Think Pare Shre

Nahdi, D.S (2017). Judul. Jurnal voi. No. Hal.
Lowe, Michael Francis, "A Test of the Effectiveness of the Active Learning Technique
Think-Pair-Share in a High School Science
Classroom" (2015). LSU Master's Theses. 1774.
In one popular peer instruction technique, think-pair-share (Butler et al., 2001), lecture
remains the avenue for disseminating information, however at regular intervals throughout
the
lecture, students are required to answer a question to check their understanding of the concept
that was just discussed. The students are given one minute to answer the question on their
own
and record their answer. This is the “think” part. Then, the students will turn to a partner (the
“pair” part) and proceed to discuss their answer, again for one minute only, and their
reasoning
behind their answer which fulfills the final phase of the process, “share”. The point of this
process is to reveal any misconceptions that a student may have regarding a particular lesson
and
through discussion with a partner offer the student an opportunity to correct that
misconception
prior to moving on with the lecture. In the “think-pair-share” method of peer instruction,
students are required to take an active role in their learning, improving their understanding
and
long-term retention. Other variations of think-pair-share include think-pair-share-create in
which
pairs of students are required to discuss their response or reasoning with a partner and then
must
share responses with other groups, and think-aloud-pair-problem-solving, where one member
is
5
the explainer and the other member is the questioner and together they must reason their way
to a
solution for a problem that has been proposed to the class. After solving the problem,
different
groups discuss ways that they arrived at their solutions (DeHaan, 2011).
A study that focused on the think-pair-share method of peer instruction at the Wayne
State University School of Medicine illustrates the potential benefits for students. 256 first
year
medical students participated in the study which consisted of three or four short presentations
spread over each 50 minute class period. At the end of each short presentation, the students
were
asked to answer a multiple choice question. Students were given one minute to think about
and
record their answers. Then, the students were allowed to discuss their answers with a partner
and
after one minute either keep their initial answer or change their answer based on what they
learned in their discussion with their partner. The questions were arranged in three levels of
increasing difficulty according to Bloom’s taxonomy. Questions from the first level tested
simple recall of information. Questions from the second level tested intellectual skills and
those
from the third level tested synthesis and evaluation skills. In the results of the test, it was
noted
that prior to discussion, level one questions were answered correctly 94.3 ± 1.8% of the time,
but
after discussion that percentage increased to 99.4 ± 0.4%. Level two questions were answered
correctly 82.5 ± 6.0% of the time prior to discussion and 99.1 ± 0.9% after discussion with a
partner. The largest increase was seen in the level three questions, the most difficult of all.
Prior
to discussion, level three questions were answered correctly 73.1 ± 11.6% of the time, but
after
discussion the percentage of correct answers on level three questions rose to 99.8 ± 0.24%
(Rao
et al., 2000). Clearly think-pair-share helped to improve the student’s understanding of the
material, but remarkably, the biggest gains were seen with regard to the questions that
required
the highest order thinking to answer correctly. As pointed out in a recent article published in
6
CBE-Life Sciences Education in 2014, there have been multiple studies that illustrate the
effectiveness of active learning techniques like think-pair share in improving scores on test
questions that require higher order thinking, including studies done in physics and chemistry
classrooms (Linton et al., 2014).
A study performed by Kathleen Trent at East St. John High School, as part of a Masters
of Natural Science thesis at Louisiana State University, tested the effectiveness of think-
pairshare
in a high school chemistry classroom (Trent, 2013). The results of the study did not show
a significant difference between the test groups and the control group, but the study did
highlight
some of the challenges with performing a controlled experiment to test the effectiveness of
thinkpair-
share in a high school setting as opposed to a collegiate setting. Small class sizes combined
with absenteeism may have played a part in the absence of a detectable significant difference
between the groups’ results. There was also an issue with students in the control group
continuing to interact as if they were using Think-Pair-Share even though they were not
instructed to. Prior to beginning the experiment, all of the students were taught to use think-
pairshare,
and once the study began, the students in the control group tended to continue using the
technique even though they had not been instructed to do so. As if that was not enough,
Hurricane Isaac flooded the East St. John campus in the middle of the study and forced Ms.
Trent and her students to relocate their classroom. She was forced to use preliminary data
which
could have also contributed to a lack of difference in learning gains (Trent, 2013).
Although studies on this technique have been performed at the college level, relatively
few have been performed at the high school level and I wanted to test the effectiveness of
thinkpair-
share for promoting learning in a high school chemistry setting. Kathleen Trent’s study
addressed some of the issues associated with performing this type of study in a high school
7
setting and, since my own classroom setting was similar to hers, with similar numbers of
students in a chemistry class, I thought it would be important to continue the study that she
performed and see if any significant learning differences could be demonstrated.
8
Traditional Instruction and Integration of Think-Pair-Share
For all three units of the study, the control group was taught using the traditional
instruction techniques of lecture and individual practice. Units in my chemistry class are
normally introduced through lecture with the assistance of a power point presentation.
Students
are not usually given immediate access to the power point and are instructed to take notes as I
point out important items within the presentation or expand on a concept that is mentioned in
the
presentation, but not explained thoroughly. Students are encouraged to pay attention and
speak
up when they are not able to follow or are in need of further explanation. Punctuated
throughout
the lesson, students are asked, as a class, a general question about the topic at hand designed
to
see if they are paying attention as well as to check comprehension. The students are not
allowed,
at this point, to discuss the question, but are expected to answer individually if called on.
After
the initial introduction of a topic, problems or scenarios are worked for the class to
demonstrate
the concept or problem solving technique necessary for that particular unit. After the
demonstration, students are given a practice problem that must be worked individually after
which, as a class, the answer would be discussed and students would have an opportunity to
ask
questions and clear up any uncertainties. Once the initial individual practice is complete and I
am
satisfied that all of the students have been properly introduced to the topic, I will usually give
the
students multiple problems or questions to answer and will allow students to assist each
other, if
necessary. For the purpose of the study, the students in the control group were kept separate
and
11
were not allowed to pair up and discuss the answers to questions or practice problems being
worked in class during the initial phase of practice as a class. However, students were not
explicitly instructed to refrain from helping each other outside of class time, or when time
was
allotted in class to work on groups of practice problems that had been given as homework.
In addition to traditional techniques, the test groups used the peer instruction technique
think-pair-share as described by Kagan (1989) and Butler et al. (2001). During the initial
phase
of introduction, demonstration, and practice as a class, students in the test groups were given
a
variety of questions for which they would first be required to answer individually and, in
some
cases, reveal their initial answer choice through a show of hands. Immediately afterwards
they
were instructed to pair up and discuss their answer choices with their partner for up to one
minute. After one minute, the students were asked to share their answers with the class either
through open discussion or with a show of hands. Depending on the material being covered
on
a given day, the process of think-pair-share may have been used once or as many as three
times
in a 55 minute period.
Discussion
This study was designed to compare the active learning technique Think-Pair-Share to
my own traditional techniques that I use when teaching chemistry to tenth graders. Of the
three
sections that I taught, two of them were combined as the test group which was taught using
think-pair-share in addition to the techniques that I normally use. One of the sections was
designated the control group which was taught the same material as the test group but did not
use
Think-Pair-Share as an instruction method. The test group used the Think-Pair-Share
technique
during instruction for three of the chemistry units and the results from pre and post-tests were
analyzed from the control group and the test group. Analysis of the results did not show a
significant difference in the learning gains between the test group and the control group
indicating that Think-Pair-Share and my own traditional teaching methods were equally
effective.
Initial analysis of the data from the pre and post-tests for all three units taught indicated
an increase in the students’ knowledge at varying levels for almost all of the students, with
the
exception of a few of the students who did not show any learning gains from pre-test to post-
test.
However, when the learning gains were compared between the control group and the test
group,
it became clear that the students that were taught using Think-Pair-Share did not fare any
better
than those taught using my own traditional methods. To look into the results further, I
decided to
see if, by isolating the learning gains from only the higher order questions on the pre and
posttests,
significant differences in the learning gains might be revealed. There is evidence from a
prior study (Linton, et. al., 2014) that using active learning strategies like Think-Pair-Share
will
result in higher learning gains for questions that require a higher level of thought than
questions
that only draw from rote-memorization. The test questions were classified according to their
29
difficulty and the amount of higher order thinking required to arrive at an answer and the top
10
questions were isolated from the rest. Bloom’s Taxonomy categorizes the ways that students
answer questions with a hierarchy of skills divided into categories that progressively become
more complex. The lowest categories only require a quick response from memory, like a
definition or an identity. The highest categories require a student to reason and evaluate
information that they have learned, often referencing multiple concepts at once, ultimately
leading to an answer that can be defended. These 10 questions were chosen because they
required the students to compare and analyze information, design ideas, or evaluate facts, all
part
of higher-order thinking according to Bloom’s Taxonomy (Forehand, 2010). The results from
these 10 questions were analyzed and again, the differences in the learning gains were not
significant.
I believe that there are three main reasons why the results of this study did not show any
significant differences between the learning gains of the control and the test groups. First, the
majority of the studies that have been done on think-pair-share have been performed at the
college level where the numbers of students in the classes were much larger than the number
of
students that I had to work with, usually in the hundreds. The small sample sizes that I had to
work with, just 14 students in my control group and 31 in my test group, prevented me from
overcoming the lack of statistical power resulting from the small sample size. This issue was
exacerbated by the problem of absences on test days and 1 of the students being transferred
midyear
into a different section. A third student left after the first unit pre-test was completed and
never returned to the school.
As shown in the results of the survey given at the end of the study, students responded
favorably to questions about interacting with a partner in class, indicating that active learning
techniques that encourage peer interaction are preferred by students to techniques that require
a
student to work alone. The students also indicated that working together as a group helped to
reduce the anxiety some students feel when they are in the classroom. Combined, these
results
indicate that peer instruction techniques like Think-Pair-Share may make students feel more
comfortable and promote a more positive attitude in the classroom than an environment
where
students are prevented from interacting.
34
Figure 19: Results of power analysis for the mean responses for attitude survey questions 1-5
vs
questions 6-10. The delta is the difference in the means.
A power analysis of the results from the comparison of the means of responses to questions
1-5
vs questions 6-10 on the survey indicate that these results are meaningful in the sense that, as
shown in Figure 19, significant differences in the results would be found over 80% of the
time if
this same test was repeated many times over.
In conclusion, although neither Kathleen Trent’s study nor my own show a significant
difference in the learning gains between the control and test groups, the student’s responses
to
the attitude survey did indicate that using cooperative peer instruction techniques like Think-
Pair-Share did create a positive learning environment. By reducing the students’ anxiety
about
participating in class, techniques like Think-Pair-Share encourage students who would not
otherwise do so to participate and improve the overall learning atmosphere in the classroom
for
all students. As the instructor, I noticed that the general attitude in the classroom became
much
more positive and conducive to learning when students were allowed to collaborate. This
finding, and the results of this study, encourages me to continue using active learning
techniques
like Think-Pair-Share and to explore other techniques in the future.
In conclusion, although neither Kathleen Trent’s study nor my own show a significant
difference in the learning gains between the control and test groups, the student’s responses
to
the attitude survey did indicate that using cooperative peer instruction techniques like Think-
Pair-Share did create a positive learning environment. By reducing the students’ anxiety
about
participating in class, techniques like Think-Pair-Share encourage students who would not
otherwise do so to participate and improve the overall learning atmosphere in the classroom
for
all students. As the instructor, I noticed that the general attitude in the classroom became
much
more positive and conducive to learning when students were allowed to collaborate. This
finding, and the results of this study, encourages me to continue using active learning
techniques
like Think-Pair-Share and to explore other techniques in the future.
References
Butler, Adam, Kayah-Bah Phillmann, and Lona Smart. "Active learning within a lecture:
Assessing the impact of short, in-class writing exercises." Teaching of
Psychology 28.4 (2001): 257-259.
Cracolice, M. S., J. C. Deming, and B. Ehlert, J. Chem. Educ. 85, 873 (2008).
DeHaan, Robert L. "Teaching creative science thinking." Science 334.6062 (2011): 1499-
1500.
Fagen, Adam P., Catherine H. Crouch, and Eric Mazur. "Peer Instruction: Results from a
Range of Classrooms." The Physics Teacher 40.4 (2002): 206-09.
Forehand, Mary. "Bloom’s taxonomy." Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and
technology (2010): 41-47.
Kagan, Spencer. "The structural approach to cooperative learning." Educational
Leadership 47.4 (1989): 12-15.
Linton, Debra L., Jan Keith Farmer, and Ernie Peterson. "Is Peer Interaction Necessary
for Optimal Active Learning?" CBE-Life Sciences Education 13.2 (2014): 243-
252.
Lovelace, Matthew, and Peggy Brickman. "Best practices for measuring students’
attitudes toward learning science." CBE-Life Sciences Education 12.4 (2013):
606-617.
Mazur, Eric. "Peer instruction: getting students to think in class." AIP Conference
Proceedings. IOP INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING LTD, 1997.
National Research Council (US). Committee on Highly Successful Schools or Programs
for K-12 STEM Education. Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying
effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
National Academies Press, 2011.
Rao, Sumangala P., and Stephen E. DiCarlo. "Peer Instruction Improves Performance on
Quizzes." Advances in Physiology Education 24.1 (2000): 51-55.
36
Smith, Michelle K., et al. "Why peer discussion improves student performance on inclass
concept questions." Science 323.5910 (2009): 122-124.
Trent, Kathleen Sipos. THE EFFECTS OF THE PEER INSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE
THINK-PAIR-SHARE ON STUDENTS’PERFORMANCE IN CHEMISTRY. Diss.
Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical
College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Natural Science In The Interdisciplinary Program in Natural Sciences by Kathleen
Sipos Trent BS, Nicholls State University, 2013.
Truong, Tan Minh, et al. The ActiveClass Project: Experiments in encouraging
classroom participation. Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
University of California, San Diego, 2002.
Weber, Everett. "Quantifying student learning: how to analyze assessment data." Bulletin
of the Ecological Society of America 90.4 (2009): 501-511.
Wilbraham, Antony C., Dennis D. Staley, Michael S. Matta, and Edward L Waterman.
Pearson Chemistry. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2008.
INCREASING STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION BY USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING

IN LIBRARY AND RESEARCH COURSE
by
Ezdehar Alhabeedi
A Master’s Project
Submitted in Fulfillment
of the requirements for the Degree of
Masters of Science in Education
Curriculum and Instruction in Inclusive Education
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
State University of New York at Fredonia
Fredonia, New York
December 2015
In addition, cooperative learning helps students to develop positive attitudes towards

