The study, conducted by Marie Larsen Ryberg of the University of Copenhagen and Mathilde Hjerrild Carlsen of Copenhagen Business School, draws on extensive ethnographic fieldwork across a university-wide initiative to integrate research into teaching. The first author observed seven courses spanning the natural sciences, health sciences, social sciences, humanities and law, part of a larger project in which 54 courses were redesigned to connect research and teaching more closely. Through participant observation, ethnographic interviews during group work sessions, semi-structured interviews with teachers and focus group interviews with students, the researchers captured how academics and students experienced the relationship between research-based teaching processes and final assessment. What emerged was a consistent story of two incompatible ways of engaging colliding within the same course.

To interpret these experiences, the researchers turned to the sociology of regimes of engagement, a theoretical framework developed by French sociologist Laurent Thévenot. The framework distinguishes four ways humans engage with their surroundings: justification, planned action, familiarity and exploration. Each regime carries its own benefit, or good, and each requires a specific environment to support it. The regime of planned action offers the satisfaction of successfully executing a plan, projecting oneself into the future and working purposefully toward predetermined outcomes. This regime has become so pervasive in contemporary society that it can easily be mistaken for normal action, and it has been institutionalised in education through quality assurance systems and standardised assessment. The regime of exploration, by contrast, promises not certainty but the excitement of discovering the new, thriving on surprise and the pursuit of the unknown.

Across the courses studied, exams consistently emerged as a site of difficulty. Academics repeatedly identified examinations as unwelcome intrusions into processes where students were expected to engage in genuine research. Three food science professors who deliberately designed their course as an exam-free experiment explained that the main idea was for students to try collecting data, and that this would not work if students were told to act as students all the time, concerned with marks and passing. A laboratory science professor omitted standard examinations from her course design, noting in an evaluation report that preparing for exams may become the dominating goal, restricting creativity. In a social sciences course, a professor told inquiring students that exams were not what interested him most, and that the course was really about learning.

Teachers did not merely talk differently about assessment; they actively shaped their learning environments to invite exploration. In a law course, a professor opened the first seminar with an invigorating talk about the experimental status of the course itself, emphasising her hopes of creating more knowledge and perhaps changing attitudes, and encouraging an experimental and inspirational milieu. Even in a health sciences class of approximately 300 students conducting laboratory experiments, teachers cultivated excitement by emphasising that student work would contribute to a larger experiment. Students responded vividly to these atmospheres. One law student observed that in this course it felt more like people wanted to ask questions and be inspired, contrasting it with the normal programme where it is like your whole life depends on getting a high mark. Another student in a social sciences course said that unlike other courses, where considerable energy goes into deciphering learning goals and exam requirements, in this course you do not feel like you are thinking about the performance at all.

Yet these carefully composed atmospheres proved fragile. A humanities professor who had run weekly videoconference seminars with international researchers described how the sessions evolved into an ongoing conversation that students found extremely interesting, only for the atmosphere to deteriorate as the exam approached. Students started talking about the required number of words, and the professor concluded that the exam had been a tripwire and a disturbance. Students described similar dissonance. One student in a social sciences course recounted that when the exam period arrived, he had to make a plan but found it very unclear what was expected, describing a clash between the professor and the rigid system. Through the lens of engagement regimes, these moments reveal what happens when an environment built to sustain explorative engagement is confronted by institutional formats that invite planned action and strategised effort.

The analysis also exposes what is sacrificed when one regime dominates. When exploration prevails, students lose the certainty of executing a plan and the sense of fairness that standardised assessment promises. Standard exams embody established quality conventions linked to the regime of justification, guaranteeing justice through clear learning goals and institutional formats. Suspending students’ concern with evaluation therefore produces not only freedom but also confusion about assessment expectations and worry about being judged justly. Conversely, when planned action dominates, the excitement of discovery is sacrificed, and open inquiry gives way to surface strategies aimed at meeting predefined criteria. Neither arrangement is neutral; each delivers distinct goods while imposing distinct losses on the individuals navigating them.

Some teachers, however, demonstrated what Thévenot calls an art of composition: the skilful coordination between competing engagement regimes. In a biochemistry course, a professor replaced traditional exams with a comprehensive portfolio assessment in which students could pass through attendance and three presentations. Fourth-year students worked in groups on research projects in the teaching lab three days a week, presented findings to each other and to departmental colleagues in poster sessions, submitted a podcast documenting their process, and published their findings in a journal report. The professor explained that the team focused on evaluation relevant to a real research environment, where scientists present results to peers and reviewers and ideas are tested in broader settings. Students described the course as exciting and different, with one reflecting that because there was no exam, they were not thinking that they had nothing to show, even though the experiment had not gone as expected, because it had been a learning process in its own right.

Even this artful solution involved sacrifice. The portfolio format protected exploration and created sheltered moments for imagination, but it partially deprived students of the possibility of organising their work through transparent, predefined goals. Outcomes were not foreseeable, and some students threw themselves on the floor when experiments failed, while others said they had never felt so nervous. Because the environment was dominated by the expectation of discovering something new, students could reframe what would have counted as failure under planned action as genuine learning, but the underlying tension did not dissolve. The theory suggests that every compromise between engagement regimes necessarily sacrifices the good of one mode of engagement, leaving a residual strain that teachers must continually manage rather than permanently resolve.

