EFL students. Cross Currents, 19(1), 49-52. Şimşek & Baydar 414 Lin, L. L. (2010). Perspectives of teachers and students toward cooperative learning jigsaw tasks in Taiwanese EFL classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego. Ng, W., Nicholas, H., & Williams, A. (2010). School experience influences on preservice teachers' evolving beliefs about effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 278-289. Önen, A. S. (2011). The effect of candidate teachers’ educational and epistemological beliefs on professional attitudes. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim FakültesiDergisi, 41, 293-301. Salam, A., Hossain, A., & Rahman, S. (2015). Effects of using teams games tournaments (TGT) cooperative technique for learning mathematics in secondary schools of Bangladesh. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(3), 35-45. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504. Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational psychologist, 39(1), 19-29. Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of educational psychology, 84(4), 435. Şahin, A. (2011). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının takım oyun turnuvaları tekniğinin uygulanmasına yönelik görüşleri [The perceptions of preservice Turkish teachers about team tournaments technique]. Ekev Akademi Dergisi. 46(1), 489-498. Şimşek, U. (2013). The Effects of cooperative learning model on students’ epistemological beliefs in civics lesson. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 29-46. Şimşek, U., Örten, H., Topkaya, Y., Yılar, B. (2014). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının işbirlikli öğrenme teknikleri hakkındaki görüşleri [Perceptions of preservice social science teachers about cooperative learning techniques]. Turkish Journal of Social Research 18 (1), 231-257. Tanase, M., & Wang, J. (2010). Initial epistemological beliefs transformation in one teacher education classroom: Case study of four preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(6), 1238-1248. Wodarski, J. S., & Feit, M. D. (2011). Adolescent preventive health and Team-Games- Tournaments: Five decades of evidence for an empirically based paradigm. Social Work in Public Health, 26(5), 482-512. Zetty, N. (1992). A comparison of the STAD and Jigsaw cooperative learning methods in a college-level microcomputer applications course (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). West Virginia University, Morgantown. Figure 1. Jigsaw original groups and distribution of tittles Figure 2. Creating jigsaw expert groups