teachers. Cooperative learning also incorporates academic benefits, specifically: 3
STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING
cooperative learning promotes critical thinking skills and involves students actively in the
learning process. Also, it improves students' academic achievement, helps students clarify
ideas through discussion and debate, enhances self-management skills, and sets high
expectations for students and teachers. As for the academic discipline, cooperative learning
promotes higher achievement and class attendance. In addition, students stay on task, are less
disruptive and model appropriate student problem solving techniques (Marjan & Ghodsi,
2012; Srinivas, 2011). Cooperative learning encourages the students to effectively contribute
towards problem solving leading to better understanding of the subjects (Davidson & Major,
2014).
Cooperative learning is now accepted as an important and beneficial teaching and learning
strategy that encourages positive learning outcomes for all students, including students with a
range of diverse learning and adjustment needs. When children work cooperatively together,
it means they will participate in group discussions, show evidence of a more sophisticated
level of discourse, and participate in fewer interruptions when others speak (Gillies, 2006).
Dialogues in cooperative groups are multidirectional instead of bidirectional, as normally
occurs in traditional classrooms, or unidirectional, as can occur in peer tutoring dyads.
Gillies’ (2006) viewpoint emphasizes the importance of verbal interaction as an incentive for
promoting thinking and expects that such dialogic exchanges would enhance students’
cognitive development.
Personal Significance
As a researcher, I think the reasons for the lack of classroom participation in the library and
research course I teach is the traditional approach in teaching this material. I wanted to
investigate modern strategies that would increase students' motivation to participate in the
classroom. Therefore, I thought the use of the cooperative learning strategy would help 4
students to increase their classroom participation. For that reason, I decided to focus on this
problem to find solutions to this issue through using of cooperative learning strategy that
would increase students' participation.
In fact, the importance of the study is that it examines the role of cooperative learning in
increasing students' participation in the library and research course and also helps teachers in
the development of teaching methods. Furthermore, the study gives the teachers in Saudi
Arabia an opportunity to learn more about cooperative learning. Increasing students'
participation is important to me because teachers play a critical role in promoting interactions
between students and engaging them in the learning process. Students' participation in the
classroom by asking questions or participating in discussion have a positive impact on the
students' learning. Also, this study helped me to find an educational solution to increase
classroom participation that may benefit me when I return to teaching in Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, learning is a social activity. In fact, this social dimension is a critical aspect in the
learning process for people of any age. When people learn in communities together, they will
achieve more than as individuals and they will be more engaged in the process. Studies show
that cooperative learning techniques promote more learning than competitive or individual
learning experiences. Increased learning occurs regardless of student age, subject matter, or
learning activity. Complex learning tasks such as problem solving, critical thinking, and
conceptual learning improve noticeably when cooperative strategies are used. Research
shows that opportunities for cognitive rehearsal, clarification, and reteaching have a positive
effect on academic achievement. When students collaborate, they have an opportunity to
discuss new concepts and share their ideas with someone close to their own level of
understanding. Also, they get to try out new ideas and ask questions in a small group before
speaking to the whole class or finishing a written product. When students discuss and defend
their ideas or solutions with teammates, they learn to think problems 5 STUDENTS'
PARTICIPATION USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING
through, to support their own opinions, and to critically consider the opinions of others before
coming to a conclusion. They learn that, in the end, the responsibility for learning still rests
with them (Lundgren, 1994; Lin 2006).
According to proponents of cooperative learning, the fact that students are actively
exchanging, debating and negotiating ideas within their groups increases students’ interest in
learning. Importantly, by engaging in discussion and taking responsibility for their learning,
students are encouraged to become critical thinkers. Many researchers have reported that
students working in small groups tend to learn more of what is being taught. Moreover, they
retain the information longer and also appear more satisfied with their classes (Dooly, 2008).
Recently, educators and researchers have begun to pay significant attention to the learning
strategies that enhance students’ participation. The following literature review analyzes what
other researchers have found concerning the benefits of cooperative learning when compared
with traditional, teacher-centered learning approaches.
Literature Review
Cooperative learning has a positive impact on the educational process. Cooperative learning
improves interaction in groups, promotes individual responsibility for learning, and impacts
metacognitive awareness. The benefits of cooperative learning also include increased
cooperation and more well-developed social skills, motivation, and retention of knowledge.
Furthermore, cooperative learning enables the students to have a broader understanding of the
subjects since they are able to collaborate in the learning process. (Davidson & Major, 2014).
This review of the literature focuses on four primary frameworks. The first section addresses
Vygotsky's theory of social constructivism. The second section presents the research on
cooperative learning. The third section focuses on student development while the last section
focuses on curriculum of library and research course. 6 STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION
USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING
Social Constructivism
Vygotsky's theory of social constructivism was developed by Lev Vygotsky, who was born
November 17, 1896 in Orsha, a city in the western region of the Russian Empire. He attended
Moscow State University, and graduated in law in 1917. His formal work in psychology
began when he attended the Institute of Psychology in Moscow and began collaborating with
Alexei Leontiev and Alexander Luria. His interests in psychology were diverse, but centered
on topics of child development and education. He also explored other topics, such as the
psychology of art and language development. The major theme of Vygotsky's theoretical
framework is that social interaction plays a fundamental role in the development of cognition.
This is a general theory of cognitive development. Most of the original work was done in the
context of language learning in children. He also focused on the connections between people
and the socio-cultural context in which they act and interact in shared experiences. According
to Vygotsky, humans use tools that develop from a culture, such as speech and writing, to
adapt to their social environments. Children develop these tools to serve solely as social
functions, and as ways to communicate needs (Noble, Kravit & Braswell, 2012).
Vygotsky discussed how social interactions play a role in cognitive development of children
and culture. Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory of cognitive development focused on the
role of culture in the development of higher mental functions, such as speech and reasoning
in children. According to Vygotsky, speech begins as a means of communication and then
becomes a tool of thinking. Vygotsky’s theory also includes the idea that child development
is the result of interactions between children and their social environment. These interactions
involve people, parents, teachers, playmates, schoolmates, and siblings. In education, the
social development theory informs cooperative learning strategies to facilitate learning. The
classroom, based on Vygotsky's style provides groups for 7 STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION
peer instruction, collaboration, and small group instruction. The environment of the
classroom and the design of material to be learned promotes and encourages student
interaction and collaboration, leading to a classroom community (Doolittle, 1995).
Using cooperative learning strategies, students share actively in the learning process and
work in collaboration with other students to achieve a common goal. According to Vygotsky
cooperative learning is an integral part of creating a deeper understanding. Cooperative
learning is a part of creating a social constructivist classroom (Powell & Kalina, 2009).
Therefore, social interaction is an important way to motivate students to participate in the
learning process and exchange ideas with colleagues in the classroom. Vygotsky's theory
supports the strategy of cooperative learning. For Vygotsky, formal education was an
important instrument of enculturation. Formal education allows for the presentation of social
and cultural experiences in a systematic manner. Therefore, cooperative learning is an
effective formal education strategy for transmitting these cultural experiences. Cooperative
learning, and its social basis, is a strategy well suited to the tenets of Vygotsky's theory of
human development (Doolittle, 1995). This strategy increases classroom participation, which
will facilitate a social interaction between students to work effectively in the group
conversing with one another, and participating in collaborative activities. This shows the
relationship between the cooperative learning strategy and Vygotsky's social constructivism
theory. It also provides strong support for the inclusion of cooperative learning strategies in
classroom instruction (Li & Lam, 2005). 8 STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION USING
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
Cooperative Learning
Definition
Cooperative learning is an instructional method that is designed to encourage cooperation and
interaction between students. It is focused on removing the tendency of competition between,
students, which does not often lead to a positive result. Cooperative learning develops a
number of skills that are necessary to achieve important educational goals in addition to the
aims of the specific lessons being taught. Human beings are social creatures by nature and
cooperation has been used throughout history in all aspects of our lives. Thus, it follows that
cooperative learning in school groups is an effective teaching method. Humans need to
cooperate with others and have others cooperate with them to achieve specific goals. This
cooperation is needed especially in the classroom, and can be developed through practicing
cooperative learning. Cooperative learning encourages students to support each other,
evaluate the group's progress, and employ social skills. (AL-Rifaee, 2006)
There are many definitions of cooperative learning, but it is generally defined as a teaching
arrangement that refers to small, heterogeneous groups of students working together to
achieve a common goal (Dotson, 2001). Grouping is essential to cooperative learning.
Students work together to learn and are responsible for other's learning (Dotson, 2001).The
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, of the U.S. Department of Education
(1992) offers the following definition:
Cooperative learning is a successful teaching strategy that teams students in small groups
with different levels of ability, using a variety of learning activities to improve their
understanding of a subject. The overall intent of this instructional strategy is to teach
responsibility for learning and to help others learn (Wilson- Jones & Caston, 2004, p. 280) 9
The overall concept of cooperative learning is a positive correlation that occurs when
members of the group are connected together for the academic success of the whole group.
The group builds a community of support and encouragement in the implementation of the
groups' tasks and achieves goals (Wilson- Jones, & Caston, 2004).
Furthermore, there is another definition of cooperative learning:
Cooperative learning is a pedagogical approach, which involves learners in their own
learning by helping others learn and learning from others. Cooperative learning is a form of
active learning designed to enhance individual learning via student group interaction. (Riley
& Anderson, 2006, p. 130)
Faryadi (2007) defined cooperative learning as a set of principles and strategies for enhancing
learning and communicating with others toward a common goal. In other words a small
group of students learn together and take advantages of each other’s expertise to achieve a
common goal. While there are many slightly different definitions of cooperative learning,
there are common elements amongst these.
Elements of Cooperative Learning
Research notes that there are many strategies or elements to enhance the success of
cooperative learning. There are five essential elements of cooperative learning that should be
included in any lesson to enhance cooperative learning (Canan, 2009). The five factors that
are paramount in a cooperative learning experience are: positive interdependence, individual
accountability, face-to-face interaction, interpersonal and small group skills, and self-
evaluation.
The first and most important element is positive interdependence. In this element, team
members need to rely on each other in order to complete the group's task. Positive
interdependence includes assignment of roles that involve students in the learning process 10
while allowing for division of responsibility such as student note-taker, time-keeper, and
results-reporter. Positive interdependence can be achieved when each group member comes
to understand and value the need for group cooperation in the attainment of their own
personal goals, the other individual group member's goals, and the goals of the entire group.
Positive interdependence may take several forms, including goal interdependence, task or
labor interdependence, resource interdependence, role interdependence, or reward
interdependence.The result of this interdependence is that students will be more highly
motivated to work cooperatively when task success depends on the participation of other
group members (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Doolittle, 1995).
However, it is the teacher’s responsibility to design interdependence into the assignment. For
example, resource interdependence exists when individuals each possess specific resources
needed for the group as a whole to succeed. Teachers may promote resource interdependence
by giving specific resources to different individuals in the group. Moreover, task or sequence
interdependence occurs when one group member must first complete his/her task before the
next task can be completed. For example, collecting water samples might be assigned to two
group members, while research on how to collect samples is done by two other group
members (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Doolittle, 1995).
The second essential element of cooperative learning is individual accountability. This means
assessing the quality and quantity of each member's contributions in the group, which makes
each student responsible for his role to the group assignment effort. Individual accountability
involves holding each student accountable for mastering relevant material. The purpose of a
learning situation is to maximize the achievement of each individual student.
Individual accountability is promoted by providing opportunities for the performance of
individuals to be observed and evaluated by others. For example, individual 11 STUDENTS'
quizzes or examinations promote individual accountability. Random checking is posing a
question or a problem and randomly calling on specific individuals to give an explanation
after talking about the question or problem in a group. Another example of individual
contributions to a team report, would be if individual members were asked at random to
present a part of the report. Another approach would be to have one student serve as checker
on a team. The role of a checker is to ask each member individually whether they understand
the design, solution, or explanation that the team has just constructed. The checker may ask
for some demonstration of understanding (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Doolittle,
1995).
Face-to-Face promotive interaction is the third of these elements, whereby team members
assist each other and the group by discussing the topic, challenging others' ideas, and arriving
at consensus. Face-to face interaction, works in conjunction with positive interdependence.
Face-to-face interactions involve individual group members encouraging and facilitating
other group members' efforts to complete tasks and achieve in order to have successful group
goals. Face-to-face interaction encompasses providing each other with efficient and effective
help and assistance and influencing each other's efforts to achieve mutual goals.
One example for a teacher to apply this element in the classroom would be to ask students to
form individual responses to a multiple-choice question focused on a particular concept and
then reach consensus on an answer as a team. Another would be to follow up successful team
activities by asking students to reflect on how the team helped individual learning.
Furthermore, jigsaw is a cooperative learning structure in which material to be learned is
divided into separate components. Groups of students are assigned responsibility for each
component and learn together how to teach that component. Then teams, with one 12
individual responsible for each component, come together to teach each other the entire set of
material (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Doolittle, 1995).
The fourth essential element of cooperative learning is interpersonal and small group skills.
The social skills that are necessary for a student to perform competently in a small group are
taught directly during a cooperative learning lesson. Simple small group social skills such as
staying with one's group, speaking in a low conversational voice, trusting other group
members, and the sharing of leadership responsibilities usually require specific and direct
attention from the teacher. Groups cannot work effectively if members do not have and use
the needed social skills such as collaborative skills that include decision-making, trust
building, communication, and conflict-management (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998;
Drakeford, 2012).
Finally, the fifth basic element of cooperative learning involves group self-evaluation.
Groups need a specific time to discuss how they achieved their goals and to maintain
effective working relationships among members. The purpose of this element is to clarify and
improve the productiveness of all group members in contributing to the cooperative efforts of
achieving the group's goals. Quality teamwork has many aspects that cooperative learning
can help develop in a group, including collaboration, cooperation, and group cohesion.
Cooperative learning can increase communicative competence, language knowledge and
skills, as well as a higher level of enthusiasm and cooperation within the class (Doolittle,
1995).
Benefits
Academic benefits. A synthesis of research about cooperative learning finds that cooperative
learning strategies have a positive effect on improving the achievement of students and their
interpersonal relationships. In 67 studies of the achievement effects of cooperative learning
61% found significantly greater achievement in cooperative learning group than the
traditionally taught control groups. Positive effects were found in all major 13 STUDENTS'
subjects; all grade levels; in urban, rural, and suburban schools; and for high, average, and
low achievers (Dotson, 2001). In brief, as Dotson (2001) mentioned, cooperative learning has
been found to be a successful teaching strategy at all levels, from pre-school to post-
secondary. Drakeford (2012) conducted a study on two male secondary students attending the
Upward Bound pre-college program. Each student worked in small groups with specific
roles, and two observers documented the amount of time each student participated during the
cooperative learning activities. The results of this study showed that cooperative learning
techniques increased student’s participation.
Cooperative learning has been researched and implemented in classrooms around the world
since the 1970s. Research has proven that this instructional strategy can be effective in
encouraging student relations and motivating student academic involvement in school.
Research also indicates that cooperative learning has positive effects on academic
achievement, especially for students with learning disabilities. It is important, however, to
note that cooperative learning does not mean simply putting students in a group. When
cooperative learning is carefully structured, students exhibit an increase in academically
engaged time and elementary students remain on task. The findings from numerous research
studies on cooperative learning show improvement in academic achievement, behavior and
attendance, motivation, and school and classmates satisfaction (Wilson-Jones, & Caston,
2004). Also, 87% of the studies that used the cooperative learning strategy observed positive
effects on learning achievement (AL-Rifaee, 2006).
In addition, cooperative learning enhances higher academic achievement. In cooperative
learning, a group is composed of low achieving students who work harder when grouped
higher achieving students. In this way there is hardly any cause of failure for low achieving
students. Compared with traditional learning methodologies, cooperative learning is an active
instructional strategy that fosters higher academic achievement. Moreover, 14 STUDENTS'
cooperative learning enhances learning outcomes. The interaction between the weaker
students and better achievers results in improved and efficient learning. (Naseem & Bano
2011).
Interpersonal benefits. In addition to the academic benefits of cooperative learning there are
interpersonal benefits to the students. When students work interdependently, it can increase
their feelings of support of one another, and develop their self-esteem (Canan, 2009, Weimer,
2011).Similarly, cooperative work affects students' development of autonomy, sense of
purpose, and building and maintaining of mature interpersonal relationships. Cooperative
learning leads to the personal development of students by promoting self-confidence, and
positive attitude amongst them, while working collectively in a group in order to solve a
given task (Naseem & Bano 2011).
Engaging students in the learning process increases involvement and allows students to