The authors argue that these findings carry implications far beyond local assessment design. The clash between open-ended inquiry and standardised evaluation reflects the coexistence in modern universities of environments that dispose fundamentally different ways of engaging, each with distinct benefits and losses. A Humboldtian ideal of knowledge as perpetually unresolved sits alongside an equally enduring conception of learning as predictable and manageable, and research-based teaching sits precisely at this fault line. Strengthening the integration of research and teaching, the study contends, requires recognising the tensions between plural engagement regimes rather than treating assessment problems as technical alignment failures. Supporting educational quality, the researchers conclude, demands institutional environments that enable rather than constrain the delicate compositional work teachers and students undertake, treating shifts between exploration and assessment as tensions to compose around rather than perplexing surprises. The predicament of assessment in research-based teaching is therefore not a problem to be solved once and for all, but a perpetual challenge calling for continuous recognition and recomposition.

Subject of Research: Tensions between research-based teaching and standardised university assessment viewed through the sociology of regimes of engagement

Article Title: Research-based teaching and the predicament of assessment: rethinking evaluation challenges through the sociology of regimes of engagement

Article References: Ryberg, M. L., & Carlsen, M. H. (2026). Research-based teaching and the predicament of assessment: rethinking evaluation challenges through the sociology of regimes of engagement. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-026-01765-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10734-026-01765-4

Keywords: research-based teaching, assessment, regimes of engagement, exploration, planned action, higher education, ethnography, student engagement, university pedagogy, Humboldtian ideal, portfolio assessment, sociology of education

The Jigsaw method, originally designed to foster collaboration and peer learning, organizes students into small groups. Each group member becomes an “expert” on a particular segment of the subject matter before reassembling into new groups to teach each other. This multi-step process not only reinforces individual understanding of specific topics but also promotes a deeper, holistic view of the broader subject—a significant advantage in fields that require synthesizing substantial amounts of interrelated information.

In the context of a randomized controlled trial conducted by the pioneers of this research, the study meticulously evaluated the learning outcomes of students exposed to the Jigsaw method versus those subjected to traditional lectures. The trial’s structure was compelling: students were randomly assigned to either group, ensuring that any results could be attributed directly to the teaching method rather than other variables.

Participants in the Jigsaw group reported a marked increase in engagement and collaborative learning. The process encouraged them to communicate, share ideas, and potentially correct misconceptions before teaching their peers, fostering an environment ripe for deeper understanding. The ability to learn from fellow students also alleviated much of the anxiety associated with performance in a traditional lecture-based environment where students may feel isolated in their learning experience.

In contrast, students taught via traditional methods often exhibited less motivation and engagement. Lectures, while structured and informative, can sometimes present challenges in retention and comprehension, particularly in complex subjects. The traditional approach tends to place students in a more passive role, as they are often receivers of information rather than active participants in their educational journey. This lack of interaction may ultimately hinder their ability to fully grasp intricate concepts inherent to subjects like anatomy and physiology.

Moreover, the study aimed to assess not just knowledge retention, but also application of that knowledge in practical scenarios, something that is critical for students in medical fields. The researchers designed assessments that would measure not only recall but the ability to apply anatomical and physiological knowledge in clinical or practical contexts. Preliminary results indicated that students from the Jigsaw method group excelled in these aspects, showcasing the potential for improved pedagogical outcomes when utilizing active learning strategies.

Judging the success of teaching methods requires an analysis of both immediate assessments and long-term retention. The study plans to follow up with participants to determine if the advantages gained through the Jigsaw method persist over time. Early signs are promising, indicating that active engagement leads to not only better short-term understanding but may also cultivate enduring knowledge crucial for future medical professionals.

The implications of this research extend beyond the classroom as well. The healthcare industry recognizes the necessity for practitioners who can think critically and collaborate effectively. The Jigsaw method not only equips students with a stronger knowledge base but also nurtures the soft skills needed in the healthcare sector. As the profession increasingly seeks individuals who can function in team-based environments, methods like Jigsaw may provide a transformative pathway to developing these competencies in new healthcare providers.

Furthermore, the findings may urge educational institutions to rethink curriculum design and teaching strategies in various disciplines. By integrating participative and collaborative techniques, educational bodies can enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning. This study provides a strong case for educators to adopt innovative teaching practices, emphasizing the importance of flexible, student-centered approaches.

As educators and institutions contemplate the integration of new methodologies, the compelling data from this study may serve as a catalyst for widespread reform in teaching practices. As the educational landscape continues to evolve, it is crucial to prioritize techniques that enhance engagement, understanding, and application of knowledge—not just for anatomy and physiology, but across all disciplines.

In summary, the research conducted by Stokstad and colleagues holds significant promise for the evolution of educational methodologies in higher education. By demonstrating the effectiveness of the Jigsaw teaching technique, they challenge the status quo and advocate for a shift towards more interactive, engaging learning environments. As we look to the future, it may well be these innovative methods that pave the way for more effective education in medical fields and beyond.

In conclusion, the landscape of medical education is ripe for change, and studies like this highlight the importance of collaborative learning techniques such as the Jigsaw method. As institutions aim to foster skilled, knowledgeable, and collaborative healthcare professionals, embracing these progressive teaching methods may ultimately lead to a more competent and well-prepared medical workforce.

Subject of Research: Efficacy of Jigsaw teaching method in anatomy and physiology education.

Article Title: The Jigsaw teaching method compared to traditional teaching on anatomy and physiology knowledge in higher education – a randomized controlled trial.

Article References:
Stokstad, J.M., Nedrehagen, E.S. & Hufthammer, K.O. The Jigsaw teaching method compared to traditional teaching on anatomy and physiology knowledge in higher education – a randomised controlled trial.
BMC Med Educ (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-08608-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI:

Keywords: Jigsaw teaching method, traditional education, anatomy and physiology, higher education, randomized controlled trial.