understand how subject material relates to life experiences. If lessons are viewed as relating
to the experiences of students in the classroom, and thus a valid application to real life
expectations, student motivation will increase. (Drakeford, 2012, p. 240)
Social benefits. In cooperative learning students with different learning skills, cultural
background, attitudes and personalities interact with each other which ultimately results in
the development of social skills like sharing, cooperation, integrity, leadership, decision
making and division of labour. There are a number of studies examining the positive effects
of cooperative learning. There were 12 out of 14 studies on cooperative learning and inter-
group relations that showed that cooperative learning had a positive effect on building
positive social relationships. Cooperative learning inculcates the skills of cooperation,
leadership, team work and division of labor among the students which makes them efficient
15 STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING
for the jobs in the companies which have emphasis on the social skills and favor the
combined effort of knowledge and manpower (Canan, 2009; Naseem & Bano 2011).
Despite the ample evidence supporting the use of cooperative learning, there are some
drawbacks and fears of using this strategy in the classroom. These reasons present a
persuasive disincentive to adopt cooperative approaches.
Potential drawbacks
Each educational strategy has advantages and disadvantages. Although the effectiveness of
the cooperative learning strategy is well documented, there are some potential drawbacks that
may happen during implementation with students in the classroom.
The first drawback is dependency. Students work almost exclusively in teams. They become
dependent on their teammates and do not want to work alone. It is a very frustrating situation
when all students work so hard and then one person who did nothing asks to get the answers.
It is not fair if one group member does not contribute as much as the others do. This will
often leave the other members frustrated and the student who is not contributing will not
really learn anything. When one person does not pull their weight it makes extra work for the
others. There can often be a weak link in a group, so it is up to all of the members to
strengthen that one. They need to recognize that he/she needs to add more to the group
(Middlecamp, 1997; Bower & Richards 2006).
The second potential drawback is the effort required. Complex cooperative learning lessons
are well planned. They take so much time and effort on the part of the teacher that
cooperative learning occurs only occasionally, and the benefits of cooperative learning are
not reaped. It takes a lot of effort to design activities that involve interaction and cooperation,
even more effort to manage if a group or activity gets into trouble. This is exacerbated when
teachers are not comfortable or informed when it comes to implementing collaborative
techniques (Middlecamp, 1997; Bower & Richards 2006). 16 STUDENTS'
The third disadvantage can be someone in the group may try to take over the group and
dictate what everyone does. These type of people are not good group workers, and one of the
biggest problems of a group situation is the balance of power. Not all people are given an
equal voice in a group. Usually there is one group leader to whom everyone defers. Another
person takes care of the data. Some people end up feeling overlooked or unappreciated. One
way to remedy this is to keep the groups small, which forces all people to participate
A fourth drawback is more quiet people may not feel comfortable expressing themselves and
their ideas with a group. The quiet people who never talk might still not feel comfortable
talking to a group. In this case they are more comfortable talking to one-to-one. Some
students are shy or reserved and feel awkward when working with others. Often when
students hear that they have to work in groups they get very uneasy. They do not always like
to meet new people. They do not know how others will respond to their beliefs and values.
The last drawback is assessment. If people work in a team and produce a combined
deliverable, it is difficult to determine teamwork effort of each student and fairly apportion
the marks. Some students may think it is not fair when the teacher puts students into groups
because many of the hard working students do all of the work and provide their effort to do it
very well, and the lazy students do nothing and still receive the same grade
(Middlecamp,1997; Bower & Richards 2006).
The role of teachers is different in the cooperative learning classroom. The teacher is the
facilitator of learning in a cooperative learning environment. The teacher is there to help in
the sharing of the knowledge that every group already has. Teachers should do their best to
make sure everyone is involved when students work in groups. Teachers link students 17
together so one cannot succeed unless all group members succeed. Group members have to
know that they sink or swim together. Students should clearly understand that each group
member’s efforts are required and indispensable for group success and each group member
has a unique contribution to make to the joint effort because of his or her resources and/or
role and task responsibilities. However, one of the five elements of cooperative learning that
may save cooperative learning from these potential drawbacks is positive interdependence.
This is the belief by each individual that there is value in working with other students and that
both individual learning and work products will be better as a result of collaboration
Strategies of Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning is an extremely useful strategy in that it involves students in established
learning groups or teams. Cooperative learning fosters individual accountability in a context
of group interdependence in which students discover information and teach that material to
their group and to the whole class. The teacher’s role also changes from lecturer and
knowledge-holder, to facilitator and guide. Cooperative learning is so effective because it is
structured and creates a classroom community. It also enhances students’ communication
skills, balances interdependence with individual accountability, and responds to classroom
diversity (Naseem & Bano, 2011).
There are various and popular strategies for cooperative learning that can be used whenever
the instructor sees fit. Cooperative learning structures are methods of organizing the
interaction of individuals in a classroom. Each instructor needs to pick out and adapt these
structures to their own course content and learner group. The teacher also can use these
strategies to improve students' cooperative learning skills and achieve the specific purpose of
using these strategies. Listed below with a brief description are some of the more common
strategies that will be employed with this study. 18 STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION USING
Think-pair-share. The think-pair-share structure, requires students to think independently
for a minute in response to the teacher's question, then discuss their responses with a partner,
and finally share their ideas with the class (O'Connor, 2013). There are four steps to this
method. The first step is groups of four students listen to a question posed by the teacher.
Second, individual students have time to think and then independently write their responses.
Third, pairs of students read and discuss their responses with one another. Finally, a few
students are called on by the teacher to share their thoughts and ideas with the whole class.
This is an excellent method for encouraging students to discuss and for all students to have an
opportunity to learn through reflection and verbalization (Srinivas, 2011). It is particularly
helpful for shy or reticent students because they have a chance to “practice” verbalizing their
answer one-on-one before sharing with the whole class.
Three-step interview. According to Srinivas, (2011) the three-step interview is a strategy
that is effective when students solve problems that have no specific right answers. Three
steps are involved in this process to solve problems. First, students form dyads; one student
interviews the other. Next, students switch roles. Lastly, the dyad links with a second dyad.
This four-member learning team then discusses the information or insights gleaned from the
initial paired interviews.
According to AL-Rifaee, (2006) to establish this strategy teachers follow these steps:
Divide into teams of four, numbering the members from 1 to 4. Introduce a discussion topic
such as "Should students have to wear a school uniform?" The three steps then are
introduced, with perhaps 2-3 minutes being allocated to each step. The steps are:
Step 1: Nos. 1 and 2 interview each other. Nos. 3 and 4 interview each other.
Step 2: Nos. 1 and 3 interview each other. Nos. 2 and 4 interview each other.
Step 3: The 4 members then discuss the topic, and attempt to reach a consensus. 19
Jigsaw strategy. Jigsaw is an efficient way for students to engage in their learning, learn
much and quickly, and share information with other groups. Each group needs members to do
well in order for the whole group to do well. Jigsaw increases interaction and establishes an
atmosphere of cooperation and respect for other students. In the Jigsaw grouping strategy,
each team member is responsible for learning a specific part of a topic. All the members of
the class are organized into groups then rearranged in new groups to share their learning.
After meeting with members of other groups, who are the "expert" in the same part, the
"experts" return to their own groups and present their findings. Team members then are
quizzed on all topics. This is an excellent method for improving students' teamwork and
communication skills (Srinivas, 2011).
Three-minute review. Three-minute review is used when the teachers stop any time during a
lecture or discussion and allow teams three minutes to review what the teacher has said with
their group. Students in their groups can ask question to the other members or answer
questions of others (Srinivas, 2011). The three-minute review is an activity that gives
students a time to reflect on what they have gained from a lecture or discourse, and to ask
questions that clarify areas that they may feel unclear about. The three-minute review
provides a chance for students to stop, reflect on the concepts and ideas that have just been
introduced, make connections to prior knowledge or experience, and seek clarification (AL-
Rifaee, 2006).
Corners. Corners is a technique that can promote participation through physical movement.
This strategy has students move to a corner of the room based on their answers to a teacher-
determined topic. Students discuss with others in the corner, then listen to and respond to
ideas shared from those in other corners (O'Connor, 2013). For example, a teacher might post
a statement about different aspects of a country (such as economic system, government,
physical features, and cultural traditions) and ask participants to choose one and 20
write down on a piece of paper the topic along with why they wish to discuss it. Then
students go to their corners and discuss the topic with their classmates (AL-Rifaee, 2006).
Group discussion. Group discussion is a method that is used to promote teamwork, share
ideas and experience, and build leadership. The drawbacks of this method are the difficulty in
assessing each individual member of the group reliably and discussion held in one group is
not accessible to other groups (O'Connor, 2013). According to Moguel (2004), the
involvement of children in small group discussions provides an opportunity to develop their
understanding, and ability to think as well as to encourage them to work harder (Moguel,
2004). These strategies of cooperative learning are successful only if the teachers are
prepared to learn themselves first.
The Role of the Teacher in Cooperative Learning
Preparing for the lesson. The teachers should evaluate his/her learners in order to find out
what exactly students already know before teaching. Teachers must contemplate many
important roles in cooperative learning to teach efficiently, that is: specifying objectives,
grouping students, explaining tasks, monitoring group work, and evaluating achievement and
cooperation (Faryadi, 2007).The teacher has a very important role in cooperative learning. To
have an effective and successful cooperative learning group teachers have to know their
students very well. Placing students in groups is not an easy process and must be decided
with care. Teachers should consider the different learning skills, cultural background,
personalities, and gender when arranging students in cooperative groups. Much time is
devoted in preparing the lesson for cooperative learning. Teachers who set up a good
cooperative lesson teach students to teach themselves and each other. Students learn from
their peers and become less dependent on the teacher for help (Dahley,1994).
Decision making. When planning the lesson , the teacher has to choose the educational goals
and identify cooperative strategies to be achieved by students at the end of group work. 21
Then the teacher decides the number of members of the group and determines the roles of the
students to ensure the interdependence in the group and all students working together in their
assigned role. In addition, the teacher works to prepare an appropriate educational
environment and arranges the classroom well. All the students sit in their seats close together,
have easy visual communication, and make the interaction between them comfortable (AL-
Rifaee, 2006).
During the lesson. During the lesson, the teacher has to inspect the groups' work and walks
around the students during the performance of the task observing their behavior and
interactions with each other. Moreover, the teacher provides feedback and encourages
students about their good use of skills and helps students to do the task in light of what the
teacher noticed during the inspection of the performance of students. Finally, if there is any
problem between students in the interaction, the teacher intervenes to teach students the skills
and provides more effective procedures (AL-Rifaee, 2006).
Following the lesson. The last part of the teacher's role in cooperative learning is assessing
student learning. The teacher can ask students to show what they have learned from the skills
and tasks. For example, students may do public presentations, summarize important ideas
about the lesson, or provide a brief summary about their experience of cooperative learning.
Evaluation by the teachers provides students with feedback on the understanding of content
and concepts. Teachers can use rubrics to evaluate students' performance. Students also can
participate in the evaluation of their learning from each other by using a peer fidelity
checklist. Finally, the teacher may conclude the activity of each group by encouraging
students to share answers and papers and summarize the main points of the lesson (AL-
Rifaee, 2006). 22 STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING
Prepare Student for Cooperation. This is a critical step. The teacher should tell students
about the rationale, procedures, and expectations with this method of instruction. Students
need to know that the teacher is not trying to force them to be friends with other people, but is
asking them to develop working relationships with people who come together for a specific
purpose. The teacher should share with students that they will need to do this later on in life.
The teacher should explain that using cooperative skills might feel awkward at first, like any
new experience, such as throwing a football or playing a guitar for the first time. The teacher
should stress that it will take time to learn the necessary cooperative skills. The teacher
should explain the three basic rules of cooperative learning: stay with your group, ask a
question of your group first before you ask your teacher, and offer feedback on ideas and
avoid criticizing people (Lundgren, 1994).
Organizing the classroom. Students work more effectively in a well-organized classroom
rather than one that is cluttered or unpredictable. Students are expected to be organized.
However, if the physical environment is not the same, the example for the students is not
consistent (Lundgren, 1994; Naseem & Bano 2011). Students in groups should face each
other as they work together. It is helpful to number the tables so groups can be referred by
number or each group can choose a name (Lundgren, 1994).
Cooperative learning works best when group size is small. The ideal cooperative learning
classroom has about 15 to 20 students. Students are usually grouped in clusters of three to
five. The larger the group size the more difficult to organize. If attendance is a problem,
groups may need to redistribute frequently. Also, if the class begins with activities that can be
completed in one class period, students will not be faced with new group members in the
middle of an activity because of absences (Lundgren, 1994; Naseem & Bano 2011). 23
Each group should be properly spaced to maintain eye-to-eye contact, share materials without
bumping elbows, and communicate without disturbing other groups. Barriers should be
minimized to facilitate movement. Different groups should be spaced far enough to avoid
conflict. Enough room should be provided for the teacher to aid students and to monitor
group action and behavior. The class set up should be flexible enough for students to work
separately when necessary (Lundgren, 1994; Naseem & Bano 2011).
The role of the teacher in collaborative learning does not mean only preparing and
planning lessons and evaluating students. It also means teachers should have a background
about student development, individual differences, cultural background, and gender when
arranging students in cooperative groups. The purpose of this is to ensure the quality and
success of the educational process.
Cooperative learning will allow me to act as a guide and leader of the educational
process. It also increases student achievement at various levels of study, encourages social
interaction between students, facilitates participation and increases students' self-confidence.
Cooperative learning has been found to be a successful teaching strategy at all levels, from
pre-school to post-secondary education. Young adolescents need to socialize, be a part of a
group, share feelings with others, receive emotional support, and learn to see things from
other perspectives. Therefore, cooperative learning is a good strategy for these needs of these
students (Dotson, 2001).
Cooperative learning gives students a good chance to manage the classroom with a degree
of independence appropriate to high school aged students, develops mutual positive
dependence between the students in the work team, promotes mutual respect between
students who have different ideas from their classmates, promotes creative thinking, enhances
self-esteem and self-understanding, and increases incidences of positive behavior (Dotson,
2001).This is the right strategy that fits the age of the students and their various
characteristics in high school.
Methodology
The educational process is not based on educational content alone, but on the content and the
way of teaching together. It should be centered on the learner, so it is necessary that the
teachers constantly improve their methods. Equally important, is the choice of appropriate
activities to achieve the desired objectives and positive interaction that leads to personal
growth and the development of positive social skills. Therefore, teachers need an education
strategy that improves teamwork, effective communication, cooperation, mutual support,
participation and social interaction. Cooperative learning as an instructional strategy that can
achieve the objectives of learning and is an excellent way to increase students' participation.
The overall goal of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of cooperative learning
in improving students' participation. This goal was achieved by seeking an answer to the
research question, "does using cooperative learning strategy in teaching library and research
to Saudi high school students increase their classroom participation?"
Design
This study was an experimental model. The study took place in ten classes during the first
two week period of the school year. The students received instruction about working in
cooperative groups and practicing before the study began. The researcher trained the students
to implement the cooperative learning in the classroom in following areas: developing a
classroom climate for cooperative learning, team building techniques, and social skill for
team work. Then she divided students into three cooperative groups with each group
consisting of five students, taking into account individual differences and needs including
learning styles and student personalities. Each student in the group chose a role, and then she
asked each group to sit in a circle. After that, the researcher described the value of
collaborative learning through the development of their personality, increasing their capacity
to make decisions, and helping them respect each other. Lastly, the author distributed cards to
have them write the name of the group on it.
For each block of material, one class used the cooperative learning structures and the other
did not receive instructions in this manner. The group not receiving cooperative learning
structures as a teaching method, participated with lecture and individual assignments. The
researcher created lesson plans that included names of lessons, educational goals and value
for each goal, content, teacher preparation, learning activities and the period 29 STUDENTS'
of time for each activity, and materials (Appendix A).The textbook she used was Library and
Research, published by Ministry of Education / Saudi Arabia.
The researcher taught the students the Organization of Information Sources unit by
collaborative learning for students of the experimental group.While the control group
received more traditional lecture/discussion teaching methods on this same unit.The
researcher divided the 30 students into two groups of 15 students each. The experimental
group had three cooperative groups and each group consisted of five students.While the other
15 students in the control group she taught in a traditional method of teaching.
Cooperative learning structures are methods of organizing the interaction of individuals in a
classroom. Step-by-step procedures are used to present, practice, and review material. Some
strategies regulate interaction between pairs, some are best for teamwork, and others involve
the entire class. The researcher used the following instructional methods:
1-Think-Pair-Share: The researcher posed a question to the class and the students thought
about their responses. Then students paired with a partner to talk over their ideas. Finally,
students shared their ideas with the class.
2- Three-minute review: The researcher stopped any time during a lecture or discussion and
allowed teams three minutes to review what they had heard with their group. Students in their
groups could ask questions to the other members or answer questions of others.
3- Group discussion: The researcher posted a question on the board, then all group members
actively engaged in a conversation about the question. Then, I went from group to group and
sat in for a few minutes to listen to the conversation. Finally, I chose one of the members
from each group to share their answer in front of the whole class. 30 STUDENTS'
Moreover, the researcher prepared worksheets provided to both groups. Students were asked
to work on worksheets and they worked in teams. The researcher circulated through the class
and watched social skills, level of cooperation, level of interaction, level of participation and
roles of the team members. She guided and taught about these social skills. After watching a
team showing better performance than other teams, the researcher asked the rest of the groups
to watch that team. For the purpose of this study, cooperative learning was defined as the use
of small group interaction to facilitate instruction and student participation. Participation time
was defined as one of the following behaviors: students taking notes, speaking in class on
topic, writing on the board, and engaging in class activities.
Every student was given a role to play in the cooperative work group. They worked in
groups provided with information and examples of their roles and responsibilities. Students
were also informed that they had the flexibility to assist other members in their group in
performing their roles. The lesson was a 20-minute lecture. During the last 25 minutes of the
period, students participated in a cooperative learning activity.
Findings
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cooperative learning on high
school students' participation in Saudi Arabia. The results of this study were obtained through
two data collection methods. First, results were based on an observational checklist of
classroom behaviors for the experimental group and control group. The gathered data was
analyzed through the use of descriptive statistics. Additionally, data was collected from a
survey that used a Likert-type scale and was given to the experimental group. The survey
included 20 questions, which were divided into three sections: the impact of using
cooperative learning on classroom participation and interaction, individual students' feelings
and social skills, and learning outcomes.
Discussion
From my years of teaching and experience I knew that cooperative learning was not being
effectively implemented in most classrooms. I also thought that teachers were not being 42
provided with effective training or literature on the topic. Therefore, this study aimed to
examine whether or not using the cooperative learning strategy in teaching library and
research increases students participation. Upon analysis of the data, the results support the
research question of the study that cooperative learning has an overall positive effect of
increasing the classroom participation of students. The results indicate that the students in the
experimental group consistently scored higher on the observation rubric, compared to those
in the control group. The difference between observation rubric scores for the experimental
group were higher than those of the control group, which was taught by using traditional
learning methods.
The findings of this study confirm perspectives explored through the literature review, which
indicates that cooperative learning improves the classroom participation and interaction,
learning outcomes, and social skills of the students. This section will discuss the relationship
among the literature review and these results, implications for practice, implications for
further research, and the limitations of the study.
Relationship of Literature Review and the Results
Cooperative learning is a successful teaching tool supported by several researchers. Almost
all the findings of this study are in line with the previous research studies conducted on
cooperative learning. My data and Drakeford (2013) conclude that the implementation of the
cooperative learning strategy has positive impacts on the students’ participation, specifically
helping them to speak in the class, raise their hands, and engage in class activities.This would
also be consistent to the findings of Maher (2010) who claimed that the use of cooperative
learning increased the students’ engagement in their classes and made them more excited. 43
The findings of this study are in congruence with Canan’s (2009) study that cooperative
learning and inter-group relations showed positive effects on social relationships. The present
study was also supported by McLeish (2009), who conducted an empirical study at Knox
Community College. He found that students taught by cooperative learning outperformed
those who were taught by lectures. The variety of contexts that the cooperative learning
strategy has been studied in, and its consistently positive results, suggests that educators
should try to apply cooperative learning strategies in their own classrooms and curricula.
This finding suggests that learning is more effective when students are actively involved in
sharing ideas and working cooperatively with other students to complete academic tasks.
Cooperative learning experiences appear to promote higher student participation. Therefore,
when students participate actively in productive learning processes, they are able to negotiate
shared meaning and construct meaningful understanding, which is not always possible in a
teacher-directed approach. Working in small groups appears to promote a sense of individual
responsibility and a love of challenge in the student, thereby increasing motivation for
learning. If students are highly motivated to learn, their level of participation will also be
high.
Implications for practice
Results of this study have many implications for library curriculum teaching methods used in
Saudi Arabia schools. The study emphasized the value of using cooperative learning rather
than the traditional method in teaching library due to its positive influence on students’
participation as well as the students’ social skills. Educational administrators need to take
note of the research surrounding these teaching methods and formulate policy that empowers
the use of cooperative learning strategies, funds professional development and supports
implementation of these practices in classrooms. 44 STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION USING
Moreover, textbooks for high school students are generally written for teaching through
traditional approaches. A committee of experts may be appointed to prepare the textbooks for
teaching through the cooperative learning method approach. In addition, offering workshops
and training courses for new teachers related to cooperative learning would be helpful in
implementing this research based strategy. Cooperative learning centers may also be
established in universities to provide training and to develop material in the area of
cooperative learning methods.
Classroom level changes. Based on my results there are going to be numerous changes made
in my classroom. First, I will not explain lessons without using the cooperative learning
strategy. Keeping this in mind, I will take the extra steps when planning the lessons to make
sure students are organized and aware of what their roles are and also those of their group
mates. I will use random group assignments to group students. Random group assignments
have an advantage because students perceive them as being fair. However, randomly selected
teams should not stay together for more than a couple of activities if the teams turn out to be
homogeneous. Groups should reflect life. The group should be mixed socially, racially,
ethnically, by gender, and by learning abilities. If students are allowed to choose their own
groups, there may be less task-oriented behavior, and the homogeneity that usually results
will not allow them the opportunity to hear views that may differ from their own.
Heterogeneity mirrors the real world, which encompasses encountering, accepting, and
appreciating differences. If a group finds that things are not working out, members may
complain that they want to switch groups. If students are told that they can change groups
after they have proven their ability to work effectively for a given time, maybe two weeks,
they often decide they don't want to switch.
As the analyses of the data suggest, the more interaction that took place within the
cooperative group, the higher scores they received in the participation rubric for example in
class 1 with 86% speaking in class on topic. Class 1 was more efficient and enjoyable. The
reason for that was lesson content, it was the introduction to the unit and easy for the
students. After analyzing the results of my research question using direct observation, I
witnessed more students working cooperatively, students sharing strategies, actively listening
to other group members, and class work being finished by the end of the hour. During the
class activity, students were more engaged than in the traditional classroom.There was a
greater level of involvement with most students actively participating. There was a high level
of chatter as students were engaged in lively discussion of the material given.
Implications for further research
Although the study was able to achieve the purpose and objectives and answered the research
question, the following are suggestions for further studies to be conducted, first, for further
research on this topic, a much larger sample size should be incorporated into a study. Using
the same methodology, it would be advisable to expand the number of students to include
first, second, and third grade of high school. Moreover, future studies need to look at other
locations and other areas in Saudi Arabia to determine the implications of cooperative
learning on the participation of students. It would be a better idea in future studies to gather
data from multiple school districts in multiple areas.
Secondly, this study was conducted on students' participation only. The researcher expects
that cooperative learning impacts other variables. Therefore, other studies should focus on
effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies on skills such as transmission learning effect,
discovery, and problem solving. Studies may be conducted to investigate the comparative
effectiveness of cooperative learning methods in different subjects at different levels of
education. Further studies may be conducted to measure for the other outcomes of 46
cooperative learning methods i.e. peer relations, social skills and motivation for different
subjects.
Thirdly, future studies should focus on the long-term impact of cooperative learning on
students' participation. This can be achieved by increasing the experimental period and
following up with performance of both the experimental and control groups for a period of
one year or more.
Fourthly, the study participants were only females and came from one school. Future studies
must incorporate both genders and determine the differences between males and females
when it comes to cooperative learning.
Lastly, future studies can also look at the perceptions of students towards the cooperative
learning strategy. This can be done by looking at their performance, their participation, their
enjoyment of the learning process, and the challenges they face when using cooperative
learning strategies.
Limitations
Although the study has produced results that meet the research objectives, several limitations
related to the study existed. Firstly, the study was conducted only in one place (Jeddah City)
thus there was no comparison with other educational institutions within the city and region.
Secondly, a very significant limitation to this study is the relatively small sample size. A
larger sample may have yielded more valid results. The number of students in the two
treatments was 30 participants. The sample size was small and therefore generalizations
could not made. Having more classes to participate in the study, the study results would be
more meaningful and provide a more robust data set. 47 STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION
Thirdly, in Saudi Arabia classes are separated by gender, in turn, the results obtained may
have been biased due to sex. The study participants were female students aged 16 years,
enrolled in library and research classes. This is because the schools in Saudi Arabia are
separated by gender, so no mixed classes are available. Therefore, data collected from this
population may not be applicable to male students.
Lastly, this study was also limited by the timing of the study .The length of the study was
short. The study period was only two weeks during one semester and did not allow for a very
detailed assessment to be made and thus, the study may not have been as able to obtain
conclusive results. A longer time spent in the field may have attained a greater difference.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cooperative learning on students'
participation of high school students in Saudi Arabia. The research on the advantages of
cooperative learning suggests that it is a worthy topic of study in Saudi Arabia. The decision
to research on cooperative learning in Saudi Arabia is based on reality that most of the
schools in Saudi Arabia to date embrace traditional learning strategy. Traditional learning is
teacher-centered method that focuses on memorization and rote learning. In Saudi Arabia,
traditional learning is the commonly adopted strategy in schools.
As a result of changes in understanding of best practices in teaching, some schools of Saudi
Arabia, especially larger schools, have increasingly worked to incorporate the cooperative
learning approach into curriculum. Thus, the deficiency in the literature is something that this
study was designed to address, especially in regards to creating a better
understanding of cooperative learning and its effects on students' participation of high school
students especially in curriculum of library and research course. This study was the first of its
kind in the region, and thus is significant and timely. 48 STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION
Cooperative learning could be presumed to be a better approach that could benefit students in
Saudi Arabia, only if it could be implemented properly. Teachers in Saudi Arabia often do
not have time for consultation with students due to tight lesson schedules that have to be
attended to on a daily basis. Furthermore, some students do not interact freely with teachers ,
be it in class or afterwards. Therefore, cooperative learning motivates students' critical
thinking and helps them clarify ideas through debate and discussion with their peers.
In addition, cooperative learning techniques promote more learning than competitive or
individual learning experiences. Adolescents may be better able to process information
engaging in small group discussions with their peers rather than listening to a teacher's
lecture. Consequently, the development of effective communication should not be left to
chance. Adolescent students want to speak, interact, and show their opinion due to the nature
of adolescence. Therefore, cooperative learning is a great opportunity for students to speak in
the classroom freely, but in the framework and limits of the lesson.
Finally, I am proud of the results of this study. I am proud to provide to the department of
Library and Saudi schools this humble effort to improve the level of educational performance
and teaching method in Saudi Arabia. This study was a great breakthrough to me as a teacher
to return to the world of education with full force and pride. Cooperative learning promotes
affective and social benefits such as increased student interest in and valuing of subject
matter and increases positive attitudes and social interactions among students who differ in
gender, race, ethnicity, achievement levels and other characteristics. Thus use of cooperative
learning approaches in the classroom help the teacher in achieving the overall goals of
education because it incorporates intellectual, social and psychological aspects of education
and develops interpersonal relationship among learners. 49 STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION
Cooperative learning could inspire the world citizenry to cherish, cultivate, and develop
postive social attitudes, goals and skills towards improving the society. As a long-term
strategy, it could be a key to finding a suitable answer for many problems haunting nations
and human relationships within and among nations. Therefore, we learn to cooperate, and
cooperate to learn, and therefore we are. The time is ripe and right to think of the greater
benefits that cooperative learning is capable of offering via primary, secondary and higher
education. 50 STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING
References
Abuid, B. (2014). A student participation assessment scheme for effective teaching and
learning. Learning & Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1), 1-27.
Ahmad, F. (2010). Effect of cooperative learning on students' achievement at elementary
level. International Journal of Learning,17(3), 127-141.
AL-Rifaee, A. (2006). The effect of cooperative learning strategy on the achievement of deaf
students in mathematics and on their social interactions. Library of University of Jordan -
Center of Thesis Deposit.
Bower, M. & Richards, D. (2006). Collaborative learning: Some possibilities and limitations
for students and teachers. Proceedings of the 23rd annual ascilite conference: Who’s
learning? whose technology? The University of Sydney, Australia.
Bucher, K. (2010). Developmental characteristics during adolescence. Education.com.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/developmental characteristics during
adolescence.
Canan, Z. (2009). Effects of cooperative learning on prospective teachers' achievement and
social interactions. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Egitiin Fakültesi Derpisi (H. U. Journal of
Education) 36: 32-40.
Christie, D., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Howe, C., & Topping, K. (2009). Supporting group
work in Scottish primary classrooms: Improving the quality of collaborative dialogue.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 141-156. doi:10.1080/03057640802702000.
Dahley, A. (1994). Cooperative learning classroom research.
http://alumni.media.mit.edu/andyd/mindset design/clc_rsch.html.
Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning,
collaborative 51 STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING
learning, and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4),
p.7-55
Dotson, J. (2001). Cooperative learning structures can increase student achievement. Kagan
Online Magazine. http://www.kaganonline.com/free articles/research and rationale/increase
achievement. php.
Doolittle, P. E. (1995, June). Understanding cooperative learning through Vygotsky's zone of
proximal development. Presented at The Lilly National Conference on Excellence in College
Teaching, Columbia, SC.
Dooly, M. (2008) Constructing knowledge together. In M. Dooly (Ed.), Tele collaborative
Language Learning. A guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online. Bern:
Peter Lang.
Drakeford,W. (2012). The effects of cooperative learning on the classroom participation of
students placed at risk for societal failure. Psychology Research, ISSN 2159-5542, Vol. 2,
No. 4, 239-246.
Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning,
collaborative
learning, and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4),
p.7-55.
Ebrahim, A. (2012). The effect of cooperative learning strategies on elementary students'
science achievement and social skills in Kuwait. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 10: 293Y314.
Faryadi, Q. (2007). Enlightening advantages of cooperative learning. University of Uitm.
Malaysia. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 495702. 52 STUDENTS'
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Basic elements of cooperative learning. In
D.W.Johnson, R. Johnson, K.Smith Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina,
MN: Interaction Book Company.
Hamada, M. (1981). Entrance to the library science. Beirut: Message Institution.
Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers' and students' verbal behaviors during cooperative and small-
group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271–287.
Li, M. & Lam, B. (2005). Cooperative learning. The Active Classroom, The Hong Kong
Institute of Education. Hong Kong.
Lin, E. (2006). Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science Teacher, 73(5), 34-39.
Lundgren, L. (1994). Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Glencoe Science
Professional Series.
Marjan, L.& Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 31 (2012) 486 – 490.
McLeish, K. (2009). Attitude of students towards cooperative learning methods at Knox
Community College: A descriptive study. (Unpublished masters thesis) University of
Technology, Jamaica.
Middlecamp, C. (1997). Students speak out on collaborative learning. Teaching Stories.
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cl1/CL/story/middlecc/TSCMD.htm
Moguel, D. (2004). What does it mean to participate in class? Integrity and inconsistency in
classroom interaction. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 39(1), 19-29.
Naseem, & Bano, R. (2011). Cooperative learning: An instructional strategy. Technolearn:
An International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 79-85. 53 STUDENTS'
Noble, C Kravit, J & Braswell, L. (2012). Vygotsky's Social Development Theory. Education
Technology. http://www.slideshare.net/jkravit/vygotsky-updated-1-1-12757545
O'Connor, K. (2013). Class participation: Promoting in-class student engagement. Education,
133(3), 340-344.
Oyarzun, B., & Morrison, G. (2013). Cooperative learning effects on achievement and
community of inquiry in online education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(4),
181-194.
Pennington Publishing. (2009). Characteristics of high school learners.
http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/reading/characteristics of high school learners/
Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools
for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.
Riley, W.R. & Anderson, P. (2006) Randomized study on the impact of cooperative learning
distance education in public health. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 7, No.
2, 2006.
Srinivas, H. (2011). Four collaborative learning strategies. The Global Development Research
Center. Retrieved from http://www.gdrc.org/kmgmt/c-learn/44.html.
Weimer , M. (2011). 10 benefits of getting students to participate in classroom discussions.
Faculty Focus. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-
learning/10-benefits-of-getting-students-to-participate-in-classroom-discussions/
Wilson-Jones, L., & Caston, M. C. (2004). Cooperative learning on academic achievement in
elementary African American males. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(4), 280-283.
http://www.who.int/maternal child Adolescent development. .(2015) World health
organization..adolescent/topics/adolescence/dev/
Bowling Green State University

ScholarWorks@BGSU
Honors Projects Honors College
Spring 4-29-2013
Finding the Effects of Think-Pair-Share on Student
Confidence and Participation
Ariana Sampsel
Sampsel, Ariana, "Finding the Effects of Think-Pair-Share on Student Confidence and

Participation" (2013). Honors Projects. Paper 28.
Cooperative learning has been shown to improve students’ self-esteem (Goodwin, 1999)
which is tied to confidence. Think-pair-share is a cooperative learning technique which
involves
3
presenting students with a task or question and giving them time to think by individually.
Then
in pairs, they report their individual findings, discuss their own thoughts and then refine their
individual work if they see fit in order to come up with a consensus on the question or task.
Then after pairs have had time to discuss, the class reconvenes and members of the different
pairs share their thoughts with the class. Think-pair-share encourages student participation in
discussing and promotes forming and critiquing arguments both in small and large groups. In
the
study described in this paper, I will be incorporating think-pair-share into my teaching in
order to
discover whether or not the cooperative learning strategy, think-pair-share will increase
students’
confidence in their abilities to do mathematics and their willingness to participate in
mathematical whole class discussions.
Literature Review
Incorporating the think-pair-share strategy into the classroom can have many beneficial
effects. Think-pair-share is a cooperative learning technique. Cooperative learning has been
extensively studied and has been shown to have many benefits for learners (Lujan & DiCarlo,
2006); (Cortright et al., 2005); (Goodwin, 2005); (Reinhart, 2000). Also, using think-pair-
share
inherently increases wait time after students are posed with a question or task (McTighe &
Lyman, 1988). This allows more time for students to think, and has been shown to get more
students involved in discussion and improve the quality of student responses (Rowe, 1972).
Think-pair-share is also very useful to teachers because it can be used as a valuable form of
formative assessment (Cooper & Robinson, 2000).
In order for meaningful learning to occur, students must interpret, relate, and incorporate
new information with students’ existing knowledge and experiences (Cortright et al., 2005).
Students must actively process information in order to learn (Lujan & DiCarlo, 2006). Direct
4
instruction and other teacher to student interactions do not always allow students these
opportunities. Cooperative learning allows students the opportunity to work together to build
a
meaningful understanding of class material. Cooperative learning involves students working
in
small groups towards a common goal in order to increase their own and other students’
understanding (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Cooperative learning allows students to process
new
information and, through discussion and peer to peer interaction, assign meaning to what is
being
learned (Lujan & DiCarlo, 2006).
There are five key components of cooperative learning defined by David Johnson and
Roger Johnson (1999). The first is positive interdependence. This means that students will
have
two main goals in cooperative learning: to learn and to make sure their other group members
learn. When the positive interdependence is established, students understand that their
individual
success rests on the success of their group members. Also, students will recognize that every
student is needed and presents valuable resources and perspectives, so every group member’s
participation and engagement is essential (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).
The next aspect of cooperative learning is face-to-face promotive interaction. This means
students encourage each other, assisting each other, challenge each others’ conclusions to
promote thought and discussion, give feedback to others, and motivate each other to strive
toward achieving mutual goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Another aspect of cooperative
learning is individual accountability and personal responsibility. This means that each student
is
responsible for his or her individual learning and that they are accountable to their group for
their
efforts towards achieving group goals. Individual accountability and personal responsibility
ensures that each student is ultimately responsible for him or herself and prevents students
from
5
avoiding work and allowing other group members to take more than their share of the group
work (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).
The fourth aspect of cooperative learning is the use of interpersonal and small group
skills. This means that students must be able to effectively communicate with each other and
constructively resolve conflict (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). The final aspect is group
processing
in which group members determine what is successful or what should be changed within the
group (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). These five aspects have been shown to allow cooperative
learning to be more beneficial than other types of learning, namely competitive and
individualistic learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).
Research has shown that cooperative learning increases students’ understanding and
ability to integrate and synthesize new material (Lujan & DiCarlo, 2005). Cooperative
learning
has also been shown to increase academic achievement, positive social skills, and self-esteem
(Goodwin, 1999). Also, cooperative learning has been shown to aid critical thinking,
problemsolving,
and decision-making skills (Cortright et al., 2005). Action research has also concluded
that cooperative learning, and specifically the think-pair-share strategy, increased student
participation in large group discussions. The think-pair-strategy is one way to incorporate
cooperative learning into a classroom in order to give students the opportunity to actively
process
and develop a meaningful understanding of class material.
One middle school math teacher, Steven C. Reinhart, conducted his own study of his
classes over a number of years, trying to improve his teaching by using a problem-based,
student-centered approach and incorporating more cooperative learning techniques (2000).
He
did this because he noticed many of his students did not understand concepts he thought he
had
taught well with direct instruction. He decided to do what he could to allow students the
6
opportunity to process information and explain their ideas. One technique he often used was
think-pair-share. He found that in his classroom, think-pair-share helped to improve class
discussions more than any other technique he incorporated into his teaching. He noticed that
this
technique, by first allowing students time to think individually, increased individual
accountability and personal responsibility for learning and participation in class compared to
starting out in a group, which is one vital aspect of successful cooperative learning. He also
noticed that students were more willing to share ideas with the whole class when the
responsibility for the response was shared with the partner. He concluded that by using
thinkpair-
share and other cooperative learning strategies, he gave students the chance to develop
deeper understanding of class material, and he was able to better see what his students
understood.
Another study conducted by Ronald N. Cortright, Heidi L. Collins, and Stephen E.
DiCarlo used a technique similar to think-pair-share which they called peer instruction
(2005).
They divided an undergraduate exercise physiology class into two heterogeneous groups,
group
A and group B. Each of the classes consisted of three presentations and after each the
students
were given a short quiz about the presentation. Students in group A could discuss the
questions
with a group of 2 to 3 other students and students in group B completed the quiz on their
own.
Later in the course, the quiz questions involved novel situations. Students had to incorporate
the
new knowledge from the presentation and their existing knowledge to solve these problems.
In
addition to the quizzes, students also took a survey about their experiences. The performance
on
both types of quizzes was significantly greater for those who discussed with peers. Also,
students reported that cooperation with peers facilitated their learning. In addition, student
reported that they enjoyed peer instruction and peer instruction helped to develop positive
7
relationships between students and faculty and among students. Also, Cortright, Collins, and
Dicarlo concluded that the cooperative learning technique of peer instruction led to transfer,
allowing students to apply what they have learned to new contexts. Hence this cooperative
learning technique led to meaningful learning.
In addition to being supported by research, cooperative learning and the cooperative
learning technique, think-pair-share, is also supported by educational theory. Bandura’s
social
cognitive theory is rooted in the idea that there is a triarchic reciprocal causality between
behaviors, personal factors, and environmental factors (Bandura, 1989). Behaviors; personal
factors like, cognition, goals, and self-efficacy; and environmental factors, like models,
instruction, and feedback given to a student all affect one another (Woolfolk, 2011). In other
words, if students are paired together, they will be able to discuss each student’s thought
process.
One student may get helpful feedback from his peer or one student may provide an
appropriate
model for the other student (environmental factors). That student would then have a better
understanding of the topic (personal factor). This increase in his understanding may help him
want to volunteer a response in class (behavior). He may then gain a mastery experience by
receiving recognition of his accomplishment and his helpful addition to class dialogue from
his
teacher and peers (environmental factor). This mastery experience may help to build the
student’s sense of self-efficacy so he feels he is more able to successfully contribute to class
discussion and succeed in the course. Cooperative learning allows students to receive more
feedback from their peers. It allows them to gain mastery experiences and vicarious
experiences
that help to build self-efficacy, or a student’s belief in their ability to bring about a desired
effect
(Woolfolk, 2011). It may provide students with helpful models which would help their
understanding which would in turn help them to have a higher self-efficacy and perhaps set
8
higher goals. These higher goals and the student’s self efficacy would in turn help motivate
the
student to succeed in the future. There are so many positive aspects to the cooperative
learning
technique think-pair-share that could allow for the positive momentum in this system of
triarchic
reciprocal determinism.
There are also other beneficial aspects to the think-pair-share strategy in addition to peer
cooperation. Think-pair-share also allows students wait time (McTighe & Lyman, 1988).
There
are two different types of wait time. The wait time 1 is the time spent after a teacher’s
question
and wait time 2 occurs after a student speaks (Rowe, 1972). Think-pair-share allows for the
wait
time 1 because students are all given that time to think to themselves in silence before they
begin
to discuss. Think-pair-share can also allow for wait time 2, depending on how students react
to
each other in discussion and how long the teacher waits before responding to a student’s
comment (McTighe & Lyman, 1988). Mary Budd Rowe conducted a study of wait time in
elementary science programs over five years. The study concluded that allowing three or
more
seconds for the wait time 1 decreased the number of times students failed to respond or
responded that they did not know. Also, prolonging wait time 2 was shown to increase the
length of student responses and increase the number of unsolicited but appropriate student
responses. Both types of wait time were shown to increase the number of students
participating
in class discussion, increase the instance of speculative thinking based on evidence, and
increase
the number of questions asked by students (Rowe, 1972).
In addition to the benefits gained through cooperative learning and increased wait time,
the aspect of formative assessment that the think-pair-share strategy provides is valuable to
the
learning process. Using think-pair-share allows the teacher to gain insight into the quality of
student understanding (Cooper & Robinson, 2000). When teachers are able to gauge their
9
students’ understanding, they can use this information to alter their instruction in a way that
would be more beneficial to learners (Boston, 2002). Informal formative assessment
describes
the process of teachers gaining new information about student understanding and using that
information to immediately shape the instruction in order to better facilitate student learning
(Ruiz-Primo, 2011). Informal formative assessment can occur the during student-teacher or
student-student interaction (Ruiz-Primo, 2011) that takes place during think-pair-share. These
interactions allow teachers the opportunity to observe students’ thinking through their
explanations and dialog. According to Maria Araceli Ruiz-Primo, effective assessment
conversations are guided by learning goals, include a wide range of students, and allow
students
to comment on each other’s responses and argue and support their claims with evidence
(2011).
Since a think-pair-share session is always initiated to discuss a specific problem or idea, it
should
always also be guided by the learning goal associated with the particular question or idea.
Also,
think-pair-share allows the opportunity for teachers to hear a wide range of students by
circulating during the pairing stage and in class discussion. In addition, the increased wait
time
aspect of think-pair-share has been shown to increase the number of students participating in
class discussion and would increase discussion based on evidence (Rowe, 1972), so these
important aspects of effective informal formative assessment are built into the think-pair-
share
strategy.
The think-pair-share technique is a combination of many beneficial classroom practices.
It inherently allows for an increase in wait time 1. Therefore, by Rowe’s findings (1972), it is
likely that think-pair-share will increase the number of students participating in whole class
discussion and increase discussion based on evidence. Other cooperative learning techniques
have been shown to increase students’ self-esteem (Goodwin, 1999). In addition, action
research
10
has shown that think-pair-share does increase student participation in class discussions
(Reinhart,
2000). For these reasons, it is my hypothesis that think-pair-share will increase student
participation in class discussion as well as students’ confidence in their mathematics abilities.
I
will test this hypothesis for the students in my student teaching class.
Methodology
In order to study think-pair-share and the effect it has on students, I will give the students
a pre-survey to measure how often they believe they participate in class, how they feel about
participating in class discussion, and their confidence in their mathematics abilities. I will
also
give the same survey as a post-survey. This will give me an idea of how students feel about
their
math abilities and participating in math discussion. This will also help me to get a picture of
the
students’ confidence in their math abilities and willingness to participate both before and
after
incorporating think-pair-share regularly. This will help me to see if think-pair-share had an
effect
on their confidence and willingness to participate in discussion.
I will also video record one week of teaching in which I do not use the think-pair-share
technique and one week in which I incorporate the technique into instruction. While
reviewing
the field tapes I will note who participates and how often. I will note when each student poses
a
question (Q), gives a long explanation (L), gives a quick answer (A), or gives an inflected
response (I).
The observations before using think-pair-share will give me a base-line of the student
participation in the particular class. This will help me to see who dominates discussion, who
avoids participation, and what type of comments and questions are given during class
discussion.
This will help me to compare class discussion before and after the use of think-pair-share.
The results of the pre-survey and post-survey suggest that think-pair-share had a positive
impact on students’ views about participating in discussion in math class. Every question
showed an improvement in the post-survey compared to the pre-survey. The surveys’ results
suggest that students believe using the think-pair-share technique contributes to more student
participation. Students also indicated that they enjoyed participating more in class discussion
when using the think-pair-share technique. Students’ comfort when contributing to class
discussion was also improved. Students’ confidence in their mathematics abilities and their
confidence in their ability to contribute to discussion were positively affected, but only a very
small number of students noted an improvement in these areas.
In the first week of the study in which think-pair-share was not used, the mean average
number of student comments was 23.75 and the average number of long explanations was
3.75.
The second week while using think-pair-share the average number of student comments was
28.25 and the average number of long explanations was 7. This data suggests that using
think13
pair-share facilitates increased student participation in class discussion and increases the
quality
of student responses. Therefore my hypothesis was supported by the data collected.
Conclusion
From this study, I have gathered that using think-pair-share in my classroom allowed me
to increase the amount that students participated in class discussion, increase the number of
long
explanations students gave, and increase their comfort when sharing their thoughts and ideas.
By increasing student participation in class discussion and by increasing students’ long
explanations, students are communicating their thinking more to myself and other students.
This
has many benefits including providing the opportunity for students to learn from each other,
practice using and developing their mathematics vocabulary, practice using mathematical
reasoning skills, and providing me with a form of formative assessment. Using this technique
also seemed to help a few students increase their confidence in their mathematics abilities and
ability to contribute in class discussion. These results reinforce my decision to use think-
pairshare
in my instruction and I will continue to use this cooperative learning technique.
Although I did get very positive results, this may only be due in part to using think-pairshare.
Many students expressed to me that the content we covered while we were not using
think-pair-share was more challenging for them. While not using think-pair-share, the class
was
studying how to simplify exponential expressions. The students studied exponential
expressions
and used repeated multiplication to define rules to follow when simplifying exponential
expressions. While using the think-pair-share technique students studied exponential
functions
and got to do some more interesting applications of exponential growth and exponential
decay
and geometric sequences. Many students enjoyed the later content more and even commented
14
that they felt it was easier than simplifying exponential expressions. The students’
assessments
also suggested that the students found simplifying exponential expressions to be more
difficult.
This difference in difficulty for students could lead to students feeling more comfortable
and confident with the content they enjoy more and that is easier for them to understand.
Also, if
students understand the content more they may be more willing to contribute to discussion,
and
they may have a greater ability to give long explanations. Therefore, this difference in content
was a limitation of this study.
In the future, I would like to collect data for a longer period of time in order to gain more
meaningful and representative results. I would like to study students’ participation and
confidence during different units so that I can determine whether the content is playing a
significant role in the results. However, reviewing hours of video was very time consuming,
and
I do not think that this would be very practical for a longer study. I would like to develop a
color-coded chart so that each comment type has a color and each student would have a box
of
every color. That way I could very quickly make tally marks during instruction. This would
allow me to conduct a longer and more thorough study.
15
Bibliography
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. Annals of child development, 6. 1-60.
Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
In this paper, Bandura further expounds upon his Social Cognitive Theory. The
paper deals with many aspects of the theory including triarchic reciprocal causality and
self-efficacy.
Boston, C. (2002). Cleaning house on assessment and evaluation. The concepts of formative
assessment. ERIC Digest.
This source focuses on the benefits of formative instruction and how it can be
implemented. Boston explains the importance of teacher observation, use of questioning,
and incorporation of classroom discussion as ways to obtain data about student learning.
Cooper, J. L. & Robinson, P. (2002). Getting started: Informal small-group strategies in large
classes. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (81), 17.
Cooper and Robinson discuss several ways to incorporate small group strategies
into large classes. These include using addressing a launch question in groups, stopping
to work with others for comprehension checks, and specifically, using think-pair-share.
16
Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L. & DiCarlo, S. E. (2005). Peer instruction enhanced
meaningful
learning: Ability to solve novel problems. Advances in Physiology Education, 29(2), 107-
111.
This study examined the effectiveness of peer instruction, one cooperative
learning technique. The study was conducted in an undergraduate class. Their research
showed a significant improvement in students’ mastery of material and ability to solve
novel problems following peer instruction.
Goodwin, M. W. (1999). Cooperative learning and social skills: What skills to teach and how
to
teach them. Intervention in School & Clinic, 35(1), 29.
Goodwin links the use of cooperative learning techniques to the teaching of and
students’ acquisition of social skills. The article includes gives research-supported
techniques and summarizes the benefits including improvements in students’ self-esteem
and academic performance.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into
Practice, 38(2), 67-73.
This source gives an overview of cooperative learning. Johnson and Johnson
review and summarize research about cooperative learning. It includes an explanation of
cooperative learning and how it differs from group work, summarizes the basic elements
of cooperative learning, and gives examples of types of cooperative learning techniques
and their uses.
17
Lujan, H., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2005). Too much teaching, not enough learning: what is the
solution?. Advances in Physiology Education, 30(1), 17-22.
This article provides a review of literature about how to increase meaningful
student learning. It centers around the fact that active processing of information, and not
memorization, leads to meaningful learning. Several research backed curricular changes
that lead to meaningful learning are included.
McTighe, J., & Lyman JR., F. T. (1988). Cueing thinking in the classroom: The promise of
theory-embedded tools. Educational Leadership, 45(7), 18.
This source gives an explanation of effective instructional techniques. Thinkpair-
share is included as one of the featured techniques. Research is sited to support the
use of these techniques.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers (2010). Common core state standards. Washington D.C.: National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
These Standards define the educational objectives for students in forty-eight
states. These standards help to standardize education across the country. They focus not
only on content but on problem-solving and reasoning skills.
18
Reinhart, S.C. (2002). Never say anything a kid can say!. Mathematics teaching in the middle
school, 5(8), 478.
Reinhart explains the trouble he had with direct instruction and how to improve
student achievement by getting students to explain their reasoning and become actively
involved in class. He gives tips to follow in order to create an environment in which
students are willing and feel comfortable to share their thoughts. One of his
recommendations is the incorporation of think-pair-share.
Rowe, M. (1972). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables: Their influence on
language, logic, and fate control.
This paper summarizes a study of the effects of wait-time conducted over five
years. Evidence collected showed that increasing wait-time improved student responses
in quality and frequency. It also shows that teachers become more flexible and develop
higher expectations for lower achieving students.
Ruiz-Primo, M. (2011). Informal formative assessment: The role of instructional dialogues in
assessing students’ learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 15-24.
This article reviews and summarizes research about informal formative
assessment conducted through observing student dialogue. Ruiz-Primo discusses how
instructional dialogues can easily also be assessment conversations. She describes the
usefulness of these conversations as well as some strategies to employ.
19
Woolfolk, A. (2011). Educational psychology: Active Learning Edition, 11th ed. Boston:
Allyn &
Bacon.
This textbook gives an overview of many aspects of educational psychology.
This includes child and adolescent psychological development, best teaching practices
based on child and adolescent development, psychology of motivation, and other aspects
of education psychology.
Issues in Educational Research, 26(2), 2016 260

Informal cooperative learning in small groups: The effect
of scaffolding on participation
Christopher Lange
Joongbu University, South Korea
Jamie Costley and Seung Lock Han
Kongju National University, South Korea
Cooperative learning (CL) involves group members making individual contributions in

order to maximise learning and achieve a common goal for the group (Johnson, Johnson
& Smith, 2014). Within the CL context, an individual group member’s success is
contingent on the success of the group as a whole, and is carried out through individual
responsibility, positive interdependence, and individual contribution (Bolukbas, Keskin &
Polat 2011; Johnson, et al., 2014; Korkmaz, 2012; Huang, Hsiao, Chang & Hu, 2012). In
order for students to practice group cohesion, teachers need to create a learner-centred
environment where students feel comfortable interacting with other group members
without any perceived threats associated with the interaction (Ning, 2011). Connected
with these ideas, Johnson and Johnson (1994) have claimed the following are key of CL:
positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, individual accountability,
social skills, and group processing.
Important objectives of any educational experience include the enhancement of student
participation, learning, and satisfaction. CL consists of group work that, when properly
structured by an instructor, encourages deeper learning, interdependence and individual
accountability (Ali, 2011; Johnson, et al., 2014). Past literature on the use of CL has
focused on the importance of participation in groups, which can be useful for learning,
acquiring knowledge and information retention (Janssen, 2007; Johnson, Johnson &
Smith, 2014; Tran, 2012). These outcomes are specifically desirable for English students in
higher education, as studies have shown the advantage of using group work to enhance
Lange, Costley & Han 261
learning in that area. In a class where the main objective is to gain proficiency in a second
language such as English, CL allows students to make use of the target language to
enhance their speaking ability, and also to enhance interaction among group members.
This helps learners to make sense of the learning situation (Gömleksiz, 2007; Tsay &
Brady, 2012). Furthermore, Bolukbas, et al. (2011) state that using CL for English
language students makes their language use more meaningful and increases acquisition.
Recently, there has been an increasing demand for use of CL group work within university
classes, highlighting its importance in research involving students in higher education
(Herrmann, 2013; Johnson, et al., 2014).
Participation among group members has been linked to an increase in learning and
satisfaction (Zhu, 2012). Various ways of looking at participation within group work have
been discussed in past research. They involve total participation of the group as a whole,
greater equality of participation among the group members, and the amount of
participation that occurs each time a group member speaks, all of which have been shown
to affect the learning process (Core, Moore, & Zinn, 2003; Webb, 1995; Warschauer,
1995; Zhu, 2012). For the purposes of this paper, total participation refers to the total
word production of the group and greater equality refers to how evenly distributed the
students’ word production is. Turn-taking refers to the amount of words used each time a
group member speaks.
Ways of measuring the effectiveness of learning include perceived learning and student
satisfaction (Huang, et al., 2012). There has been a shift within research to look at learning
through the measurement or students’ self-reported levels of learning instead of grades
because outcomes such as grades are not true representations of learning within a specific
course, as students’ prior knowledge contribute to the grades they receive (Rovai &
Barnum, 2007). Perceived learning is defined as the recognition by students that they have
achieved understanding and acquired new knowledge of specific content (Casbi & Blau,
2008). Perceived learning has also been linked to student satisfaction of the learning
experience (Richardson & Swan, 2003).
One possible way of promoting these outcomes is through the scaffolding process that
occurs within the implementation of specific CL techniques. For the purposes of this
study, the two techniques that are examined are Numbered Heads Together (NH) and
Think-Pair-Share (TPS). Within each of these techniques, scaffolding is represented by
specific procedural steps designed to provide support to group members leading up to
group discussion, at which point the support is removed so students can construct their
own knowledge (Kordaki & Sempos, 2009). It is worth examining whether the additional
procedural scaffolding within TPS affects student participation. I will be useful for
designing instruction that will further enhance desired learning outcomes in CL group
work.
262 Informal cooperative learning in small groups: The effect of scaffolding on participation
Theoretical background
CL group work scaffolding
Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1998) have discussed different types of CL group work and
how it can be divided into differing structural categories that include formal CL and
informal CL. Formal CL involves group work that generally takes place over several
sessions of a class, while informal CL involves the creation of small, ad-hoc groups so
students can work together for shorter periods of time, usually one lesson (Johnson et al,
2014; Smith, Douglas & Cox, 2009). A variety of techniques comprise informal CL group
work, including NH and TPS, which contain levels of scaffolding to support the students
in their construction of knowledge (Karge, Phillips, Jessee, & McCabe, 2011).
Scaffolding can be viewed as an instructional method where teachers provide temporary
guidance or support when introducing new content or explaining assignments through
procedural steps (Cooper & Robinson, 2014). Based on the ideas of Vygotsky (1978),
scaffolding operates on the premise that the support of the teacher leads the students to
become independent learners, once that support is removed. Support can also be
provided through what is known as procedural guideline scaffolding that helps with
complex and unfamiliar tasks (Johnston & Cooper, 1999). Procedural guideline
scaffolding is provided by breaking tasks down into individual and sequential steps so
students get to a point where they can take over the task without any further support from
the instructor. This type of scaffolding is evident in both NH and TPS.
NH was created to promote individual accountability and positive interdependence in
order to ensure greater participation among students (Kagan, 1989). The goals of NH
include involving the entire class in discussion, increasing group teaching through
coaching among group members, increasing group morale and satisfaction, and providing
all group members sufficient support to accomplish the task (Kordaki & Siempos, 2009).
The procedural guideline scaffolds in NH include the instructor presenting students with a
question, students being put into groups so they can discuss the question and produce a
final answer as a group, and having one student explain the group’s answer (Kagan, 1989).
TPS was created to promote active student involvement in their lessons(Lyman, 1981).
Goals of TPS include increasing the quality of student responses, actively involving the
students in the thinking process when preparing for discussion, and promoting retention
of critical information (Kordaki & Siempos, 2009). Advantages of TPS include increasing
motivation and engagement of students through personal interaction, as well as the
participation of students who are generally reluctant to do so (Kordaki & Sempos, 2009).
The procedural guideline scaffolding of TPS includes the instructor giving the students a
question to discuss, students individually thinking about how they will answer the
question, students taking notes based on their thoughts, students exchanging ideas with
other members in their group, students noting the similarities and differences between
group members’ ideas, students creating a final answer that incorporates the best ideas of
the group, and the group presenting their ideas to the class (Lyman, 1981; Johnson,
Johnson, & Smith, 1991).
The present study examines the use of scaffolding with both the TPS and NH techniques.
CL group work involving NH and TPS are heavily focused on structural scaffolding as
opposed to content, which the students provide in their discussions, once the scaffold is
removed (Kordaki & Siempos, 2009). Scaffolding is provided with NH through group
discussion and coaching, holding them accountable for their share of the work once the
scaffold is removed and one member must present the ideas to the class (Kordaki and
Siempos, 2009). Scaffolding helps to enhance the discussion phase of TPS through the
initial procedural scaffold by allowing the students to feel confident in sharing their ideas
with their group members (Fisher, Brozo, Frey, & Ivey, 2007). A description of the
scaffolding used in this study can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1: Procedural scaffolding of the techniques
Technique Procedural structure
NH Step 1: The group is given a question to discuss
Step 2: The group discusses question and produces a final answer
Step 3: A group representative explains the answer to the entire class
TPS Step 1: Students are given a question to discuss
Step 2: Students individually think about how to answer the question
Step 3: Students take notes based on their thoughts
Step 4: Students get into groups and share their ideas
Step 5: Similarities and differences are noted between group members
Step 6: A final answer is created incorporating the group’s best ideas
Step 7: A group representative explains the answer to the entire class
Participation in groups
The roots of the theoretical benefits of participation are evident in the ideas of Dewey and
Vygotsky. Dewey (1916) claimed that knowledge can be tied to participation through
experiences and that participation in itself is a form of knowledge. He also claimed that
participation becomes evident when experience is shared through the process of
communication with others. Vygotsky (1978) believed that participation plays a significant
role in socialising the learner. He promoted guided participation, where children could
learn through participation with adults or those who were more experienced (Vygotsky,
1978). Knowledge, therefore, can be socially constructed by the learner through
participatory interaction with others.
The ideas of Dewey and Vygotsky lay down the theoretical foundation for today’s
understanding of the importance of participation within group work. Generally, group
work participation is defined as the active communication and student cooperation that is
taking place during structured tasks (Bouton & Garth, 1983; Smith & Macgregor, 1992).
Empirical evidence suggests that participation in groups actually aids the learning process,
as research has shown that greater learning takes place when more words are being
spoken by group members (Core, et al., 2003). Additionally, within informal CL group
work, it has been shown that student achievement levels increase the more actively they
participate (Tsay & Brady, 2010).
Participation equality in group work is important because it means every member has an
equal opportunity to contribute to the process and construct their own knowledge
(Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Webb, 1995). One problem with a lack of equality of
participation is the idea that when students are not participating equally, a greater chance
exists of “social loafing”, where one or more students rely on the rest of the group to
carry them. These students who don’t participate are often called “free riders” who
contribute little or nothing to the group(Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Onwuegbuzie, Collins,
and Jiao, 2009). Also, when some group members are participating at a disproportionately
greater rate, this can keep the other group members from having a fair chance at
participating, preventing them from engaging with the learning contents fully (Kagen,
1994).
Participation through turn-taking is evident, as student utterances are produced through
successive steps that are represented as turns (McKinlay, Procter, Masting, Woodburn &
Arnott, 1993). McKinlay, et.al, (1993) discuss how each turn taken by one student is
affected by what a different student says in a previous turn. Empirical research involving
the amount of words used per turn has occurred within blended learning, showing more
words per turn being used online, promoting the use of online interaction to support
further participation in subsequent face-to-face discussions (Warschauer, 1995). However,
a lack of sufficient research exists that examines turn-taking within informal cooperative
learning group work.
Effects of scaffolding on participation
Linking participation with scaffolding has been the focus of research in the past.
Specifically, scaffolding involving university students within a second language learning
context has received attention. Scaffolding is particularly useful in this context, as it helps
those who find it difficult to verbally express themselves in the target language (Heinonen
& Lennartson-Hokkanen, 2015). Within this context, Heinonen and Lenn-Hokkanen
(2015) sought to increase participation by developing scaffolding strategies based on
Donato’s (2010) definition of scaffolding, which states that teachers scaffold the learning
experience by shaping the discussion to achieve goals of specific tasks and to activate the
background knowledge of students. Furthermore, using open-ended and follow-up
questions can lead to more “substantial and elaborate” answers from the students
(Heinonen & Lennartson-Hokkanen, 2015).
Scaffolding for the purposes of increasing participation has also been used in a mobile
learning context. In an effort to help students reach their learning target through
scaffolded stages, Abdullah, Hussin and Zakaria (2013) modified Salmon’s (2000) fivestage
scaffolding model for use among university language learners to guide them through
technical support as a means to increase participation and promote group discussions.
Based on Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development, the model was used as
supportive scaffolding designed to aid students in learning beyond what their abilities
would allow them to do on their own in order to reach a higher level of knowledge.
Results of the study supported the use of scaffolding to increase participation, as higher
levels of participation were found among the students as they progressed through the
scaffolding stages.
CL group work compared to other instructional methods
Although scaffolding of CL group work may lead to a positive experience in terms of
participation, it is worth investigating whether CL is more effective than other
instructional methods in terms of other learning outcomes. CL group work has been
shown to have advantages over other instructional methods, specifically when it comes to
promoting learning and satisfaction. Carlsmith and Cooper (2002) claim that CL group
work is more effective than traditional forms of instruction because students work harder
and learn more. Johnson et al. (2014) performed a meta-analysis of more than 168 studies
involving university students, showing that CL group work is more effective in promoting
higher achievement than individual or competitive learning, with achievement being
equated with knowledge acquisition, retention, accuracy, and higher level reasoning.
Academic achievement has also been found to benefit from CL group work within online
environments as well, highlighting the importance of promoting such group work
regardless of the environment (Bolukbas, et al., 2011). Increasing other aspects of learning
such as student retention has been the focus of past research, and studies have shown that
informal CL group work is effective in this area when compared to lecture-based teaching
(Tran, 2012). Informal CL group work is ideal for promoting student learning, as Carss
(2007) claims it promotes critical thinking and knowledge construction by combining
cognitive and social aspects of the learning process. In terms of satisfaction, social support
provided through CL group work helps in the development of positive relationships
among group members and leads to higher levels of satisfaction (Slavin, 2011; Woods &
Chen, 2011).
Research has shown that CL group work increases levels of learning and satisfaction. For
this reason there is value in understanding if scaffolding affects learning and satisfaction in
informal group work settings. The TPS-technique develops comprehension and
metacognitive awareness and is promotes meaningful interaction through the scaffolding
process (Carss, 2007). Providing empirical evidence of such meaningful interaction,
Casem (2013) showed that when TPS was used as scaffolding, there was greater retention
among research participants. In terms of satisfaction, scaffolding that takes place within
online environments has been shown to result in higher levels of satisfaction among
learners (Zheng, Cao, Das & Yin, 2014).
The current study
This study attempts to gain much needed empirical evidence to show a link between
procedural scaffolding and participation. One problem with extant research is that there is
a lack of focus on scaffolding of informal CL techniques in order to promote interaction,
specifically participation. The goal of this study is to find out if higher levels of procedural
scaffolding lead to elevated levels of participation. In order to differentiate levels of
procedural scaffolding, two informal CL techniques are used: a low-scaffolded NH
technique and a high-scaffolded TPS technique. This study compares the following
between various techniques: the amount of participation of the group as a whole, the
equality of participation among members, and the amount of student participation per
turn taken. Additionally, student perceptions are examined in terms of satisfaction and
learning when comparing group work to other instructional methods. This study also
examines student perceptions of learning and satisfaction when comparing the TPS and
the NH techniques.
The pilot study of the current experiment examined participation output based on
procedural structure of informal CL techniques (Lange & Costley, 2014). Specifically, TPS
was compared with NH and Jigsaw techniques. The results showed a difference of words
per turn used favouring the TPS technique, but the differences of the other two
dependent variables were not significant (p> .05). A limitation of the pilot study is that
there were a limited number of treatments given and there was no consistency in the
group makeup. The current study however, should prove to be more reliable because
more treatments were involved and the same groups consisting of the same members
were used throughout the six week experiment.
Discussion
Acknowledging the importance of participation within a higher education second language
setting, it is important to explore ways in which participation levels can be increased, as
well as ways of promoting greater equality of participation within group work. Scaffolding
group work may be a way in which participation can be promoted, as well as a way of
creating a better overall learning environment for the students. The results of this study
are useful for instructors, as they showed that scaffolding of informal cooperative learning
group work had an effect of participation as well as student perceptions of the learning
environment.
Based on the results, there appeared to be no difference between techniques in regards to
total word production in groups. While using TPS, greater participation can possibly be
accounted for because group members use the time afforded to them in order to prepare
their answers, which would give them more information to contribute to the work of the
group (Lyman, 1981). But the results of this study show no significant difference
favouring the TPS over NH in this regard. Because the NH students did not have time to
think about their answers beforehand, it is possible that there was more of a need to
construct their answers with each other during the group work, which may have produced
similar total-participation levels as the TPS technique.
The results showed that TPS contained more equal participation among group members
than NH. Equality of participation is important, and instructors need to find ways to
structure group work that can produce equal levels of participation (Johnson & Johnson,
1994; Webb, 1995; Onwuegbuzie, et al., 2009). Because TPS contains more procedural
scaffolding than NH, the students may have become more actively involved while using
TPS due to the additional steps taken. Thinking about answers beforehand allows students
to become more active in the group work and produce more detailed answers (Rowe,
1986). The additional steps could help produce a more equal outcome in terms of
participation because each student obtained more detailed, shareable information based
on thinking about their answers prior to discussion. Students, who may have otherwise
contributed a minimal amount of information, had more detailed information to
contribute based on being able to think beforehand. Their contributions to the group
could have levelled out the participation, as those who typically would dominate the
conversation had to share more participation time with other members who had more to
contribute due to prior preparation.
Results also showed that TPS favoured NH in regards to the amount of words spoken per
turn. Rowe (1986) explains that giving time to students to think about their answers
beforehand provides longer answers to questions posed by the instructor. Therefore,
students who are prepared to discuss a topic after reflection and note taking can
contribute more detailed answers through longer sequences of words. Mckinlay, et al.
(1993) emphasise the fact that a turn taken by a particular student is affected by what was
said in the previous turn taken by another student. Therefore, more information being
presented at a single time potentially has greater effects on what will be said in the
following turn by another student, further promoting more participation. This can also
lead to a greater construction of knowledge by the students, as a greater amount of words
per turn produces more information for each student to respond to each time.
The results of student perception in this study are quite telling when it comes to the
learning experiences obtained through group work. The fact that the participants generally
favoured the CL group work over other instructional methods in the class is supported by
past research (Bolukbas, 2011; Huang, et al., 2014; Johnson, et al., 2014; Karkmaz, 2012;
Tran, 2012). Reflecting the context of this study, keeping students actively engaged has
been shown to be an effective approach within L2 university classrooms, as it allows
students to make better use of the target language (Gömleksiz, 2007; Tsay & Brady, 2012).
This may have led to the participants having a preference for CL group work, as its usage
has been found to be particularly effective in an L2 setting. Additionally, the participants
in this study generally perceived higher levels of learning and satisfaction when using TPS,
which contained more procedural scaffolding compared to NH. This makes sense in light
of research showing that scaffolding has led to higher levels of learning and satisfaction
among group work participants (Zheng, et al., 2014). Scaffolding within CL group work
has been tied to greater retention, creating a more meaningful experience for students
(Carss, 2007; Casem, 2013). Knowing that promoting learning and creating a better
learning environment has been tied to higher levels of satisfaction (Richardson & Swan,
2003), it is not surprising that students were more satisfied with TPS, due to its reputation
of promoting learning through highly structured procedural scaffolding. Furthermore, the
fact that TPS was more effective in promoting greater equality of participation may have
contributed to the participants being more satisfied with the technique, as they also
showed that they prefer group work that promotes equal participation.
Reflecting on the theoretical roots of participation, deeper pedagogical implications can be
made in regards to the results of this experiment. One way in which knowledge is
constructed within group work is through group members being actively involved in the
learning process (Johnson, et al., 2014). The additional procedural scaffolding within TPS
greatly reduces the chance that a group member will passively observe other members.
Thinking and taking notes beforehand in itself contributes to active involvement. In
addition, it provides group members with self-organised, sharable information, which
reduces the chance of passively observing during the group discussion. It is possible that
this contributed to the results of this study that favoured TPS over NH in terms of
participation equality and number of words produced per turn.
Referring to thinking as inner speech or internalisation, Vygotsky (1978) explained that it
occurs as a learner regulates his or her activity through thoughts. He described the process
of practical activity being constructed into meaning through internalisation, which in turn
is connected by speech to the external world of the child. When one analyses the
procedural scaffolding of the TPS technique, the ideas of Vygotsky become relevant and
help explain how this particular technique is conducive for the construction of knowledge.
The additional steps in the TPS technique reflect the learner’s discourse, as the students
are left to think about their answers individually. Their thoughts are then connected to the
“external world”, in this case to the other members of the group, in order to construct
further meaning through participation. Kozulin (1999) details Vygotsky’s ideas on inner
speech, explaining that “inner speech” can be used not only for reviewing past events, but
for preparing for future conversations as well. Holding to the belief that inner speech can
prepare a learner for future conversations provides further insight to TPS and how it
allows for thought to play a key role in the construction of knowledge. Having the
students think about their answers individually beforehand represents a way of preparing
future contributions to the work of the group, allowing for more construction of
knowledge through participation within the group work, and further leading to a more
satisfying learning experience.
Conclusion and limitations
Unlike previous research on group work, this study connects participation with procedural
scaffolding of informal cooperative learning techniques. The results show informal CL
group work used in an English Education university course produced more equal
participation and more words spoken in sequences when a technique containing more
procedural scaffolding was used. It is apparent, based on the theoretical framework of
participation, that the additional procedural steps used in the TPS technique are more
beneficial to the construction of knowledge by the learner than if the NH technique is
used. This proves to be valuable for instructors who wish to enhance the learning process,
particularly in a second language, higher education setting. Its value is evident in the fact
that the students perceived both CL group work in general and TPS specifically as being
beneficial to learning and satisfaction.
Although many important pedagogical implications can be made through the results of
this study, there are some limitations. Acknowledging that the course used in this study
contained an online element and that online learning often compliments face-to-face
instruction, it would be useful to examine the relationship between the two settings, and
its effect on outcomes examined in this study. Also, this study focuses strictly on
participation through word production. Although word production is important, it can be
argued that the actual ideas that students contribute to the group are equally as important.
Critical thinking responses through participation, for example, appear to enhance the
construction of knowledge by the students. Acknowledging that what is actually being said
by students when they participate is also important, suggestions for further research
include ways in which to promote more useful forms of participation in group work
through structure. Further analyses of the group work transcripts in regards to the quality
and nature of the discourse and its relationship with participation is a fruitful area for
further research.
References
Abdullah, M. R. T. L., Hussin, Z., Asra & Zakaria, A. R. (2013). MLearning scaffolding
model for undergraduate English Language learning: Bridging formal and informal
learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 217-233.
http://www.tojet.net/volumes/v12i2.pdf
Ali, H. (2011). A comparison of cooperative learning and traditional lecture methods in
the project management department of a tertiary level institution in Trinidad and
Tobago. The Caribbean Teaching Scholar, 1(1), 39-60.
http://libraries.sta.uwi.edu/journals/ojs/index.php/cts/article/view/5
Bolukbas, F., Keskin, F. & Polat, M. (2011). The effectiveness of cooperative learning in
the reading comprehension skills in Turkish as a foreign language. The Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 330-335.
http://www.tojet.net/volumes/v10i4.pdf
Bouton, C. & Garth, R. Y. (1983). Students in learning groups: Active learning through
conversation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1983(14), 73-82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219831410
Carss, W. D. (2007). The effects of using think-pair-share during guided reading lessons.
MEd thesis,
The University of Waikato. http://hdl.handle.net/10289/2233
Carlsmith, K. M. & Cooper, J. (2002). A persuasive example of collaborative learning.
Teaching of Psychology, 29(2), 132-135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2902_12
Casem, R. Q. (2013). Scaffolding strategy in teaching mathematics: Its effects on students’
performance and attitudes. Comprehensive Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 9-19.
http://www.knowledgebasepublishers.org/all%20pdf%20files/Remalyn%20Quinay-
Casem.pdf
Caspi, A. & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups: Testing three
conceptions and their relations to perceived learning. Social Psychology of Education, 11(3),
323-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-008-9054-2
Cooper, J. L. & Robinson, P. (2014). Using classroom assessment and cognitive
scaffolding to enhance the power of small-group learning. Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 25(3&4), 149-161. http://celt.miamioh.edu/ject/fetch.php?id=597
Core, M. G., Moore, J. D. & Zinn, C. (2003). The role of initiative in tutorial dialogue. In
Proceedings of the tenth conference on European chapter of the Association for
Computational
Linguistics, Volume 1 (67-74). Association for Computational Linguistics.
http://aclweb.org/anthology/E/E03/E03-1072.pdf
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second
language classroom. In J. Lantoff (Ed), Sociocultural theory and second language learning.
Oxford, UK: OUP.
Fisher, D., Brozo, W.G., Frey, N., & Ivey, G. (2006). Content area strategies for adolescent
literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Gömleksiz, M. N. (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning (jigsaw II) method in
teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students (Case of Firat
University, Turkey). European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 613-625.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043790701433343
Heinonen, M. E. & Lennartson-Hokkanen, I. (2015). Scaffolding strategies: Enhancing L2
students’ participation in discussions about academic texts. Journal of Academic Writing,
5(1), 42-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v5i1.157
Herrmann, K. J. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement:
Results from an intervention. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(3), 175-187.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469787413498035
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G. & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation:
Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers
& Education, 49(4), 1037-1065. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004
Johnson, R. T. & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. In J.
Thousand, R. Villa & A. Nevin (Eds), Creativity and collaborative learning. Baltimore:
Brookes Press.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the
college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to
college. What evidence is there that it works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,
30(4), 26-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091389809602629
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving
university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in
University Teaching, 25(3&4) 1-26. http://celt.miamioh.edu/ject/fetch.php?id=594
Johnston, S. & Cooper, J. (1999). Supporting student success through scaffolding.
Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 9(1), 85-118.
Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership,
47(4), 12-15.
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198912_kagan.pdf
Karge, B. D., Phillips, K. M., Jessee, T. & McCabe, M. (2011). Effective strategies for
engaging adult learners. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(12), 53-56.
http://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/TLC/article/view/6621/6697
Kordaki, M. & Siempos, H. (2009). Encouraging collaboration within learning designbased
open source e-learning systems. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in
Corporate, Government, Healthcare & Higher Education (26-30).
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/32708
Korkmaz, Ö. (2012). A validity and reliability study of the Online Cooperative Learning
Attitude Scale (OCLAS). Computers & Education, 59(4), 1162-1169.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.021
Kozulin, A. (1999). Vygotsky's psychology: A biography of ideas. Harvard University Press.
Lange, C. (2014). The effects of structure on participation: Informal cooperative learning in
small
groups. Masters thesis, Kongju National University.
Lange, C. & Costley, J. (2014). The effects of structure on participation: Informal
cooperative learning in small groups. The Journal of Educational Research, 28, 113-132.
Lyman, F. T. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students.
In A. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming Digest, 109-113. College Park: University of
Maryland Press.
McKinlay, A., Procter, R., Masting, O., Woodburn, R. & Arnott, J. (1993). A study of
turn-taking in a computer-supported group task. In People and Computers VIII, Proceedings
of the HCI'93 Conference, 383-394.
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.50.2025
Huang, M. S., Hsiao, W. H., Chang, T. S. & Hu, M. H. (2012). Design and implementation
of a cooperative learning system for digital content design curriculum: Investigation on
learning effectiveness and social presence. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 11(4), 94-107. http://www.tojet.net/volumes/v11i4.pdf
Pan, C. Y. & Wu, H. Y. (2013). The cooperative learning effects on English reading
comprehension and learning motivation of EFL freshmen. English Language Teaching,
6(5), 13-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n5p13
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Collins, K. M. T. & Jiao, Q. G. (2009). Performance of cooperative
learning groups in a postgraduate education research methodology course. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), 265-277.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469787409343190
Richardson, J. & Swan, K. (2003). Examination of social presence in online learning:
Students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
7(1), 68-88. http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/journal-issues/
Rovai, A. P. & Barnum, K. T. (2007). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student
interactions and perceptions of learning. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance
Education, 18(1), 57-73. http://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/viewFile/121/102
Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of
Teacher Education, 37(1), 43-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002248718603700110
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan
Page.
Slavin, R. E. (2011). Instruction based on cooperative learning. Handbook of research on
learning and instruction, 344-360.
Smith, B. L. & MacGregor, J. T. (1992) What is collaborative learning? In A. S. Goodsell,
M. R. Maher & V. Tinto (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education,
10-
29. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and
Assessment.
Smith, K. A., Douglas, T. C. & Cox, M. F. (2009). Supportive teaching and learning
strategies in STEM education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2009(117), 19-32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.341
Tran, V. D. (2012). Effects of cooperative learning on students at An Giang University in
Vietnam. International Education Studies, 5(1), 86-99.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n1p86
Tsay, M. & Brady, M. (2012). A case study of cooperative learning and communication
pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning, 10(2), 78-89. http://josotl.indiana.edu/article/view/1747
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Eds and
trans: M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Warschauer, M. (1995). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second
language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2&3), 7-26.
https://calico.org/html/article_604.pdf
Webb, N. M. (1995). Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, processes,
and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 239-261.
http://epa.sagepub.com/content/17/2/239.full.pdf
Woods, D. M. & Chen, K. C. (2011). Evaluation techniques for cooperative learning.
International Journal of Management & Information Systems, 14(1), 1-6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.19030/ijmis.v14i1.815
Zheng, W., Cao, M. Y., Das, H. S. & Yin, J. (2014). Scaffolding cyber-enabled
collaborative learning in engineering courses and its impacts of on students’ learning.
In ASEE Annual Conference. American Society of Engineering Education.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286861098_Scaffolding_cyberenabled_
collaborative_learning_in_engineering_courses_and_its_impacts_of_on_stud
ents'_learning_process_and_outcomes
Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online
collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 127-136.
http://www.ifets.info/journals/15_1/12.pdf
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.8, No.9, 2017
88
The Effect of (Think – Pair – Share) Strategy on the Achievement
of Third Grade Student in Sciences in the Educational District of
Irbid
Dr. Ribhi Khaleel Ahmad Hamdan
The Ministry of Education, the educational district of Irbid, Department of Educational
Supervision
Cooperative learning is one of the active learning strategies and so on with the process of
learning as a
replacement for the traditional system of learning so as the process of learning for traditional
learning system by
Small learning groups (Zaitwan, 2013).
This learning is educationally, focused on its recent studies special attention and the side
effects have
affect on the behavior and learning (Nasrallah, 2016).
There are many forms of cooperative learning, but these forms share with each other whereas
it allows
the learners opportunities to work together in various cooperative groups, featuring every
form by including the
quality of the work and how its performance or its implementation, and get a bonus in the
event of accuracy in
the achievement and the speed, among the most prominent of these shapes are: teams
collective learning and
learning teams together, Jkso way, the collective research and method relativism or structural
curve).
(Think – Pair – Share) Strategy is one of group discussion strategies falling within curved
structural and
it is a method of diverse methods of learning collaborative.
This method was developed by Kagan (1991) through provide the teacher flexible ways to
implement
cooperative learning Especially after Kagan made a repertoire of free content activities As the
teacher works to
choose appropriate content, and it is the whole lesson preparation and formulation of
cognitive objectives, The
cooperative which form the basis, Fall into this way (Think – Pair – Share) Strategy Which in
turn will help
learners to think by giving them time to think, Then involved with another colleague and look
at the different
point of view, They may be more willing and less apprehensive about sharing with a larger
group, and it gives
them time to change their response if needed And reduce the fear of giving the wrong answer
and is encouraging
them to participate cooperative, mutual learning between individuals, and ensure that the
contribution of each
student's work.
(Think – Pair – Share) Strategy is one of the active cooperative learning strategies where they
are used
to activate the students' previous knowledge of the position of education or to work the
reaction about
mathematical problem (Nasr, 2003).
Strategic steps of (Think – Pair – Share) is posed some of the questions to the class about
what has been
explained about the activity or an issue or a task and then ask the students to think for a
minute about this
question alone with the prevention of talk or walk around in the classroom at the time of
thinking, Then the
teacher asks students to splitting up into pairs to discuss and think together about a question
or posed activity for
a period of five minutes finally, the teacher are required from couples to participate by
displaying what has been
Vol.8, No.9, 2017
89
reached of solutions and ideas about the question or activity And it Is characterized by give
the student an
opportunity to reflect (with himself internally and externally with colleagues) And thinking
and revision before
answering (Zaitun, 2007).
Strategic steps of (Think – Pair – Share)
(Think – Pair – Share) Strategy comes according to the following steps:
The first step: thinking step
(Think – Pair – Share) Strategy started when the teacher is offering a question exciting to
think or a problem
related to the topic of the lesson to search for a solution Then the teacher asked the students
to think alone to
resolve the issue or problem at hand and give them a specific time to think and The time is
determined for
individual reflection on the basis of students' knowledge and the nature of the question and
the degree of
complexity (Susun, 2001).
The second step: pairing step
The teacher asks from students to splitting up into pairs and discusses what they think about it
who shall each
student to discuss and share ideas reached by thinking step with his colleague who sits next to
him and each of
them is trying to make his point to his colleague and convince him Also exchange views and
ideas to reach a
common answer (Christine, 2001).
The third step: Sharing step
The teacher can participate each pair of students with another pair to consist square of
students to think together
and this is will save time and effort on the teacher, Rather the teacher discuss (20) pairs of
students, for example,
will be discussed (10) groups at the same time (Saleh and Ibrahim, 2015).
(Think – Pair – Share) Strategy is modern teaching strategies which it doesn't aimed to
provide
students the achievement just but also it aims to stimulate their energies and develop their
abilities and They can
deal with historical events It is also suitable for students of all ages and suitable teachers who
engage in
cooperative learning for the first time (Ahmed, 2006).
1.2. Previous studies
Ahmad (2016) this research aims at identifying the effect of (think Pair Share) and
(Sequenced Questions)
Strategies on Fifth Primary Students Achievement and retention at Sciences. The Sample of
the Study consists of
(70) Students. The Sample is distributed as Follows : (24) Students in the First experimental
group which is
taught according to (Think Pair Share) Strategy (23) Students in the Second experimental
group which is taught
according to Sequenced Questions Strategy and (23) Students in the control group which is
taught according to
the traditional way of Teaching . The three groups are matched in terms of the following
variables: the Students
age (in months) their intelligence their Parents academic level of education their achievement
at Sciences (in the
Fourth Primary Stage) the researcher has Constructed an achievement test which includes
(20) items. These
items are multiple Choice items. The validity of this test has been ascertained and also
reliability is obtained by
using Pearson Correlation. Formula which yields (0.83) Coefficient, after analyzing the
results statistically it has
revealed a Statistically Significant differences in favor to the experimental groups the First
and the second Ines
in achievement and retention.
Salman (2015) this research aims to know the effectiveness of strategies in each "active
learning (role
playing, strategy (think-pair-share) in Collecting pupils grade 5 in Arabic grammar
material/"researcher has
formulated that there is statistically significant difference at the level indication (0.05)
between average pupils
first pilot group who studied strategy role-playing, and the average And rewarded the
researcher groups search,
and use appropriate statistical methods, the researcher found the effectiveness of strategy
role-playing in grade 5
pupils collection of Arabic grammar, and their impact on the left to choose the role of pupils
and strengthened
language abilities and self-confidence The effectiveness of the strategy (think-pair-share) in
improving the
collection of the pupils and retaining them and instilled in their minds through individual
reflection and sharing
with others and put the researcher some proposals and recommendations that are described by
the research.
Sultani (2015) the research aims to study the effect of a strategy for Lehman (Think - Pair -
share ) in
the collection of schoolgirls fifth grade and the level of ambitions in science general , study
sample consisted of
pupils School Aleem fifth grade primary school for the academic year 2013-2014 and
reached their number (80)
schoolgirl . The results of research on the following: the presence of statistically significant
differences at the
level (0.05) between the average score for the collection of students who are studying using a
strategy (Think -
Pair - co), and the average score for the collection of students who are studying in the usual
way in science
public.
Saleh and Ibrahim (2015) the research aims at know the Effect of (think, pair, share) strategy
on the
students of Biology achievement in Algas and their attitude toward it. To fulfill this aim ,the
following decimal
hypothesis aremade:1)There is no statistical differences in the achievement on level(0,05)
between the students
who study according to (think-pair, share) strategy and those who study according to the
ordinary way of
teaching in Algas subject.2)There is no statistical difference in scientific on level (0,05)
between of the students
Vol.8, No.9, 2017
90
who study according to (think, pair, share)strategy and those who study according to the
ordinary way. The
sample was two groups of students who were chosen from the third grade of Biology
department /college of
Education for pure Sciences/ University of Diyla. The first experimental group which was
composed of (45)
students study according to (think, pair, share) strategy, The second standard group which
was composed of (45)
students study according to the ordinary was of teaching .The time was the first course of
2013-2014.After
equating the two groups,the researchers used the post achievement test and measuring of
attitudes which is
prepared for this purpose .The results were the superiority of the first experimental group in
achievement and
attitude. Finally, the researcher made their remarks and conclusions.
Awaid and Abood (2014) the research aims to know the effect of (Think-pair-share) strategy
on the
students' achievement and the improvement of students' attitude toward chemistry. The
sample of the study
consisted of an experimental group (27) students and controlled group (27) students. The tool
of the test
contained the achievement test as the attitude test towards chemistry. After the application of
the test, the results
explained that there is a difference with a statistical meaning for the sake of the experimental
group that studied
according to the strategy of (Think-pair-share) and in the attitude towards teaching chemistry.
According to the
results, the researchers recommended to adopt the strategy in the teaching Chemistry for the
students of the firstyear
intermediate and the effect of this role on the students' achievement and attitude in teaching
chemistry.
Althelab and omar (2013) the study aims at knowing the impact of (think – pair – share)
strategy on the
achievement of second grade intermediate female students in mathematics and their
reasoning thinking. A
sample of (44) female students has been chosen and distributed to two classes consisting each
of (22) female
students, The first class represents the experimental group which studies according to the
(think – pair – share)
strategy and the second is the control group which studies according to the traditional
method. The study
required two tools: the first is an acquisitive test consisting of (25) items whereas the second
tool is the reasoning
thinking test prepared by Butrus (2004) which consists of (30) test items. After collecting and
statistically
analyzing the data by using the t-test for two independent samples, the results have revealed
the following: the
superiority of the experimental group who studied according to (think – pair – share) strategy
to the control
group in achievement and reasoning think.
Gafoor (2012)the research aims at knowing the effect of using strategy of (Think-Match-
Participate) in
Acquisition of mathematical concepts for Third stage students of Teachers Training institute.
There are 2 section
in the institute, The Researcher chose section (A) as an experimental group and section (B) as
a control group,
The Research applied his Research after finishing all Requirements (Teaching plans and
preparing Achievement
Test), After making analysis for the results, the researcher find a statistical significant
differences between the
two groups for the side of experimental group. The Researcher concluded the following: The
strategy of (Think-
Match-Participate) participated in students Acquisition for mathematical concepts and this
strategy participated
in students' participation in problem solving during the lesson.
Khaji (2010) the research aimed to investigate the effectiveness of (Think-pair-share) strategy
to
acquire physics concepts and the development trend towards solving physics issues among
students in first grade,
researcher has been divided groups into two groups, the experimental group consisted of 27
students, and the
control group consisted of (25 ) Student, researcher has used the test as a tool for the study,
and the results of the
study showed that no difference statistically significant among the experimental group in the
acquisition of
physical concepts in the light of this, the researcher recommends the adoption of a strategy
(Think-pair-share) in
teaching physics for the students of the first grade for its role influential to acquire physics
concepts.
1.3. Comment on previous studies
Through a review of previous studies, it was observed that there are studies from Jickso
strategy as al-Qaisi
study (2015) and al-Obeidi (2012), it is noted that all of these studies have used the test as a
tool to detect the
variables and also we note that it was their work through it in several countries, In Sudan was
Abu Shouk study
(2010) and in Syria was Deep study (2011).
2. Problem of the study
The reality of science teaching suffers many obstacles in achieving the educational goals; we
often hear
complaints in the teaching of science in our schools and traditional methods still based on
conservation and
indoctrination are prevailing, which resulted in a decrease in the level of achievement among
students. This was
confirmed by several studies as (Mahmoud, 2016) and (Bawi, 2012), so the study was to
answer the following
question: Are there statistically significant differences (α ≤ 0.05) between the mean
scores of the study
sample in the impact of (Think – Pair – Share) strategy on the achievement of third
grade student in
sciences in the educational district of Irbid due to the variables (group and gender)?
4. Research Objectives
The research aims at knowing the impact of (Think – Pair – Share) strategy on the
achievement of third grade
Vol.8, No.9, 2017
91
student in sciences in the educational district of Irbid.
5. Significance of Study
The significance of (Think – Pair – Share) strategy that helps the students in process
information, develop
communication skills and refine their thinking, it can be applied in any number of students, it
is also
characterized by undemanding, can give students time to think alone, give him a chance to
think out loud with
one of his colleagues, increase the sense of participation in the learning process, and include
the participation of
the largest number of students in the classroom to develop the academic achievement and
accept colleagues. This
strategy works to overcome some of the problems: The acquisition of a limited number of
students to participate
and short time for students to think.
(Think – Pair – Share) strategy due to make students axis the educational process and give
them the
freedom to express their views without fear or hesitation. This study has been agreed with the
(Sultani, 2015; and
Althelab and Omar, 2013), which showed superiority of the group that studied Think – Pair –
Share) strategy.
- There is statistically significant differences due to gender at the significance level (0.05), (F)
was
(4.685) and statistically significant (0.032) and the differences in favor of females, with a
mean (23.331) for
females, While the means for males was (22.753) and totaled impact of the gender variable
(3.9%), which
indicates to little impact, The researcher attributes this result to that the students are exposed
to more disciplined
learning environment, in terms of classroom environment and teaching methods; Where the
educational
environment is less punitive and more enthusiastic, and male students exposed to less
disciplined and less
enthusiastic, whereas male students face the most severe sanctions.
9. Recommendations:
The study recommended to entry (Think – Pair – Share) strategy within the teaching
strategies used by students
during the teaching and the involvement of teachers in training courses on (Think – Pair –
Share) strategy, and to
conduct further studies on the strategy for another stages.
10. References
1) Abood, Suhad Abdul Ameer. (2007). The impact of a specimen Rigelot to acquire
chemical concepts and
retain and develop a love of scientific survey for the second grade students average,
unpublished Master
Thesis, Ibn al-Haytham- College of Education, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
2) Abu kishk, Mohammad Nayef. (2000). The new role of the Arab teacher in the face of
challenges in the
twenty-first century, Abstracts of the Seventh research conference to the Union of Arab
educators
(February 5 to 8).
3) Ahmed, Mahabad Abdul Karim. (2016). the effect of (think Pair Share) and (Sequenced
Questions)
Strategies on Fifth Primary Students Achievement and retention at Sciences, Journal of
College of Basic
Education. 22 (94).403 - 442.
4) Ahmed, samah abd al-hameed Salman. (2006). the effect of using (Think – Pair – Share)
strategy in the
development of critical thinking in math and in the attitudes of life for the students of the
preparatory stage,
Vol.8, No.9, 2017
95
Unpublished MA Thesis, Suez Canal University, College of Education, Port Said, Egypt.
5) Al-Sultani, Nasrin. (2015). the effect of a strategy for Lehman (Think - Pair - share) in the
collection of
schoolgirls fifth grade and the level of ambitions in science general. Journal of Babyl Center
for the
Humanities, 5 (1) 553 - 586.
6) Althelab, Said Hussein; and Omar, Tahani Ghalib. (2013). the impact of (think – pair –
share) strategy on
the achievement of second grade intermediate female students in mathematics and their
reasoning thinking,
Faraaheedi Journal, (17) December 312 - 333.
7) Awid, Faleh Abdal_husn; and Abood, Suhad, Abdul Ameer. (2014). the effect of (Think-
pair-share)
strategy on the students' achievement and the improvement of students' attitude toward
chemistry, Journal
of alfatih.10 (58) 149 - 168.
8) Bawi, Hassan Hamid Hassan. (2012). The effect of active learning in the development of
innovative
thinking among middle school students in history, unpublished Master Thesis, School of
Education and
Human Sciences - University of Diyala, Iraq.
9) Christine,s.(2001),using think-pair-share team up to learning from each other ,the johns
hopking university,
Baltimore,Maryland.
10) Gafoor, Kamal Ismail. (2012). The effect of using (think, pair, share) strategy in
Acquisition of
mathematical concepts for Third stage students of Teachers Training institute, Diyala Journal
of Human
Research, (55) 598 - 615.
11) Khaji, Tahani Hassan. (2010). the effectiveness of (Think-pair-share) strategy to acquire
physics concepts
and the development trend towards solving physics issues among students in first grade, Al
Fath Journal, 6
(44) 139 - 156.
12) Mahmoud, Ahmed Mohamed. (2016). The impact of (think, pair, share) strategy in
achievement of fifthgrade
students in history, Al Fath journal (68) December 382 -407.
13) Nasr, Mahmoud. (2003). The impact of (think, pair, share) strategy with the help of
computer architecture
and environmental engineering materials in the teaching fourth grade primary on
Achievement and
retention of trend Mutual, the third scientific conference, the Egyptian Association for
Mathematics
Educations.
14) Saleh, Hossam Yusuf and Ibrahim, Hadeel Sajid. (2015). the Effect of (think, pair, share)
strategy on the
students of Biology achievement in Algas and their attitude toward it. Diyala Journal of
Human Research,
66.1- 19.
15) Salman, Huda Mohammad. (2015). the effectiveness of strategies in each "active learning
(role playing,
strategy (think-pair-share) in Collecting pupils grade 5 in Arabic grammar material. Journal
of Humanities.
2 (22) 787 to 804.
16) Susan,L.(2001),using think-pair-share in collage classroom, center for learning and
teaching excellence,
Arizona state university.
17) Zaitoun, Ayesh Mahmoud. (2007). Constructivist theory and strategies for teaching
science, Dar alshrouq
for Publishing and Distribution, first (ed), Amman-Jordan.
THE EFFECTS OF USING THINK-PAIR-SHARE
DURING GUIDED READING LESSONS
WENDY DIANE CARSS
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Degree of Master of Education
The University of Waikato
2007
ee discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/33052890
Teaching strategies that foster cooperative learning.

Effective teachers need to strike a balance between ‘stand alone’ strategy
instruction and facilitating the comprehension of literature in meaningful instructional
contexts (MOE, 2003; Palincsar, 2003; RRSG, 2000). A review of the literature
suggests teachers need a repertoire of instructional strategies that can be employed in
a flexible manner according to student needs. There are several strategies consistent
with a social constructivist perspective that can either be incorporated into Guided
Reading lessons, or that provide an alternative structure to lessons that allow for the
joint construction of meaning around text through focused quality conversation
(Ketch, 2005; MOE, 2003; Palincsar, 2003). These are typically classified as teaching
strategies that foster cooperative learning. Brown and Thomson (2000) define such a
strategy as “a teaching procedure that enhances both academic and social skills. It
provides a platform for students to develop effective learning strategies” (p.11).
Literature in this area spans almost 30 years and is diverse and expansive. According
to Stevens, Slavin and Farnish (1991), research projects ranging in length from 4 to
30 weeks duration have consistently reported improvement in academic achievement
when compared with more traditional methods of learning. Schleppegrell and Simich-
Dudgeon (1996) caution that cooperative learning activities will only be successful if
students believe they will learn from each other and if they are explicitly taught the
procedures followed by opportunities to practice.
The three main purposes of cooperative group work are to:
1. improve academic skills through working together,
23
2. to learn the necessary interpersonal skills required to complete the task
and
3. to develop cognitive skills and metacognitive awareness (Brown &
Thomson, 2000; Stevens & Slavin, 1995).
Much of the understanding in this area has been based around the research of
Johnson and Johnson (1987). The model that stems from their work outlines five
essential elements of cooperative learning:
1. Positive interdependence – students need to work together to complete the
task.
2. Individual accountability – each student needs to develop a sense of
responsibility towards completing the task and assisting other members.
3. Group and Individual reflection – it is necessary to reflect on the task and
review goals.
4. Small group skills – teachers need to teach interpersonal skills so that the
group functions efficiently.
5. Face to face interaction – physical proximity is required to enable ease of
communication.
Listed in this order they provide the anacronym PIGSF (Pigs fly), created by
Brown (Brown & Thomson, 2000). There have been numerous adaptations and
alternatives to this structure. Stevens and Slavin (Stevens & Slavin, 1995; Stevens et
al., 1991) stated that the two most important characteristics for cooperative learning
were individual accountability and an incentive to cooperate, in the form of reward
systems, which they deemed necessary for effective teamwork. One would have to
question the place of rewards in developing self motivated learners who are regularly
engaged in learning not just when motivated by extrinsic compensation.
Another significant contributor to our understanding of cooperative learning
was Kagan (1998) who suggested regular lessons could be transformed into
cooperative lessons by incorporating simple cooperative strategies, rather than
teachers having to devise some of the earlier more complex lesson formats. Thinkpair-
share strategies fit into this category along with the “doughnut” and “jigsaw”
techniques commonly used in New Zealand classrooms (Brown & Thomson, 2000).
Much of the literature in this area relates to cooperative learning sequences
where the teacher begins the activity with a period of explicit teaching, then sets up
24
an activity and leaves children to work at the activity without direct guidance while
the teacher instructs other groups. There is usually a period of evaluation and
feedback at the conclusion (Stevens et al., 1991). To align with the context of this
particular study, only literature relating to cooperative learning strategies where the
teacher is present and interacting in a purposeful manner for much of the lesson, is
considered. It should be noted however, that there can be a gradual release of
responsibility for the use of these strategies. Students eventually take over the
operation of the instructional strategy as scaffolding is withdrawn in Vygotskian
fashion.
Considering the characteristics of co-operative learning strategies, it would
seem that such tools would provide a useful platform for the development of
comprehension strategies, with the inclusion of scaffolding and cognitive
apprenticeship, as teacher and students supply support and guidance to each other.
There is opportunity for practice to develop confidence and to internalise the learning,
and reflection time. From 10 studies incorporating cooperative learning of
comprehension strategies within the Grade 3 to 6 level (Years 4 to 7), Trabasso and
Bouchard (2002) found positive results in terms of learning comprehension strategies,
increased control over learning, improved social interaction and a higher level of
intellectual discussion.
Reflecting on the criteria for effective co-operative learning strategies, as
outlined in this section, it can be concluded that Think-Pair-Share should facilitate the
development of comprehension and metacognitive awareness, when incorporated into
Guided Reading lessons. It is a simple strategy that provides a base for scaffolding
where necessary and meaningful interaction, it also incorporates the essential
elements of interdependence, accountability and face-to-face interaction.
Think-Pair-Share Strategies
Think-Pair-Share (TPS) is a co-operative learning strategy developed by
Lyman in 1978 and can be defined as “a multi-mode discussion cycle in which
students listen to a question or presentation, have time to think individually, talk with
each other in pairs, and finally share responses with the larger group” (McTighe &
Lyman, 1988, p.243). The strategy incorporates wait-time, verbal rehearsal,
discussion, and cooperative learning. In its original form Lyman defined two wait
periods; the initial time after the question was asked (Wait-time I) of three to five
seconds and then another wait period (Wait-time II) of at least three seconds after
each pair shared back to the group (Lyman, 1989, cited in Baumeister, 1992, p.19). It
was suggested that visual cues such as hand signals, cards or a cube can be used to
announce transitions from one component of the strategy to the next (Baumeister,
1992, McTighe & Lyman, 1988; Thompson & Taymans, 1996). Lyman proposed
that children would develop social skills, engage more positively in class discussion
and develop metacognitive awareness through use of the strategy (Baumeister, 1992).
28
Think-Pair-Share incorporates the benefits of discussion as outlined in earlier
sections of this review. Howe (1992) describes pair talk as a “high intensity talk
arena” due to the responsibility placed on each person to become engaged directly in
speaking and listening (p.14). Pair talk is usually very focused and suitable for short
tasks. Alverman et al. (1987) state that this level of active engagement allows
students to share ideas and refine their thinking. Less confident children have the
opportunity to participate and to rehearse ideas before reporting to the larger group.
The thinking component of the strategy or ‘wait time’ has been researched for
many years. Rowe (1974, cited in Baumeister, 1992; Stahl, 1994), developed the term
‘wait-time’ and in extensive research across levels and settings, found that when
teachers question they typically wait one second or less, and then once the student has
replied they give feedback or start the next question within a second as well. By
extending this wait time to three seconds, there were significant improvements in
language use, attitudes and teacher expectations. Teachers had time to think as well
and they were more likely to encourage elaboration of original answers and to ask
more complex questions (Rowe, 1986).
Other researchers state that increasing wait time promotes higher levels of
participation and longer responses which tend to be more substantial. The frequency
of “I don’t know” responses decreases and it also allows time for new learning to be
incorporated with old (Gambrell, 1983; McTighe & Lyman,1988; Stahl, 1994). In
1985 Stahl proposed the term ‘think time’ in preference to ‘wait time’ as he felt it
more aptly described the main purpose of the time period. He suggested three
seconds as the minimum think time but felt the main factor in determining the time
period should the length of time needed to allow nearly every student to complete the
thinking needed for the task. In concurrence with this, Tobin (1980) states that higher
order thinking will require longer periods of wait time than questions requiring only
recall.
Although these two components; think time and pair talk, have been
researched individually, there is very little research into the TPS strategy as a
teaching tool. Lyman (1989, cited in Baumeister, 1992) discussed personal
observations of the success of the strategy and reported action research studies; but at
the time of Baumeister’s (1992) doctoral research he had no knowledge of any
published empirical studies relating to the Think-Pair-Share strategy.
29
In the course of locating relevant literature for this review, Baumeister’s
(1992) unpublished doctoral thesis, from the University of Maryland College Park,
was the only research focused specifically on the effects of using the strategy. The
fact that it investigated the effects on oral language, reading comprehension and
attitudes made this study particularly pertinent. One hundred and seven third grade
(Year 4) students slightly below average in reading ability were allocated in groups of
6-12 to one of three treatment conditions; wait time, TPS or regular instruction. She
used 3-5 second wait time intervals and each group took part in four reading lessons
using the relevant instructional sequence. Students read the required passage and then
TPS was integrated into the follow up discussion where teachers were each given six
questions of which three were essential. Four lessons were thought to be adequate to
both overcome the novelty effects and effect change in learning behaviour. Long term
change was not the aim of the study, rather research questions focused on frequency,
length and elaboration of response to different question types. Comprehension was
compared using written recall and attitudes towards themselves as readers and
towards the various components of the lessons were measured.
Both the wait time intervention and the TPS intervention resulted in increased
participation and improvement in the quality and quantity of responses, but TPS also
revealed an increase in comprehension. These results were more marked for the
textually implicit questions requiring synthesis or summarisation of details, perhaps
due to the benefits of collaborating with a partner in synthesizing information from a
range of locations. Attitudes of the TPS group were slightly less positive than the
other two groups but it was suggested that perhaps this was because they were
engaging with an unfamiliar strategy.
In a critique of her methodology Baumeister suggested the need for a longer
treatment time frame to study the effects of the intervention more fully. She also
suggests research into the use of the strategy with different age groups, types of
learners, text types and content areas. The methodology employed by Baumeister
differs from that proposed in this research in that it limits the use of TPS to
facilitating comprehension in follow up discussion, rather than to fostering the use of
comprehension strategies during reading. The follow up discussion timeframe of
twenty five minutes maximum also differs from the proposed study where the total
lesson including reading is designed to occupy approximately thirty minutes.
30
Baumeister used Lyman’s traditional form of TPS with two wait periods. After each
pair reported back there was another wait period before the next pair was able to
contribute. This produced a drawn out, stilted discussion that no doubt, required
close monitoring of children’s level of engagement. It does not appear to equate with
current use of TPS where only one wait time period is utilised before students share
in pairs (Banikowski & Mehring, 1999; Brown & Thomson, 2000; Street, 2002;
Thompson & Taymans, 1996; Whitehead, 2001).
Extensive database searches failed to locate any further empirical studies of
TPS. More globally, Mehigan (2005) in discussing the need for teachers to develop a
“Strategy Toolbox” of successful teaching strategies that might be used in teaching
reading and writing; proposed three types of meaning making strategies. These were
labeled “research based”, “time honoured favourites” and “original strategies created
by teachers” (p.553). Think-Pair-Share was one of those labeled a “time honoured
favourite”, indicative of its popularity, but lack of research backing. In support of
this categorization; the most recent ERIC database search (5/3/06), revealed 26
entries for Think-Pair-Share. Of these, 12 were classed as descriptive reports, 9 as
guides, one speech, one opinion paper and one book. There were two research
reports both qualitative descriptions of tertiary student preferences and perceptions of
cooperative learning strategies. The spread of these entries across the various sectors
of the education system verifies the versatility of TPS as described by the literature
(Baumeister, 1992; Brown & Thomson, 2000). Seven of the database entries were
located at the primary level, two overlapped primary and secondary, three were
secondary in focus and 14 targeted the areas of tertiary and adult learning.
In comparison to the focused use of TPS in Baumeister’s research (1992) and
the generic description of the strategy in literature referred to above; the versatility of
the strategy can also be demonstrated by the way in which it has been adapted to
support a range of different comprehension strategies. For example Whitehead
(2001) uses the terms “Image-Pair-Share”, “Predict-Pair-Share”, and “Summarise-
Pair-Share” among others, to refine the use of the traditional format. These
adaptations have been selected for use in the current study as they are consistent with
the comprehension strategies used by fluent readers and the key components
described in models of reading comprehension (Duffy, 2003; Duke & Pearson, 2002;
Farstrup, 2002; Pressley, 2000).
31
Think-Pair-Share is also robust in terms of reflecting the essential elements
for cooperative learning listed by Johnson and Johnson (1987) and discussed earlier
in this review. Peer interaction promotes positive interdependence; the students learn
from each other and have to share ideas to be able to report to the group. Each
student is accountable in this partnership. Interpersonal skills are highlighted in both
the pair and group sharing components and face to face interaction is essential for the
successful operation of TPS. The third criteria, group reflection, is possibly not
always included but will be a focus of this research project.
Think-Pair-Share relates closely to the aims and objectives of the English in
the New Zealand curriculum document (MOE, 1994). Consistent with this document
the think time fosters thinking skills, listening skills are promoted through pair and
group sharing and there is a high level of involvement as children work in a paired
situation, elaborate their ideas and extend their vocabulary in meaningful contexts.
Students are willing to take risks and share with the larger group because they have
already trialed their ideas with their partner. TPS is also the only cooperative strategy
receiving mention in the ‘Pedagogical knowledge of teachers’ section of the New
Zealand Education Review Office’s (ERO) report on Speaking. It was described as
being “a feature of some classrooms” and as “helping with cooperative learning,
extending students’ thinking and [as] a tool for promoting oral language skills”
(ERO, 2005). The strategy is also included in three sections of the recently released
Ministry of Education handbook, Effective Literacy Practice in Years 5-8 (MOE,
2006) where it is promoted for its value in engaging all students and generating
genuine conversation during Guided Reading, Shared Reading and writing.
Conclusion
This review has described the importance of supporting children’s thinking
and learning by providing opportunities for them to interact with others in a
collaborative social setting. In these settings conversation allows readers to reflect,
share and refine ideas and construct knowledge by linking new understanding to
existing propositions. Both teacher-student, and student-student interactions are
significant contributors to the development of reading comprehension.
Research has repeatedly shown that instruction in the use of comprehension
strategies can enhance readers’ comprehension, and this is particularly so for poorer
32
readers. Explicit instruction of these strategies, teacher modeling and supported
practice have been identified as required components of instruction as the reader is
scaffolded towards independence. Fluent readers monitor comprehension and apply
comprehension strategies in a highly orchestrated manner as required and it is both
unnecessary and difficult to assess the isolated influence on instruction of any one
particular strategy. However, for ease of management and given the scale of this
study, three core comprehension strategies; prediction, imagery and summarisation
have been selected for inclusion in this research. The selection of these three
strategies was discussed earlier in the review and they also feature among strategies
that should be targeted to promote effective comprehension, in the recent Ministry of
Education handbooks (MOE, 2003; 2006).
Cooperative learning strategies allow for the melding of these areas of
interactive discussion and reading comprehension. Reciprocal Teaching, a structured
cooperative lesson sequence has received considerable attention. It has been widely
adapted to suit the needs of learners and rejected by some as too rigid for the realities
of the classroom learning environment. In comparison, the adoption of a repertoire of
more flexible strategies, which are easy to apply in a range of settings, appears to be
favoured by current researchers.
Think-Pair-Share is one such strategy. It is widely used and frequently
discussed in the literature. It allows for a high level of student engagement, time for
readers to rehearse their thoughts and opportunities to share and modify their
thoughts with a partner before sharing them with the wider audience. As discussed in
the previous section, there is little research to substantiate the effect of this strategy
on reading comprehension. In 1992 Lyman was unaware of any published empirical
studies (Baumeister, 1992) and extensive database searches undertaken for this
project have only managed to locate Baumeister’s unpublished doctoral thesis. With
the inclusion of TPS in Effective Literacy Practice handbooks (MOE, 2003; 2006), it
is timely that such research is undertaken.
Based on this review the present study proposes to document the effects of
using TPS in the context of Guided Reading lessons with students reading above and
below their chronological age. Three variations of TPS will be used to encourage the
use of prediction, imagery and summarization.
33

Think Pare Shre

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Think Pare Shre

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Nahdi, D.S (2017). Judul. Jurnal voi. No. Hal.

INCREASING STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION BY USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING

In addition, cooperative learning helps students to develop positive attitudes towards

Bowling Green State University

Sampsel, Ariana, "Finding the Effects of Think-Pair-Share on Student Confidence and

Issues in Educational Research, 26(2), 2016 260

Cooperative learning (CL) involves group members making individual contributions in

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org

ee discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Teaching strategies that foster cooperative learning.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen