think pair share research articles

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Perceived Effectiveness and Applicability of Think-Pair-Share Including Storytelling (TPS-S) to Enhance Clinical Learning

Affiliations.

1 Oral Medicine and Pathology, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
2 School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
3 Digital Content Management and Delivery Branch, Education, Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
4 Educational Research & Scholarship Unit (ERSU), School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
5 Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
6 Pediatrics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
7 ERSU, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
PMID: 32877264
DOI: 10.1080/10401334.2020.1811094

Problem: Think-pair-share (TPS) is a teaching strategy that promotes active and collaborative learning; however, the effectiveness and applicability of this strategy in its original or altered form remain to be established, especially in health professions education. As a first step in this direction, the objective of our study was to examine the perceived effectiveness and applicability of TPS including storytelling (TPS-S) in an oral pathology seminar from the perspectives of students, seminar instructors, and peer instructors (experienced instructors who observed the seminar). Intervention: Prompts for individual thinking (T), pair discussion (P), and class sharing (S) included clinical case-based questions related to diagnosis and management and wildcards with additional information about the cases. In addition to the traditional TPS phases, the experiences of the leading instructor in dealing with the cases discussed in the seminar were shared through storytelling to model good practices in clinical diagnosis and management. Context: Our study was conducted in the School of Dentistry at the University of Alberta. Participants in this mixed-method study included third (Y3) and fourth (Y4) year dental students (n = 55) in their clinical training, seminar instructors (n = 2), and peer instructors (n = 3). Data from students, seminar instructors, and peer instructors were obtained through the Student Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) questionnaire, journaling, and interview, respectively. Descriptive statistics were performed to analyze SEEQ dimensions and statements (factors). MANOVA was used to determine significant differences between Y3 and Y4 students for SEEQ dimensions and ANOVA to identify the factors that accounted for significant differences. Qualitative data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Impact: Participants positively valued the TPS-S seminar. Students rated all SEEQ dimensions between good and very good and regarded the seminar as superior to traditional lectures. Perceived conditions that facilitated the implementation of TPS-S included the use of real-life clinical cases, instructor facilitation skills, and the scaffolded structure of the seminar. Perceived conditions that hindered the implementation of TPS-S included unequal participation of Y3 and Y4 students, time constraints, and issues related to student pairing. Lessons learned: TPS-S was perceived as effective to improve clinical learning and applicable to dental clinical education as long as its implementation matches the characteristics of the learning context. Further evidence is needed to empirically demonstrate the effectiveness and applicability of TPS-S.

Keywords: active learning; dental education; storytelling; think-pair-share.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Taylor & Francis

Research Materials

NCI CPTC Antibody Characterization Program

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
CBE Life Sci Educ
v.16(2); Summer 2017

Teaching as Brain Changing: Exploring Connections between Neuroscience and Innovative Teaching

One would hope that of the many ways to conceptualize teaching and learning, scientists would view these processes as driving biological changes in the brain. Here, the authors draw connections between innovative teaching techniques and neuroscience that may support our understanding of why innovative teaching is so effective at promoting learning.

How do you conceptualize learning? Do you think of learning as a contractual agreement: the instructor performs certain actions to facilitate learning, and the student, in turn, explicitly or implicitly promises to behave in ways to receive that learning? Or do you think of learning in sociological terms: the learner, through what he or she learns, transforms his or her beliefs and becomes a more emancipated citizen of the world? Or perhaps you think of learning in psychological terms: learners are motivated, store facts in their minds, and create mental knowledge structures. All of these ways of conceptualizing learning can be beneficial in understanding how students learn and what makes teaching effective.

However, at their most fundamental and mechanistic level, teaching and learning are neurological phenomena arising from physical changes in brain cells. The notion that learning and memory are neurobiological processes is relatively young, dating back only to the 18th century ( Hartley, 1749 ). Even today, only about half of teachers and the general public, depending on the country, agree that “learning occurs through the modification of the brain’s neural connections” ( Herculano-Houzel, 2002 , p. 102; Howard-Jones et al. , 2009 ; Deligiannidi and Howard-Jones, 2015 ; Hermida et al. , 2016 ). Nevertheless, recent advances in brain science have given us an in-depth picture of the molecular and cellular changes that occur during learning, and the consensus of neurobiologists is that these alterations are both necessary and sufficient for the formation of memories ( Takeuchi et al. , 2014 ).

If anyone should appreciate that teaching and learning are biological phenomena, one would predict it would be biologists, and scientists more generally. However, few of us were likely taught about the neurobiology of learning in our pedagogical training. In this paper, we will first explore how one might conceptualize learning as a biological process in the context of a common teaching technique called the think–pair–share . Then, we will give an overview of what is known from biological research about the neurobiological basis of learning and explore how various teaching techniques might harness known neurological mechanisms to promote the creation and retrieval of long-term memories. This Feature does not aspire to give instructions for how one should teach. Certainly, there have been many attempts to use the findings of neuroscience to create guidelines for instruction, particularly in K–12 education, and even to sell “brain-based curricula,” but given the complexity of human learning, many neuroscientists believe these attempts have been at best premature and, at worst, “distortions” of the science ( Bruer, 2006 ; Goswami, 2006 ; James S. McDonnell Foundation, 2007 ; Howard-Jones, 2014 ). Instead, we aspire to connect what is known in neurobiology to what is known from science education research about how innovative teaching is effective at promoting learning ( Freeman et al. , 2014 ).

A NEUROBIOLOGICAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE THINK–PAIR–SHARE

Each of our students arrives in class with a human brain, which on average has 86 billion neurons arranged in hundreds of brain regions, each with different functions ( Azevedo et al. , 2009 ). These neurons connect with one another to form neural circuits, making an estimated 100 trillion contacts with one another, called synapses ( Williams and Herrup, 1988 ). Although there is much that we do not understand about how the brain functions, we do know that brains are always active, always analyzing and responding to a myriad of internal and external cues, both consciously and subconsciously. As an example, if we could look inside student brains as they are learning through participating in a common nonlecture classroom activity, the think–pair–share, what might we see?

Imagine a class full of students. In a think–pair–share, they all think individually about a solution to a problem, pair with a neighbor to discuss their ideas, and share their thoughts with a larger group ( Lyman, 1981 ; Tanner, 2009b ). Although this technique is relatively easy to implement, its apparent simplicity belies the deeper intricacies of the tasks the students’ brains must do to accomplish it. During the think phase, to be most effective, the students’ task must pique their interest and motivate them to pay attention to the concept under study. That attention might cause the release of chemicals in the brain, such as particular types of neurotransmitters , which carry signals between synapses, that promote learning ( Everitt and Robbins, 1997 ; Schultz and Dickinson, 2000 ). The task may also tie the concept to other topics from the class or from real life, challenging the students and the brain cells within them to form the associations that can aid long-term memory formation and retrieval. In the next phases, the pair and the share, the students discuss the task with peers, practicing the skills and habits of thought necessary to master the subject. During this phase, the students have the confidence to complete this activity with a community of supportive peers. These feelings of confidence and community may also promote learning indirectly by preventing the release of chemicals in the brain and body, such as stress hormones, that could inhibit learning ( Lupien and McEwen, 1997 ; de Kloet et al. , 1999 ).

Thus, all of the phases of the think–pair–share are in service to the ultimate goal, encoding memory in synaptic connections and neural circuits. Hopefully, the think–pair–share has caused the connections between nerve cells inside the students’ brains to be changed for a long time, allowing them to recall the solution to the task months later and perhaps for the rest of their lives. So, how exactly do neurons and synapses change when a memory is created and retrieved? Below, we delve into the neurobiology of learning on a more detailed level to illuminate the changes that may be occurring in students’ brains as they learn.

HOW DO TWO NEURONS COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER?

The consensus among neuroscientists is that the basis of learning and memory creation lies in changes in electrically active nerve cells, called neurons , and the connections between them, the synapses. Although neurons come in many diverse shapes, a stereotypical example of two neurons is shown in Figure 1 . Neurons have many thin projections extending from the cell body, called dendrites and axons ( Figure 1 ). In general, dendrites receive signals from the outside world or from other neurons, and axons send signals to other neurons or to muscles or glands. When a neuron’s dendrites are adequately stimulated, an electrical signal flows down the dendrites, through the cell body, and down the axon ( Figure 1 ). Colloquially, this process is referred to as firing .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fe2fig1.jpg

Anatomy of two representative neurons in the brain and a synapse between them. Path of electrical current indicated with yellow arrows. Inset, close-up view of the synapse. Illustration adapted from Alzheimer’s Disease Education and Referral Center, National Institutes on Aging, U.S. National Institutes of Health ( www.nia.nih.gov/Alzheimers/Publications/UnravelingtheMystery ).

At the synapse, this electrical signal is passed onto other neurons. However, most of the time, the signal cannot be passed on directly, because the end of an axon is usually very close to part of another neuron’s dendrite but is not directly continuous with it ( Figure 1 ). Therefore, to propagate the signal, the sending neuron, the presynaptic neuron , must convert the electrical signal to a chemical signal before it can be sent to the receiving neuron, the postsynaptic neuron . In other words, in response to electrical stimulation, presynaptic neurons release neurotransmitters that carry the cellular signal across the synaptic gap. There are dozens of different types of neurotransmitters, each with different possible effects, and the neurotransmitter(s) released at a particular synapse depends on the identity of the presynaptic neuron. After release, the neurotransmitters diffuse across the synapse and bind to receptors on (or in) the postsynaptic cell ( Figure 1 ). When a neurotransmitter binds to a receptor, it directly or indirectly creates or modulates an electrical signal in the postsynaptic neuron, perhaps causing it to fire. A postsynaptic neuron might have tens of thousands of presynaptic neurons of different types synapsing onto it ( Megias et al. , 2001 ). This system of using chemical neurotransmitters to send signals across synapses to alter the postsynaptic neuron’s behavior allows for the postsynaptic neuron to integrate all the signals it receives and produce sensible behavioral responses to complex environmental stimuli.

HOW DOES THE BRAIN CHANGE THROUGH SYNAPTIC PLASTICITY? NEURONS THAT FIRE TOGETHER, WIRE TOGETHER

While the basic architecture of the human brain is set up early in childhood, learning and memory is possible because individual neurons retain the ability to change their signaling and synaptic connections throughout a person’s life. Brain changes have been observed in neurons and synapses both after extreme changes in sensory experiences, like blindness, and after more subtle ones, like navigating a maze for the first time ( Wiesel and Hubel, 1963 ; Karlsson and Frank, 2008 ). For the most part, brain changes do not seem to arise from the birth of new neurons, called neurogenesis . While neurogenesis does occur in the adult human brain, it only does so in certain brain areas, and newly born neurons represent only ∼0.004% of the of the total population of neurons at any given time ( Bhardwaj et al. , 2006 ; Bergmann et al. , 2012 ; Spalding et al. , 2013 ).

Instead, learning appears to occur primarily because of changes in the strength and number of the connections between existing neurons, a process called synaptic plasticity . For the most part, the changes occur in such a way that frequently used connections between neurons are enhanced the most. If the activation of a presynaptic neuron causes a postsynaptic neuron to fire, the neurons will alter themselves molecularly and cellularly so that the presynaptic neuron becomes even better at triggering the firing of the postsynaptic neuron ( Hebb, 1949 ; Takeuchi et al. , 2014 ). For example, in the short term, more neurotransmitter receptors may be inserted into the membrane of the synapse of the postsynaptic neuron, making it more receptive to the presynaptic neuron’s signals, and in the long term, new synapses between the two neurons may grow ( Holtmaat and Svoboda, 2009 ; Takeuchi et al. , 2014 ). If the coactivation of two neurons happens repeatedly, these new synapses can last for long periods of time, providing a neural substrate for long-term memory. The principle that that coactivation of two neurons leads to a stronger connection between those neurons was pithily summarized in the early 1990s by neuroscientist Carla Shatz as, “Neurons that fire together, wire together” ( Shatz, 1992 ).

HOW DOES SYNAPTIC PLASTICITY RELATE TO LEARNING AND MEMORY?

Researchers have repeatedly shown that neural connections in many different parts of the brain can change and that this synaptic plasticity is associated with and leads to behavioral learning and the formation of memories. For instance, neuroscientists found that training mice in a novel motor task induced an outgrowth of new synapses very quickly, within an hour, in the motor cortex, a part of the brain dedicated to planned movements. Furthermore, they found that further training stabilized some of the new synapses so that they remained present for weeks, months, and possibly years ( Xu et al. , 2009 ; Yang et al. , 2009 ). We also know that blocking specific processes and molecules important for synaptic plasticity, such as particular neurotransmitter receptors, prevents behavioral learning, giving a causal connection between synaptic plasticity and learning ( Morris et al. , 1986 ). These are just some of the thousands of studies in all sorts of animal models that link synaptic plasticity between neurons to the changes in behavior that indicate learning and memory formation ( Takeuchi et al. , 2014 ).

WHAT CAN AFFECT THE ABILITY OF NEURAL CONNECTIONS TO CHANGE?

Although nearly all neural connections have the ability to exhibit plasticity, there are multiple factors that can either promote or inhibit neural change. Some of the same processes that alter one’s ability to learn are also associated with neurochemicals that affect synaptic plasticity. For example, we all know that it is easier to learn something if we are paying attention and motivated by the material. Scientists have identified a set of neurotransmitters that are commonly released in contexts involving motivation and attention. Broadly speaking, the neurotransmitter dopamine is associated with reward or the anticipation of reward, while the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACh) is released during situations of novelty or surprise ( Everitt and Robbins, 1997 ; Schultz and Dickinson, 2000 ). Unsurprisingly, blocking either neurotransmitter impairs synaptic plasticity, while the presence of either neurotransmitter enhances it ( Conner et al. , 2003 ; Reed et al. , 2011 ; Froemke et al. , 2013 ; Takeuchi et al. , 2014 ). On the basis of these laboratory studies, neuroscientists would predict that when our students are motivated and attentive in our class, their brains are releasing dopamine and ACh, priming them for plasticity and learning.

On the flip side, there are other factors that can inhibit plasticity. Everyone has felt how a stressful or scary event causes heart rates and blood pressures to rise. It turns out that some of the same chemicals that are involved in the body’s response to fear and stress also pass into the brain and can profoundly affect processes there. One chemical in particular, the stress hormone cortisol , seems to be particularly relevant to plasticity and learning. The brain is rich in receptors for cortisol, especially in areas relevant to memory ( de Kloet et al. , 1999 ). While mild elevations in cortisol can boost performance on memory tests, high levels inhibit both the encoding and the retrieval of memory in both animals and humans ( Lupien and McEwen, 1997 ; de Kloet et al. , 1999 ). Synaptic plasticity follows the same pattern, wherein high levels of cortisol disrupt the strengthening of connections between synapses ( de Kloet et al. , 1999 ). The negative effects of high levels of stress and cortisol on memory compound over time. Many different studies using all sorts of stressors have found that chronic stress can impair learning and memory and is even associated with the shrinkage of certain brain structures in humans ( Conrad, 2010 ). Fortunately, those same studies have shown that this shrinkage is reversible. On the basis of these studies, neuroscientists would likely predict that high levels of stress in students in classrooms would be an impediment to learning, and removing some stressors could facilitate it.

HOW ARE MEMORIES STORED AND RETRIEVED?

For learning to be useful and affect behavior, once the learning is complete and synaptic connections are strengthened, memories must be stored and then retrieved when needed. While much is still to be discovered, neuroscientists propose that memories are stored in groups of neurons that all become strongly connected to each other during learning and synaptic plasticity. Just as learning to perform a certain protocol in a biology lab course, for example, might tie together many different types of information, such as remembering the quantities of chemicals used, the motions for combining them, and the look of the product once the protocol is completed, the neuronal memory ensemble may include neurons that are physically located in many different places in the brain that nevertheless are synaptically connected and that increase the strength of their connections to each other during learning ( Ishai et al. , 2000 ). Memories are retrieved through reactivation of the neurons whose synapses were altered in the initial creation of a memory, particularly in the time shortly after that memory was created ( Silva et al. , 2009 ; Caroni et al. , 2014 ; Goshen, 2014 ). In fact, recent technological advances have allowed us to reactivate certain memories and induce particular learned behaviors on demand in mice through artificial stimulation of the specific neurons that were active during the formation of those memories ( Xu et al. , 2012 ).

However, just because the neurons involved are scattered throughout the brain does not mean that synapses are altered at random whenever something new is learned. On the contrary, the plasticity that occurs after learning is specific to the particular neurons that will go on to form the memory ensemble. Scientists have found that of the tens of thousands of synapses a postsynaptic neuron may have, for the most part, only the synapses connected to a particular presynaptic neuron will be strengthened when it is fired strongly by that presynaptic neuron ( Bailey et al. , 2000 ). The specificity of synaptic plasticity may mean that learning one fact or skill may not easily or immediately translate into learning another fact or skill, even if the two facts or skills seem closely related.

In summary, then, the brain creates memories through altering the synaptic connections between specific neurons, stores them in connected ensembles of neurons, and retrieves them by reactivating those same neurons and connections. Importantly, the ability of the synapses to respond to learning experiences by undergoing synaptic plasticity is modulated by the presence of other chemical factors, such as dopamine, ACh, and cortisol, which are associated with particular emotional, environmental, and cognitive states. Some of these chemicals, such as the neurotransmitters dopamine and ACh, are associated with attention and motivation, positively influence synaptic plasticity and learning, while other compounds associated with stress, like the hormone cortisol, negatively influence synaptic plasticity and learning. So, how can we use this information about how the brain creates and retrieves memories to understand how various teaching techniques may affect our students’ brains?

HOW COMMON TEACHING TECHNIQUES MAY AFFECT THE NEUROBIOLOGY OF LEARNERS’ BRAINS

We will discuss here several different techniques that fall under the umbrella of “scientific teaching” and how they may affect the neurobiology of learning. We will do this by introducing four different hypothetical students—Alessa, Joe, Morgan, and Elijah—and their experiences in a traditionally taught first-year introductory biology class that lacks these techniques. The four techniques that we will focus on are frequent homework, concept maps, problem-based learning, and culturally diverse examples, although we will also briefly discuss other techniques that may take advantage of similar neural processes as these four ( Table 1 ). For each technique, we will first present the student’s experience in context, then show evidence from science education and psychology research for why the technique might address the student’s difficulties, and finally discuss the likely neurobiological basis for why the technique may be effective.

Various teaching techniques and their possible neuronal bases

Neuroscientific principle discussed in this	Psychological or educational findings or ideas that may correspond to the neuroscientific principle	Teaching techniques that may harness the corresponding principle
Synaptic plasticity is specific to the particular neurons that are active together.	Active forms of studying improve test performance over passive forms.
	Deliberate practice is important for gaining expertise.	Deploying varied types of assessments
		Giving students time in class to discuss, write, and solve problems
Memories are encoded as synaptic networks.	Encoding knowledge relationally helps in remembering it.
		Preassessments that tie new material to preexisting knowledge
		Activities that ask students to compare, synthesize, and evaluate
Dopamine and ACh, released during states of motivation and attention, boost synaptic plasticity.	Motivation and attention increase learning.
		Tailoring examples and activities to identified student interests
Cortisol, released during stress, depresses synaptic plasticity.	Stereotype threat undermines learning and performance.
		Values affirmation
		Equity strategies

Middle: psychological or educational findings or ideas that may correspond to the neuroscientific principle.

What Might Be the Effect of Frequent, Actively Engaging Homework?

Imagine a student, Alessa, a first-term freshman who hopes to major in biology. Like many traditionally taught classrooms, Alessa’s class assigns only textbook reading for homework. She wants to do well in her first science class, so she follows the syllabus’s advice to read the textbook chapters. However, her busy life means that the reading tends to happen after the corresponding lecture rather than before. Every time, the reading feels reassuringly similar to what was said in lecture, which makes her feel satisfied with her studying and prepared for her first midterm. During the exam, however, she realizes that something is wrong. Somehow the knowledge that seemed so familiar when she read the textbook now seems to hover just out of reach in her mind. The worst experiences came when the test asked her to solve problems. She had thought that reading through the examples her teacher worked through in class would be enough, but somehow that did not translate into being able successfully complete those problems on the exam. Afterward, she asks herself, “Didn’t I do what the syllabus asked me to do? Maybe I didn’t read enough.” She vows to spend more time on rereading her book and her notes.

Could having frequent, actively engaging homework assignments have helped Alessa learn more from her class? Alessa, like many students, believes that, by reading the textbook, she was doing an adequate job of absorbing knowledge. However, many psychology studies have confirmed that mere passive exposure to knowledge, such as rereading a previously read passage, is not very effective at creating memories ( Roediger and Butler, 2011 ). More fundamentally, passive strategies such as listening and reading seem to do a poor job of developing higher-order thinking skills like problem solving, synthesis or evaluation, even when the material is designed to explain or model those skills ( Zoller, 1993 ). Conversely, psychologists have found that an effective way to reinforce a memory is to retrieve or reconstruct it ( Roediger and Butler, 2011 ). Moreover, research in many domains shows that fostering learning involves deliberate practice of the skills involved; in other words, to teach problem solving, we must give students many problems to solve ( Ericsson et al. , 2003 ). Frequent homework can be an opportunity to give students that practice. Studies suggest that assigning homework in college biology classes can increase performance ( Lefcort and Eiger, 2003 ; Orr and Foster, 2013 ; Carnegie, 2015 ). Indeed, frequent, active homework that consists of writing or problem solving is an important part of the high or moderate course structure that has been shown to reduce achievement gaps for students from underrepresented groups and to improve learning for all students ( Freeman et al. , 2011 ; Eddy and Hogan, 2014 ).

What do we know about the neurobiology of learning and memory that might help explain why homework can be effective in preventing the problems Alessa experienced in her exam? The difficulty students have when translating the knowledge they obtained by reading or listening into usable skills makes more sense in the light of what is known about the specificity of neural plasticity. When Alessa reread her textbook, she was probably reinforcing particular connections between the book’s wording and her class material. Those may not have been the exact connections that would have been useful for associating the book’s wording and how to solve biology problems or even for associating the exam’s wording and her class material. Instead, if she had been assigned active homework, she might have practiced the skills she needed to succeed. Of course, there are many ways instructors can allow their students to practice skills, including using varied types of assessments and giving students time in class to discuss, write, and solve problems.

What Might Be the Effects of Using Concept Maps?

Unlike Alessa, Joe, one of Alessa’s classmates, knows going into the exam that he will be in trouble. All term, the sheer number of facts has been making his head swim. By now, he has highlighted every single detail and vocabulary word in his textbook, and every time he opens it to study he feels like he is slowly sinking into a sea of neon yellow ink. The test confirms that he is drowning: on any short-response question that asks him to analyze, contrast, or argue, he has no idea where to even start, so he spills out onto the paper all the facts he can muster that relate even tangentially to the prompt. His strategy gets him enough partial credit to pass the exam, but at heart he is still confused about how all the pieces fit together. In Joe’s next biology course, the professor teaches as if the students have mastered the introductory material, but Joe finds the lectures difficult to follow, because he has lost so many fragments of the necessary background knowledge.

Could concept maps have helped Joe? One of Joe’s problems is that his biology course presented him with lots of details, which he gamely tried to memorize, but he did not have a big-picture view that would allow him to classify and organize those details. As instructors, we already know that all of biology is interconnected, but novices like our incoming freshmen do not. They see biological knowledge as being made up of facts that are disconnected from one another and from their everyday lives instead of something that must be organized using deep biological concepts ( Semsar et al. , 2011 ; Smith et al. , 2013 ). When students create concept maps, they must explicitly link biological concepts and ideas to one another, countering the tendency to view each detail separately ( Allen and Tanner, 2003b ). Many (but not all) educational studies have shown that making concept maps enhances comprehension and recall of class material compared with strategies such as listening to lectures or rereading ( Nesbit and Adesope, 2006 ; but see Karpicke and Blunt, 2011 ).

What do we know about the neurobiology of learning and memory that might help explain why concept maps can be effective in preventing the problems Joe encountered? Memories are encoded as synaptic networks and are retrieved when some of the neural connections are reactivated, which prompts the reactivation of the entire network to which they belong. It is logical, then, that a memory that has many connections to other memories would be easier to retrieve than a memory that has only a few entry points, because there would be more ways to reactivate the former. Therefore, explicitly connecting a piece of biology knowledge to other information in the course or the real world should make that piece of knowledge easier to remember. If Joe’s instructor had required students to create concept maps, Joe might have spent more time thinking about and relating biological concepts to one another and to previous knowledge in the course or in the outside world, clarifying his understanding and making all of it easier to remember for his next biology class. Other strategies for having students connect the class material to their preexisting knowledge or to what they have learned previously include using appropriate preassessments and designing class activities that explicitly ask students to compare, synthesize, and evaluate.

What Might Be the Effects of Problem-Based Learning?

Morgan is another freshman student in Alessa and Joe’s biology class. Morgan is laser-focused on the career goal that she has had since she was a small child: being a doctor. Initially, Morgan was fairly excited about her introductory biology course, hoping that it would connect basic biology to her interest in human health. However, when the instructor comes to evolution and the diversity of life, she loses all her enthusiasm. “This is so boring,” she thinks. “All of this happened so slowly and so long ago. How can it be relevant to me or my future patients?” Although she crams for the exams just enough to maintain her grade point average, in a year, she will remember very little of the material on evolution.

Could problem-based learning have helped Morgan retain more of the material that was covered in the class? In problem-based learning, learning is initiated by, and structured around, complex situations ( Allen and Tanner, 2003a ). Importantly, they typically connect science content to situations the learners may encounter outside school, including in future professional contexts, or to broader societal contexts and concerns ( Allen and Tanner, 2003a ; Chamany et al. , 2008 ). Studies of classes that use problem-based learning report positive effects on class attendance, student retention, retaining knowledge, and conceptual understanding, suggesting that students enjoy this form of teaching and learn from it ( Allen and Tanner, 2003a ; Prince and Felder, 2007 ).

What do we know about the neurobiology of learning and memory that might help explain some of the effectiveness of problem-based learning? Neurobiologists have shown that motivation and attention, which problem-based learning promotes, are associated with the release of dopamine and ACh. In turn, these neurotransmitters greatly bolster the formation of new synaptic connections. Because of Morgan’s perception that the evolution material is boring and lacks relevance to her goals, her brain may not have released many of these chemicals as she was studying, potentially hampering her learning. Perhaps if her instructor had introduced evolution with a problem about antibiotic resistance, Morgan may have realized that evolution does have applications for human health and may have been more eager about and attentive to the material. Problem-based learning is not the only way to engage students, of course; for example, instructors can ask the students at the beginning of the term about their personal and professional interests and tailor examples, questions, and classroom activities to fit those interests. Perhaps key is that it is important to have the students provide information on what they find intriguing rather than relying purely on the instructor’s intuition, as our interests and motivations may not be the same as those of our students.

What Might Be the Effects of Using Culturally Diverse Examples?

Elijah is also in the same first-year biology class as Morgan, Joe, and Alessa. He is excited and proud to be there, as he is the first person in his family to go to college. He knows that there are not many scientists who look like him or come from his kind of background. In fact, he cannot readily think of a single one, nor are any discussed in his biology class, but he is determined to become a research scientist. However, this class has been a lot more difficult than he expected. He studies assiduously for the first exam, since he wants to prove himself, but on test day, a subtle panic takes over. He feels his heart race, and his mind seizes up and refuses to yield the answers. After that experience, he begins to wonder, “Do I really belong here?” Every time he goes to study, he feels the weight of his doubts, and remembering his biology material somehow becomes slower and more difficult. At the end of the term, he receives a “C−” and, with a heavy sense of disappointment, decides to switch his major to sociology, where he thinks he will feel more at home.

Could using culturally diverse examples have helped Elijah feel and be more successful in class? Unfortunately, many students lack personal knowledge of scientists and hold stereotypes about what scientists are like, stereotypes that are reinforced by the media and even occasionally by materials meant to promote positive views of science or scientists ( Tanner, 2009a ; Schinske et al. , 2015 ). Even if students consciously reject prejudicial notions of what types of people are better at science, they may still hold unconscious beliefs that influence their actions ( Greenwald and Banaji, 1995 ). When students reach our classrooms and do not see themselves or issues of concern to their communities, they might reasonably conclude that they do not belong in biology. Such concerns are one of the primary drivers behind the lower retention rates of women and minority students in science ( Tanner and Allen 2007 ; Tanner, 2009a ). While worries about belonging in science can operate over long timescales and influence large decisions like one’s choice of major, they can also influence day-to-day performance in the classroom. It is well known that people who are part of groups that are negatively stereotyped are at risk of confirming those stereotypes, especially in high-stress situations, a phenomenon called stereotype threat ( Steele, 1997 ). Stereotype threat is thought to impede performance by interfering with learning and working memory ( Schmader et al. , 2008 ). In contrast, by using culturally diverse examples, we can show that we welcome all of our students into our classes and establish an environment that promotes students’ sense that they belong in science. Introducing the stories of diverse scientists in the classroom can both increase students’ ability to personally relate to scientists and improve their grades ( Schinske et al. , 2016 ).

What do we know about the neurobiology of learning and memory that might help explain the effectiveness of using culturally diverse examples in class materials? People who are scared produce the hormone cortisol. The exam was extremely stressful for Elijah, both because of its difficulty and possibly because he was being affected by stereotype threat, and he almost certainly was secreting a very high level of cortisol. In fact, it is known that students who face stereotype threat exhibit much larger increases in blood pressure and cortisol levels in situations in which they are being evaluated, like taking a test, than students who do not face that threat ( Blascovich et al. , 2001 ; Townsend et al. , 2011 ). After the exam, Elijah probably continued to have increased cortisol levels because of his worries about his class performance and longer-term concerns about belonging in science. His subsequent difficulties with absorbing the biology material are consistent with the effects that persistently high levels of cortisol have on neural plasticity. Using culturally diverse examples may have mitigated some of the effects of high stress levels by reassuring Elijah that he belongs in science. There also are other interventions that act against high stress levels. Even one-time, 15-minute exercises have been shown to counteract the negative effects of stereotype threat for months or years if the exercise allows students to affirm their values or attribute worries about belonging to external factors such as the transition to college rather than to their personal or racial identities ( Cohen et al. , 2006 ; Yeager and Walton, 2011 ). We can also reduce students’ stress and increase their sense of belonging in the classroom by employing equity strategies such as giving all students the chance to think and talk about science and building fair and inclusive communities ( Tanner, 2013 ).

NEUROBIOLOGICAL REANALYSIS OF THE THINK–PAIR–SHARE

Now knowing some ways that active learning can affect the brain, let us reanalyze the “simple” think–pair–share and see how the neural processes outlined earlier can come together to promote learning. In a think–pair–share, the questions posed to the students are usually interesting and motivating to provide a rich basis for thought and discussion. By gaining the students’ interest and attention, we may be promoting release of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and ACh that enhance neural plasticity. Such questions may also prompt students to connect the material under study to previously learned information or real-world issues, possibly encouraging the formation of neural networks that can promote retrieval of the material in the future. In addition, as students are writing about and discussing the questions with their peers, they are practicing the problem-solving and thinking skills necessary for gaining expertise in a subject. In other words, they may be engaging not only the parts of their brain responsible for reciting semantic information but also those important in developing skills and habits. Finally, it is important to note what is not going on during a think–pair–share. Think–pair–shares are low-stakes and involve the participation of the entire class. The friendly and communal atmosphere that regular think–pair–shares promote may increase belonging and decrease stress, potentially reducing the amount of cortisol released in student brains and removing a factor that can impede neural plasticity and learning.

WHAT MIGHT TEACHING AND LEARNING LOOK LIKE AS NEUROSCIENCE ADVANCES?

Teaching and learning are fundamentally neurobiological phenomena. However, while neurobiologists have figured out the basics behind how the brain creates and stores memories, there is still much more to discover. For example, there is currently very little neurobiology research that might explain how concepts as important to learning as metacognition and knowledge organization might be expressed in the brain. Future advances in neuroscience will almost certainly allow us to more easily investigate how complex phenomena like these are represented in the brain and how they affect synaptic plasticity. In addition, currently, a significant portion of our knowledge linking learning to cellular and molecular changes in the brain is indirect, deriving from animal studies or studies conducted in the confinement of a magnetic resonance imaging scanner. In the future, we may be able to look into the human brain in real time and get more direct information about how synapses and circuits change in students as they learn.

Because teaching and learning arise from properties of the human brain, the ability of a teaching technique to harness the processes in a student’s brain that support the formation and retrieval of long-term memories will help determine that technique’s effectiveness in promoting that student’s learning. As we learn more about the brain, we will increasingly be able to use the results of neurobiological studies to more effectively select and develop new pedagogical techniques. Translating the results of neuroscience to the classroom will help future instructors truly teach their students from the inside out.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Robin Wright for her early inspiration and conversations about this Feature . We also thank Natalia Caporale, Sara Brownell, Colin Harrison, Sarah Bissonnette, Kristin de Nesnera, Rhea Kimpo, and Henry Mahncke for helpful ideas and discussion.

Allen D, Tanner KD. Approaches to cell biology teaching: learning content in context-problem-based learning. Cell Biol Educ. 2003a; 2 :73–81. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Allen D, Tanner KD. Approaches to cell biology teaching: mapping the journey—concept maps as signposts of developing knowledge structures. Cell Biol Educ. 2003b; 2 :133–136. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel JM, Ferretti RE, Leite RE, Jacob Filho W, Lent R, Herculano-Houzel S. Equal numbers of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain. J Comp Neurol. 2009; 513 :532–541. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bailey CH, Giustetto M, Huang YY, Hawkins RD, Kandel ER. Is heterosynaptic modulation essential for stabilizing Hebbian plasticity and memory. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2000; 1 :11–20. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bergmann O, Liebl J, Bernard S, Alkass K, Yeung MS, Steier P, Kutschera W, Johnson L, Landen M, Druid H, Spalding KL, Frisen J. The age of olfactory bulb neurons in humans. Neuron. 2012; 74 :634–639. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bhardwaj RD, Curtis MA, Spalding KL, Buchholz BA, Fink D, Bjork-Eriksson T, Nordborg C, Gage FH, Druid H, Eriksson PS, Frisen J. Neocortical neurogenesis in humans is restricted to development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006; 103 :12564–12568. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Blascovich J, Spencer SJ, Quinn D, Steele C. African Americans and high blood pressure: the role of stereotype threat. Psychol Sci. 2001; 12 :225–229. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bruer JT. Points of view: on the implications of neuroscience research for science teaching and learning: are there any? A skeptical theme and variations: the primacy of psychology in the science of learning. Cell Biol Educ. 2006; 5 :104–110. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Carnegie J. Use of feedback-oriented online exercises to help physiology students construct well-organized answers to short-answer questions. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2015; 14 :ar25. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Caroni P, Chowdhury A, Lahr M. Synapse rearrangements upon learning: from divergent-sparse connectivity to dedicated sub-circuits. Trends Neurosci. 2014; 37 :604–614. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chamany K, Allen D, Tanner KD. Making biology learning relevant to students: integrating people, history, and context into college biology teaching. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2008; 7 :267–278. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cohen GL, Garcia J, Apfel N, Master A. Reducing the racial achievement gap: a social-psychological intervention. Science. 2006; 313 :1307–1310. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Conner JM, Culberson A, Packowski C, Chiba AA, Tuszynski MH. Lesions of the basal forebrain cholinergic system impair task acquisition and abolish cortical plasticity associated with motor skill learning. Neuron. 2003; 38 :819–829. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Conrad CD. A critical review of chronic stress effects on spatial learning and memory. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2010; 34 :742–755. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
de Kloet ER, Oitzl MS, Joels M. Stress and cognition: are corticosteroids good or bad guys. Trends Neurosci. 1999; 22 :422–426. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Deligiannidi K, Howard-Jones PA. The neuroscience literacy of teachers in Greece. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2015; 174 :3909–3915. [ Google Scholar ]
Eddy SL, Hogan KA. Getting under the hood: how and for whom does increasing course structure work. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2014; 13 :453–468. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tescher-Romer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev. 2003; 100 :363–406. [ Google Scholar ]
Everitt BJ, Robbins TW. Central cholinergic system and cognition. Annu Rev Psychol. 1997; 48 :649–684. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okorafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014; 111 :8410–8415. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Freeman S, Haak D, Wenderoth MP. Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011; 10 :175–186. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Froemke RC, Carcea I, Barker AJ, Yuan K, Seybold BA, Martins ARO, Zaika N, Bernstein H, Wachs M, Levis PA, et al. Long-term modification of cortical synapses improves sensory perception. Nat Neurosci. 2013; 16 :79–88. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goshen I. The optogenetic revolution in memory research. Trends Neurosci. 2014; 37 :511–522. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goswami U. Neuroscience and education: from research to practice. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006; 7 :406–413. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Greenwald A, Banaji M. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psych Rev. 1995; 105 :4–27. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hartley D. Observations on Man, His Frame, His Duty, and His Expectations. vol. 2. Bath and London: Samuel Richardson; 1749. [ Google Scholar ]
Hebb DO. The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. New York: Wiley; 1949. [ Google Scholar ]
Herculano-Houzel S. Do you know your brain? A survey on public neuroscience literacy at the closing of the decade of the brain. Neuroscientist. 2002; 8 :98–110. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hermida MJ, Segretin MS, García AS, Lipina SJ. Conceptions and misconceptions about neuroscience in preschool teachers: a study from Argentina. Educ Res. 2016; 58 :457–472. [ Google Scholar ]
Holtmaat A, Svoboda K. Experience-dependent structural synaptic plasticity in the mammalian brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009; 10 :647–658. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Howard-Jones PA. Neuroscience and education: myths and messages. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014; 15 :817–824. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Howard-Jones PA, Franey L, Mashmoushi R, Liao Y-C. The neuroscience literacy of trainee teachers. 2009. British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, held September 2–5, 2009, in Manchester, England.
Ishai A, Ungerleider LG, Martin A, Haxby JV. The representation of objects in the human occipital and temporal cortex. J Cog Neurosci. 2000; 12 :35–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
James S. McDonnell Foundation. The Santiago Declaration. 2007. www.jsmf.org/santiagodeclaration/ (accessed 24 September 2015)
Karlsson MP, Frank LM. Network dynamics underlying the formation of sparse, informative representations in the hippocampus. J Neurosci. 2008; 28 :14271–14281. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Karpicke JD, Blunt JR. Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science. 2011; 331 :772–775. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lefcort H, Eiger SM. Preparatory versus practice homework: university biology students compare the two. J Coll Sci Teach. 2003; 33 :16–18. [ Google Scholar ]
Lupien SJ, McEwen BS. The acute effects of corticosteroids on cognition: integration of animal and human model studies. Brain Res Rev. 1997; 24 :1–27. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lyman F. The responsive classroom discussion: the inclusion of all students. In: Anderson A, editor. In: Mainstreaming Digest. College Park: University of Maryland; 1981. pp. 109–113. [ Google Scholar ]
Megias M, Emri ZS, Freund TF, Gulyas AI. Total number and distribution of inhibitory and excitatory synapses on hippocampal CA1 pyramidal cells. Neuroscience. 2001; 102 :527–540. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Morris RG, Anderson E, Lynch GS, Baudry M. Selective impairment of learning and blockade of long-term potentiation by an N-methyl- d -aspartate receptor antagonist, AP5. Nature. 1986; 319 :774–776. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nesbit JC, Adesope OO. Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 2006; 76 :413–448. [ Google Scholar ]
Orr R, Foster S. Increasing student success using online quizzing in introductory (majors) biology. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2013; 12 :509–514. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Prince M, Felder R. The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. J Coll Sci Teach. 2007; 17 :14–20. [ Google Scholar ]
Reed A, Riley J, Carraway R, Carrasco A, Perez C, Jakkamsetti V, Kilgard MP. Cortical map plasticity improves learning but is not necessary for improved performance. Neuron. 2011; 70 :121–31. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Roediger HL, Butler AC. The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011; 15 :20–27. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schinske J, Cardenas M, Kaliangara J. Uncovering scientist stereotypes and their relationships with student race and student success in a diverse, community college setting. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2015; 14 :ar35. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schinske JN, Perkins H, Snyder A, Wyer M. Scientist spotlight homework assignments shift students’ stereotypes of scientists and enhance science identity in a diverse introductory science class. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2016; 15 :ar47. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schmader T, Johns M, Forbes C. An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychol Rev. 2008; 115 :336–356. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schultz W, Dickinson A. Neuronal coding of prediction errors. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2000; 23 :473–500. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Semsar K, Knight JK, Birol G, Smith MK. The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS) for use in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011; 10 :268–278. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Shatz C. The developing brain. Sci Am. 1992; 267 :60–67. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Silva AJ, Zhou Y, Rogerson T, Shobe J, Balaji J. Molecular and cellular approaches to memory allocation in neural circuits. Science. 2009; 326 :391–395. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Smith JI, Combs ED, Nagami PH, Alto VM, Goh HG, Gourdet MAA, Hough CM, Nickell AE, Peer AG, Coley JD, Tanner KD. Development of the Biology Card Sorting Task to measure conceptual expertise in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2013; 12 :628–644. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Spalding KL, Bergmann O, Alkass K, Bernard S, Salehpour M, Huttner HB, Bostrom E, Westerlund I, Vial C, Buchholz BA, et al. Dynamics of hippocampal neurogenesis in adult humans. Cell. 2013; 153 :1219–1227. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Steele CM. A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am Psychol. 1997; 52 :613–629. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Takeuchi T, Duszkiewicz AJ, Morris RGM. The synaptic plasticity and memory hypothesis: encoding, storage and persistence. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2014; 369 :1–14. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tanner KD. Learning to see inequity in science. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2009a; 8 :265–270. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tanner KD. Talking to learn: why biology students should be talking in classrooms and how to make it happen. CBE Life Sci Ed. 2009b; 8 :89–94. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tanner KD. Structure matters: twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2013; 12 :322–331. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tanner KD, Allen D. Cultural competence in the college biology classroom. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2007; 6 :251–258. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Townsend SSM, Major B, Gangi CE, Mendes WB. From “in the air” to “under the skin”: cortisol responses to social identity threat. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2011; 37 :151–164. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wiesel TN, Hubel DH. Effects of visual deprivation on morphology and physiology of cells in the cat’s lateral geniculate body. J Neurophysiol. 1963; 26 :978–993. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Williams RW, Herrup K. The control of neuron number. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1988; 11 :423–453. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Xu L, Ramirez S, Pan PT, Puryear CB, Govindarajan A, Deisseroth K, Tonegawa S. Optogenetic stimulation of a hippocampal engram activates fear memory recall. Nature. 2012; 484 :381–385. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Xu T, Yu X, Perlik AJ, Tobin WF, Zweig JA, Tennant K, Jones T, Zuo Y. Rapid formation and selective stabilization of synapses for enduring motor memories. Nature. 2009; 462 :915–919. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yang G, Pan F, Gan W-B. Stably maintained dendritic spines are associated with lifelong memories. Nature. 2009; 462 :920–924. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yeager DS, Walton GM. Social-psychological interventions in education: they’re not magic. Rev Educ Res. 2011; 81 :267–301. [ Google Scholar ]
Zoller U. Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: unlikely for HOCS. J Chem Educ. 1993; 70 :195–197. [ Google Scholar ]

STFM Journals
Family Medicine
Annals of Family Medicine

About PRiMER

RESEARCH BRIEF

Think-pair-share: promoting equitable participation and in-depth discussion, amy r. guenther, phd | cathleen m. abbott, md.

PRiMER. 2024;8:7.

Published: 1/30/2024 | DOI: 10.22454/PRiMER.2024.444143

Introduction : Increasing student participation within the classroom can improve student engagement, the classroom environment, and student learning, and can provide for more diverse perspectives on the content. Think-pair-share (TPS) is an instructional strategy that can be used to promote and support student participation and enhance learning. Our study aimed to investigate the use of this strategy in early medical education.

Methods : Using content analysis of video recordings, equity mapping software, and student surveys, we examined the implementation of TPS in three different small groups of first-year medical students. We looked for increased student participation, equity in the distribution of student participation, and quality of discussion as evidence of TPS’s effectiveness in promoting student learning.

Results : TPS increased student participation and improved the quality of discussion. Additionally, students indicated TPS positively affected their learning, with the “thinking” and “pairing” time being especially important.

Conclusions : In utilizing TPS as an instructional strategy, medical educators can provide a structure that promotes a more equitable distribution of student participation, increased student interaction, and in-depth collaborative dialogue that enhance the overall learning experience.

Increasing student participation in collaborative dialogue can improve student engagement and provide opportunities for more diverse perspectives. 1-5 Hearing student thoughts can also help instructors identify students’ level of understanding of material and adjust their instruction accordingly. 6 Having a structure, such as think-pair-share (TPS), that promotes and scaffolds student discussion can be beneficial to the overall learning experience. 2

TPS, a cooperative learning structure developed in K-12 education, 7 involves three stages. First, students are given a set amount of time for individual thought on a given prompt. Then, they discuss their ideas and check their understanding with a partner. Finally, students engage in a whole-group discussion. While a few studies have begun to examine the effectiveness of TPS in health professions education, finding that TPS promotes clinical learning 8 and enhances critical thinking, 9 the utilization of this teaching strategy in early medical education has not been formally studied.

We conducted our study of the implementation of TPS with first-year students in a public, midwestern medical school whose program includes case-based learning, clinical experiences, and large- and small-group discussions. Approximately 200 demographically diverse students enter the program each year. After obtaining exemption from our institutional review board and informed consent from all participants, we implemented and studied TPS in three postclinic groups (PCGs). Led by a faculty physician, these compulsory groups met twice weekly throughout the first year. They were composed of seven to eight students who were intentionally mixed based upon MCAT scores, clinical experience, diversity measures (eg, gender, ethnicity), and certificate program. In the PCGs, students debriefed their clinical experiences and faculty covered content that consisted of patient cases focused on chief complaints and concerns and integrated basic, social, and clinical sciences. The faculty physician led each PCG session using a prepared slide presentation, asking individual students to read and respond to their respective slide in a round-robin fashion.

The three faculty physicians who volunteered to participate in this study were briefed on the TPS strategy. Then they identified two slides where they would utilize TPS in each of two PCG sessions. They video recorded these six sessions, which were then transcribed.

Using the videos and transcripts, the researchers collaboratively analyzed segments where TPS was implemented and segments where TPS was not implemented. We employed content analysis, coding for instances and types of talk (eg, prompting, joining, responding). Additionally, one of the researchers utilized equity mapping software 10 to chart the instances of participation and interactions of the students and faculty to examine student participation patterns. 11 We used the software to produce quantitative data for instances of participation and talk time for each individual as well as a visual representation of group interactions (Figure 2). Finally, we asked students to complete two informal, anonymous surveys 12 to gather their honest opinions about TPS. Although not required, all 23 students chose to respond.

Results and Discussion

Our analysis of the data revealed the use of TPS positively influenced student participation and the quality of whole group discussion. We found a more equitable distribution of participation among students (Figure 1). Generally, students who participated less in non TPS group discussion were more vocal during the whole group “share” time when TPS was implemented. Students who tended to dominate discussion were less dominant during the TPS share time, allowing space for their peers to share their thinking. Importantly, while a few students participated very little in whole-group discussion (with or without TPS), we observed these same students actively engaging in discussion during the “pair” portion of TPS. All students shared ideas, discussed content, and asked questions, regardless of their partner.

Through our analysis of the videos, we also found that the discussions that took place during the share time of TPS were different in quality. The students were much more likely to have collaborative dialogue about the material rather than just one student responding to a slide or an instructor’s prompt. Representative of our data, equity maps for two 6-minute discussion segments within the same group (Figure 2), show considerably more student-to-student interactions than instructor-student-instructor interactions when TPS was utilized. Only two student-to-student interactions occurred during the non-TPS discussion whereas over 30 occurred during the TPS share time. During these interactions, we observed students building upon one anothers’ responses, asking clarifying questions of their peers, and answering those questions rather than deferring to the faculty physician.

The increased participation and improved quality of discussion were likely due to two factors: (1) the students were given time to think before responding; and (2) the students had opportunities to check their thinking and ask questions in pairs. Student responses on the surveys support these conclusions. Think time was deemed helpful by almost all students (91.7%). Multiple students commented that it gave them time to gather their thoughts.

Many students (72.7%) also indicated the partner discussion was helpful, largely because it increased their understanding of the content and confidence in speaking in the whole group. One student noted that they usually refrain from entering conversations due to others talking so much. They shared, “[in a] group full of extroverts, I appreciated the think-pair-share…. Pairing makes it low-stakes in terms of saying things incorrectly: I can fact check with my partner.” Another student commented, “I can share my ideas comfortably with one classmate before speaking with others.” Yet another student noted, “It helped to have someone to double agree/fix errors in understanding.” All these students noted that the opportunity to pair with a peer promoted their learning. Notably, nowhere in the videos we analyzed, other than during TPS, were students specifically given time to think and/or confer with a partner before responding.

In our study, using TPS as an instructional strategy increased student participation and interaction, promoted more equitable distribution of participation, and improved the quality of discussion. Thus, TPS proved to be an accessible instructional strategy that medical educators can utilize to enhance the learning experience. Due to a small sample size, further research using a larger sample size could be used to confirm these results and provide additional insight into the nuances of implementation.

Acknowledgments

Both authors participated in the research design and manuscript drafting. Dr Guenther was the lead author of the manuscript. Dr Abbott was the lead researcher of the project. Both authors thank Dr Marie Cole and Dr Jim Mayle for their contributions to this study.

Financial Support: No funding was received for conducting this study or preparation of this manuscript.

Presentations: Some of the content of this manuscript was presented by the authors at the STFM Conference on Medical Student Education in January 2022.

Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA. Cooperative learning: improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. J on Excellence in University Teach. 2014;25:1-26.
Lange C, Costley J, Han SL. Informal cooperative learning in small groups: the effect of scaffolding on participation. Issues Educ Res . 2016;26:260-279.
Rocca KA. Student participation in the college classroom: an extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communications Ed. 2010;59:185-213.
Teaching Works. Eliciting and interpreting individual students’ thinking. Accessed August 7, 2022. https://library.teachingworks.org/curriculum-resources/teaching-practices/eliciting-and-interpreting/
Webb NM. The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. Br J Educ Psychol . 2009;79(Pt 1):1-28. doi:10.1348/000709908X380772
Ritchhart R, Church M, Morrison K. Making Thinking Visible. Jossey-Bass; 2011.
Lyman F. The responsive classroom discussion. In: Anderson AS, ed. Mainstreaming Digest. University of Maryland College of Education; 1981:109-113.
Ganatra S, Doblanko T, Rasmussen K, et al. Perceived effectiveness and applicability of Think-Pair-Share including Storytelling (TPS-S) to enhance clinical learning. Teach Learn Med . 2021;33(2):184-195. doi:10.1080/10401334.2020.1811094
Kaddoura M. Think Pair Share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students’ critical thinking. Educ Res Q . 2013;36:3-24.
Equity maps description. Equity Maps. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://equitymaps.com/app-description/
Reinholz DL, Shah N. Equity analytics: A methodological approach for quantifying participation patterns in mathematics classroom discourse. J Res Math Educ . 2018;49(2):140-177. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.49.2.0140
Abbott CM. Think Pair Share Student Survey Questions. STFM Resource Library. Accessed January 29, 2024. https://resourcelibrary.stfm.org/viewdocument/think-pair-share-student-survey-que?CommunityKey=2751b51d-483f-45e2-81de-4faced0a290a&tab=librarydocuments

Lead Author

Amy R. Guenther, PhD

Affiliations: College of Education, Saginaw Valley State University, University Center, MI

Cathleen M. Abbott, MD - College of Human Medicine Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

Corresponding Author

Correspondence: College of Education, Saginaw Valley State University, 7400 Bay Road, University Center, MI 48710

Email: [email protected]

There are no comments for this article.

Downloads & info, related content.

Learning Types/Learning Methods
Small-group Learning

Guenther AR, Abbott CM. Think-Pair-Share: Promoting Equitable Participation and In-Depth Discussion. PRiMER. 2024;8:7. https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2024.444143

Citation files in RIS format are importable by EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, Mendeley, and Reference Manager.

RIS (EndNote, Reference Manager, ProCite, Mendeley, RefWorks)
BibTex (JabRef, BibDesk, LaTeX)

Search Results

Contact STFM

Accessibility Links

Skip to content
Skip to search IOPscience
Skip to Journals list
Accessibility help
Accessibility Help

Click here to close this panel.

Purpose-led Publishing is a coalition of three not-for-profit publishers in the field of physical sciences: AIP Publishing, the American Physical Society and IOP Publishing.

Together, as publishers that will always put purpose above profit, we have defined a set of industry standards that underpin high-quality, ethical scholarly communications.

We are proudly declaring that science is our only shareholder.

Improving student learning outcomes using research-based think pair and share models

E I Pangastuti 1 , E A Nurdin 1 , R A Surya 2 , B Apriyanto 1 and A W Khoiroh 1

Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science , Volume 485 , Second International Conference on Environmental Geography and Geography Education (ICEGE) 28-29 September 2019, East Java, Indonesia Citation E I Pangastuti et al 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 485 012031 DOI 10.1088/1755-1315/485/1/012031

Article metrics

382 Total downloads

Share this article

Author e-mails.

[email protected]

Author affiliations

1 Geography Education, University of Jember, East Java, Indonesia

2 History Education, University of Jember, East Java, Indonesia

Buy this article in print

The purpose of education is not only the provision of subject matter in the classroom, but can provide an invitation to students to find and build their own knowledge through the experiences gained. Knowledge gained from oneself is easier for students to remember than is obtained from others. This required an effective learning model to improve learning outcomes. Research-based learning trains students to solve problems, and make decisions and develop critical thinking skills by connecting existing theories. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of research-based Think Pair and Share (TPS) learning on student learning outcomes. The research method uses the correct experimental design with the posttest-only control design. The results showed student learning outcomes using the TPS model based on research had high results compared to normal learning.

Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence . Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

Advanced Search

Think-pair-share in a large CS1 class: does learning really happen?

24 citation

New Citation Alert added!

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations.

Selva M Broquedis F Stephenson B Stone J Battestilli L Rebelsky S Shoop L (2024) Mining Jewels Together: Debating about Programming Threshold Concepts in Large Classes Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 10.1145/3626252.3630893 (1189-1195) Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626252.3630893
Clanton Harpine E Clanton Harpine E (2024) The Advantages of Using Academic Service-Learning in a University Classroom: What Does the Research Say? Service Learning in Higher Education 10.1007/978-3-031-51378-7_2 (17-29) Online publication date: 28-Feb-2024 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51378-7_2
Yang K Echeverria V Lu Z Mao H Holstein K Rummel N Aleven V (2023) Pair-Up: Prototyping Human-AI Co-orchestration of Dynamic Transitions between Individual and Collaborative Learning in the Classroom Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 10.1145/3544548.3581398 (1-17) Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3581398
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Social and professional topics

Professional topics

Computing education

Computing education programs

Computer science education

Recommendations

Effect of think-pair-share in a large cs1 class: 83% sustained engagement.

Think-Pair-Share (TPS) is a classroom-based active learning strategy, in which students work on a problem posed by the instructor, first individually, then in pairs, and finally as a class-wide discussion. TPS has been recommended for its benefits of ...

Promoting Student Engagement Using Flipped Classroom in Large Introductory Financial Accounting Class

Flipped classroom has become an instructional trend used by many universities especially in Science courses. The use of flipped instructional classroom encourages student to be actively engaged in their learning. However, the implementation of flipped ...

Including Coding Questions in Video Quizzes for a Flipped CS1

In an effort to improve student performance in a flipped classroom environment, this paper explores the impact of including auto-graded coding questions in gate check quizzes associated with videos for a flipped CS1 course. Previous work showed that ...

Information

Published in.

Conference Chairs:

Uppsala University, Sweden

Program Chairs:

Auckland University of Technology, NZ

Bilkent University: Bilkent University
SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Permissions, check for updates, author tags.

active learning
experimental study
large class
think-pair-share
Research-article
Bilkent University

Acceptance Rates

Contributors, other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

24 Total Citations View Citations
731 Total Downloads
Downloads (Last 12 months) 60
Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 3
Echeverria V Yang K Lawrence L Rummel N Aleven V (2023) Designing Hybrid Human–AI Orchestration Tools for Individual and Collaborative Activities: A Technology Probe Study IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 10.1109/TLT.2023.3248155 16 :2 (191-205) Online publication date: 1-Apr-2023 https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2023.3248155
Catania B Guerrini G Traversaro D (2022) Collaborative Learning in an Introductory Database Course: A Study with Think-Pair-Share and Team Peer Review Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Data Systems Education 10.1145/3531072.3535330 (60-66) Online publication date: 12-Jun-2022 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3531072.3535330
Schulz S Berndt S Hawlitschek A (2022) Exploring students’ and lecturers’ views on collaboration and cooperation in computer science courses - a qualitative analysis Computer Science Education 10.1080/08993408.2021.2022361 33 :3 (318-341) Online publication date: 16-Jan-2022 https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.2022361
Yang K Lu Z Echeverria V Sewall J Lawrence L Rummel N Aleven V (2022) Technology Ecosystem for Orchestrating Dynamic Transitions Between Individual and Collaborative AI-Tutored Problem Solving Artificial Intelligence in Education 10.1007/978-3-031-11644-5_66 (673-678) Online publication date: 27-Jul-2022 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11644-5_66
McClain L Chiu Y Zimmerman H (2022) Place‐based learning processes in a family science workshop: Discussion prompts supporting families sensemaking and rural science connections using a community water model Science Education 10.1002/sce.21706 106 :3 (645-673) Online publication date: 12-Feb-2022 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21706
Eickholt J Johnson M Seeling P (2021) Practical Active Learning Stations to Transform Existing Learning Environments Into Flexible, Active Learning Classrooms IEEE Transactions on Education 10.1109/TE.2020.3009919 64 :2 (95-102) Online publication date: May-2021 https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2020.3009919
Hagan A Lesniak N Balunas M Bishop L Close W Doherty M Elmore A Flynn K Hannigan G Koumpouras C Jenior M Kozik A McBride K Rifkin S Stough J Sovacool K Sze M Tomkovich S Topcuoglu B Schloss P (2020) Ten simple rules to increase computational skills among biologists with Code Clubs PLOS Computational Biology 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008119 16 :8 (e1008119) Online publication date: 27-Aug-2020 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008119

View Options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

View options.

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

Share this Publication link

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
Download citation
Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

Utility Menu

GA4 Tracking Code

bok_logo_2-02_-_harvard_left.png

Pair and Share

A typical technique to foster collaborative learning, “pair and share” can take various forms in classrooms. The most commonly practiced and studied is Think-Pair-Share , developed by Frank Lyman of the University of Maryland (Lyman, 1981), where students take approximately a minute to think through a response to a question (Think) proposed by the instructor—often one “demanding analysis, evaluation, or synthesis”—before turning to partners for discussion (Pair) and subsequently sharing “with a learning team, with a larger group, or with an entire class during a follow-up discussion” (Share) (Millis, 1990). In the third step, the instructor may ask selected pairs to share their respective positions and how or why they disagree, or request a joint response from a pair based on each other’s ideas (Barkley, Cross & Major, 2014).

A number of variations have evolved from the original Think-Pair-Share technique. Gerrard, Collette and Elowson (2005) summarized the variations of Write-Pair-Share (where students are first asked to reflect individually and jot down ideas), Think-Pair-Square (where, instead of a whole-class discussion, two pairs of participants work together to share and compare the responses), Turn-to-your-neighbor discussions (where participants brainstorm with a neighbor and are called on for answers, followed by a show of hands by the class to show agreement with the answer), and Pair-and-Compare (where students compare notes in pairs, add or correct information). At the end of the exercise, the students’ answers are commented on by the instructor, although the instructor may choose to skip this step if necessary (“Basic Active Learning Strategies”, n.d.).

Pair and share techniques are often combined with peer instruction to foster collaborative learning (Rao & DiCarlo, 2000; Cortright, Collins, and DiCarlo, 2005; Turpen & Finkelstein, 2009). Documented and studied uses of the technique in undergraduate studies have been found in medicine (Rao & DiCarlo, 2000), biology (McClanahan & McClanahan, 2002), genetics (Smith et al., 2009), exercise physiology (Cortright, Collins & DiCarlo, 2005), economics (Maier & Keenan, 1994), physics (Crouch & Mazur, 2001), mathematics (Sampsel, 2013), and anthropology (Barkley, Cross & Major, 2014).

Pair and share is a simple and quick technique to help warm up the class (Barkley, Cross & Major, 2014). It is an easily acceptable form of discussion as it allows students to “rehearse in a low-risk situation” (Barkley, Cross & Major, 2014), clarifying their answers “through a non-threatening discussion with a fellow classmate before communicating in front of a group” (Millis, 1990). This helps improve the quality of discussion, and increases students’ willingness and readiness to speak up (Barkley, Cross & Major, 2014).

By reflecting and sharing in pairs, students get a chance to hear the knowledge restated from peers, rather than the instructors (Gray & Madson 2007). This enables students to interact more with each other even in a large classroom (Rao & DiCarlo, 2000); 50% of the students can vocalize their ideas simultaneously, which is impossible in lecturer-led classrooms (Gerrard, Collette & Elowson, 2005). Active discussion helps students learn more effectively with more independent thinking (Crouch & Mazur, 2001), thus potentially increasing students’ attention span and appealing to a greater number of learners (Rao & DiCarlo, 2000).

Students’ better involvement in class, induced by this technique, has potentially positive effects on learning outcomes. Research has shown that peer discussion enhances understanding even when none of the students in a discussion group originally knows the correct answer (Smith et al., 2009). The technique has been found to help increase students’ participation, generate more long explanations to questions, while instilling more confidence and comfort in students when contributing to class discussion (Sampsel, 2013).

Research on the long-term effects of pair and share techniques showed that it enhanced students’ ability to solve problems, including new types of problems (Cortright, Collins, and DiCarlo, 2005). By engaging in active and analytical discussions, students can have increased mastery of both conceptual reasoning and quantitative problem solving skills (Crouch & Mazur, 2001).

Written by Danxi Shen, Ed.M., Harvard Graduate School of Education

References:

Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty . John Wiley & Sons.

“Basic Active Learning Strategies”. Center for Teaching and Learning, University of Minnesota. http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/tutorials/active/strategies/index.html

Cortright, R. N., Heidi L. Collins, and Stephen E. DiCarlo. (2005). “Peer Instruction Enhanced Meaningful Learning: Ability to Solve Novel Problems.” Advances in Physiology Education, 29 (2), 107-11.

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics , 69 (9), 970-977.

Gerrard, J., Collette, D., & Elowson, S. (2005) Using Cooperative Learning Techniques with Adults. Presented at NW Reginoal ASTD Conference, November 2005.

Gray, T., & Madson, L. (2007). Ten easy ways to engage your students. College Teaching , 55 (2), 83-87.

Lyman, F. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion. In A. S. Anderson (ed.), Mainstreaming Digest . College Park, MD: University of Maryland, College of Education.

Maier, M. H., & Keenan, D. (1994). Teaching tools: Cooperative learning in economics. Economic Inquiry , 32 (2), 358-361.

McClanahan, E. B., & McClanahan, L. L. (2002). Active learning in a non-majors biology class: lessons learned. College Teaching , 50 (3), 92-96.

Millis, Barbara J. (1990). “Helping Faculty Build Learning Communities Through Cooperative Groups”. To Improve the Academy. Paper 202. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/podimproveacad/202

Rao, Sumangala P., and Stephen E. DiCarlo. (2000). “Peer Instruction Improves Performance on Quizzes.” Advances in Physiology Education , 24 (1), 51-55.

Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research , 5 (2), 020101.

Sampsel, Ariana, (2013). “Finding the Effects of Think-Pair-Share on Student Confidence and Participation”. Honors Undergraduate Student Research. Paper 28. http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/honorsprojects .

Smith, M. K., W. B. Wood, W. K. Adams, C. Wieman, J. K. Knight, N. Guild, and T. T. Su. (2009). “Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions.” Science , 323 , 122-24.

Further Resources:

Barkley, E. F. (2009). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty . John Wiley & Sons.
Lyman, F. (1987). Think-Pair-Share: An expanding teaching technique. MACIE Coperative News , 1 (1),1-2.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual . Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Silberman M. (1996). Active learning: 101 Strategies to teach any Subject . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Research on Learning Objectives
Concept Map
Peer Instruction
Presentations
Quick Write
Speed Dating
Additional Research

Bok Center Quick Tip: Think, Pair, Share

Is "Think-Pair-Share" the Best Approach to Learning?

Is it always good to share.

Posted March 26, 2021 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

The "think-pair-share" learning technique asks students to think individually, confer with a partner, and then share their ideas with the class if called on.
A new paper, however, argues that the "share" component may not surface the best ideas and can inhibit students who are anxious about speaking publicly.
One alternative is the "think-pair-square," which pairs up two pairs of students to create a discussion "square."
The "square" provides students the opportunity to share with others, without requiring them to present to the whole class.

A traditional think-pair-share exercise (Lyman, 1981) might go something like this:

“Let’s do some learning, shall we?” I might ask my students. I then put on the board, or Zoom, or wherever, a question such as this: “What factors might make it more difficult to accept a client’s decision to terminate treatment with you? Take a minute or two to think about this and make some notes.” A minute or two later, I say, “Now, turn to the person next to you and compare your thoughts. Come up with some answers that are different from, and maybe even better than, what each of you came up with individually.”

As I move around the classroom (or the breakout rooms), I can see that all my students are talking, listening, sharing, and learning. At some point, I bring the class together and say something like this: “What did your pairs come up with?” Sometimes I’ll call on people randomly . This last question, the share part of the think-pair-share, is designed, in part, to (a) have students gain experience in talking in front of larger groups, (b) have the entire class benefit from other discussions, (c) have instructors get good information about what students are learning, and (d) solidify the learning that occurred in the thinks and pairs.

Pretty cool, right? In general, I, my colleagues, and the research say, “Yeah.” The think-pair-share is a basic building block of active learning, which is clearly an effective way to facilitate learning. But is the share a building block of the think-pair-share? In a recent article, Cooper, Schinske, and Tanner (2021) say no. They encourage us to re-think the share. I highly recommend reading their entire article. In fact, let me entice you by talking today about just a few of their objections and alternatives.

Problems with the "Share" Part of Think-Pair-Share

One major problem Cooper et al. see in the share is that the large-group discussion doesn’t bring out the best of the pairs. Thus, the share may not solidify knowledge as much as we think. They cite evidence that “the rich, equitable, and high-quality discussions seem to happen in small-group discussions, not whole-group discussions.” Indeed, it is possible that the students who volunteer to share may be the same ones who would contribute to (dominate?) a discussion even if there were no think and pair.

The share does not facilitate the goal of equity as well as we think. For example, Cooper et al. cite research to show that “whole-group discussions failed to capture the many high-quality comments made by women in small-group discussions.”

Another important point they make: Calling on students in the share may cause undue anxiety . Indeed, students who are thinking about having to present may learn less in their pairs. The anxiety some students fear may not be worth the increase in motivation that the share creates to be active in the think and pair.

Suggestions to Improve "Think-Pair-Share"

Cooper et al., being the educators and thoughtful people they are, are not content to articulate weaknesses—they present suggested improvements as well. For example, they suggest an “optional consent to share, whereby the instructor approaches individual students and asks if they would be willing to share their ideas with the class.” This approach is more respectful of student choice and retains the opportunity for students to practice presenting to larger groups. I certainly would have appreciated the opportunity to opt-out of some sharing when I was a student and having a particularly bad day.

Cooper et al. recommend a “local share,” including what I’ve seen referred to as “think-pair-square.” After the pairs discuss the question, they combine with other pairs, so students are presenting to three others, not just one and not the entire class. In my experience using the think-pair-square, I have noticed that students appreciate the opportunity to share their ideas with others without the anxiety engendered by "the whole class."

Cooper et al. present the option of instructors doing the share, which provides them opportunities to poll their students, summarize the best points from the pair discussions, correct misunderstandings, and shout out to individual students who made exceptional contributions to pair discussions. Instructors might also have students write their ideas on index cards (or discussion boards), and synthesize these ideas at a later time. Everybody gets more of a chance to think.

I really like Cooper et al.’s last suggestion: Just get rid of the share! “By eliminating the share portion… the instructor no longer dictates who gets to share… leaving more time for more students to get to talk with one another.” It may even leave enough time for another think-pair-sh—oops, I mean, think-pair!

Cooper, K. M., Schinske, J. N., & Tanner, K. D. (2021). Reconsidering the share of a think-pair-share: emerging limitations, alternatives, and opportunities for research. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 20 (fe1), 1-10.

Lyman, F. T. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students. Mainstreaming Digest, 109 , 113.

Mitchell M. Handelsman, Ph.D. , is a professor of psychology at the University of Colorado Denver.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
International
New Zealand
South Africa
Switzerland
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Using the Think-Pair-Share Technique

About this Strategy Guide

In this strategy guide, you will learn how to organize students and classroom topics to encourage a high degree of classroom participation and assist students in developing a conceptual understanding of a topic through the use of the Think-Pair-Share technique.

Research Basis

Strategy in practice, related resources.

The Think-Pair-Share strategy is designed to differentiate instruction by providing students time and structure for thinking on a given topic, enabling them to formulate individual ideas and share these ideas with a peer. This learning strategy promotes classroom participation by encouraging a high degree of pupil response, rather than using a basic recitation method in which a teacher poses a question and one student offers a response. Additionally, this strategy provides an opportunity for all students to share their thinking with at least one other student which, in turn, increases their sense of involvement in classroom learning. Think-Pair-Share can also be used as in information assessment tool; as students discuss their ideas, the teacher can circulate and listen to the conversations taking place and respond accordingly.

In this strategy, a problem is posed, students have time to think about it individually, and then they work in pairs to solve the problem and share their ideas with the class. Think-Pair-Share is easy to use within a planned lesson, but is also an easy strategy to use for spur-of-the-moment discussions. This strategy can be used for a wide variety of daily classroom activities such as concept reviews, discussion questions, partner reading, brainstorming, quiz reviews, topic development, etc. Think-Pair-Share helps students develop conceptual understanding of a topic, develop the ability to filter information and draw conclusions, and develop the ability to consider other points of view.

Before introducing the Think-Pair-Share strategy to the students, decide on your target for this lesson. You may choose to use a new text that the class will be reading, or you might want to develop a set of questions or prompts that target key content concepts that you have been studying.
Describe the strategy and its purpose with your students, and provide guidelines for discussions that will take place. Explain to students that they will (1) think individually about a topic or answer to a question;(2) pair with a partner and discuss the topic or question; and (3) share ideas with the rest of the class.
Using a student or student(s) from your classroom, model the procedure to ensure that students understand how to use the strategy. Allow time for students to ask questions that clarify their use of the technique.
Think: Teachers begin by asking a specific higher-level question about the text or topic students will be discussing. Students "think" about what they know or have learned about the topic for a given amount of time (usually 1-3 minutes).
Pair: Each student should be paired with another student. Teachers may choose whether to assign pairs or let students pick their own partner. Remember to be sensitive to learners' needs (reading skills, attention skills, language skills) when creating pairs. Students share their thinking with their partner, discuss ideas, and ask questions of their partner about their thoughts on the topic (2-5 minutes).
Share: Once partners have had ample time to share their thoughts and have a discussion, teachers expand the "share" into a whole-class discussion. Allow each group to choose who will present their thoughts, ideas, and questions they had to the rest of the class. After the class “share,” you may choose to have pairs reconvene to talk about how their thinking perhaps changed as a result of the “share” element.
Lesson Plans
Strategy Guides
Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

Kindergarten K

Jump to navigation Jump to Content

Newsletters

Supporting ELLs Through COVID-19
New to Teaching ELLs?
ELL Glossary
Special Populations
Resources by Grade
ELL Resources by State
ELL Policy & Research
ELL News Headlines
Serving and Supporting Immigrant Students
Special Education and ELLs
Social and Emotional Support for ELLs
ELL School Enrollment
Bilingual & Dual-Language Education: Overview
COVID-19 & ELLs
College Readiness for ELLs
ELL Program Planning
Events During the School Year
Programs for Success
School Libraries
ELL Family Outreach
For Administrators
For Paraprofessionals
Supporting Newcomer Students: Resource Gallery
Creating a Welcoming Classroom
ELL Classroom Strategy Library
ELL Strategies & Best Practices
Language & Vocabulary Instruction
Literacy Instruction
Content Instruction for ELLs
Common Core
Technology & ELLs
The Role of ESL Teachers
Navigating Tough Topics in the Classroom: Tips for ELL Educators
Help Your Child Learn to Read
Learning Together at Home
The Preschool Years
Schools and Families: An Important Partnership
School Success
Raising Bilingual Kids
Technology at Home
Resources for Parents of Teens
Visiting the Public Library
When Your Children Need Extra Help
Colorín Colorado Book Finder
Books for Young Children
Books for Kids
Books for Young Adults
Books for Professionals
Diverse Books: Resource Guide
Pura Belpré: Her Life and Legacy
Literacy Calendar
Meet the Authors
Classroom Videos
Advice for New Teachers of ELLs
Meet the Experts
Meet the Administrator
Facebook Live Series
PBS Show: Becoming Bilingual
Being Bilingual Is a Superpower!
Family Literacy: Multilingual Video Series
Supporting ELLs During COVID-19: Educator Voices
Administrators
Paraprofessionals
Parents & Families
ELL Resource Collections
Guides & Toolkits
Multilingual Tips for Families
Reading Tips for Parents (Multilingual)
Reading Tips for Educators
Topics A to Z
Frequently Asked Questions
Research & Reports
Web Resources
Colorín Colorado Blog
Natural Disaster Resources for Schools
Responding to a Crisis

Add new comment

Increase student interaction with "think-pair-shares" and "circle chats", on this page, think-pair-share, circle chat.

"Ideas are like rabbits. You get a couple and learn how to handle them, and pretty soon you have a dozen." John Steinbeck , US novelist (1902 - 1968)

When I mentored student teachers I told them, "If I could offer one piece of advice for every teacher — it would be to do think-pair-shares in the class every day." The think-pair-share is a very simple, yet effective technique that allows ELL students time to process their thoughts — often in two languages — which takes more time.

To understand how this works, imagine you are an ELL student and the teacher has just asked the class a question such as, "Why did the ancient Egyptians create pyramids?" Immediately students around the room shoot up their hands and offer answers. As an ELL student, you are still searching your memory banks to translate the words "ancient" and "pyramids." You've finally got the meaning, now you are thinking about the possible answers — again searching your memory for what you've learned in class and read in the textbook. You think you have a viable answer, but you're not sure if it's right or exactly how to say it, and if you make a mistake others might laugh at you.

At this point you may decide to offer an answer, but the teacher has already moved on and asked two new questions. The average wait time for teacher questions is one second! For an ELL student it may become a habit to sit back and listen while others engage in class discussion. While listening to the discussion, the ELL student may or may not understand what is said, and the teacher may be hesitant to call on the student in order to avoid embarrassment.

Steps of a Think-Pair-Share

This kind of situation, where both the student and teacher are hesitating to increase interaction, is the reason why think-pair-share is so effective!

In a think-pair-share, students are given think time to reflect on a question silently, so that they have more time to process the question, the language, or think of the language needed to convey the answer. By then discussing their answer with a partner and the class, students have the opportunity for increased interaction, and teachers can monitor comprehension. In order to use this activity, follow these steps:

Ask a thought-provoking question of your class.
Give students some time to think about the question on their own, as well as the language they will need to respond.
Have students share their thoughts with a partner; this gives the students the opportunity to 'check out' their answer with another student or hear another possible answer. If confused, the students can ask their peers for help.
Finally, ask students to share thoughts with the whole group, which serves as a form of accountability for the students. In this discussion/explanation, the teacher gets feedback on what the students do or don't know though informal assessment.

In the example given above, the teacher asks the class,

"Why did the ancient Egyptians create pyramids? Let's do a "think-pair-share." Everyone take a moment and think about the question."

The room is silent for a minute while everyone reflects. At this time the ELL students may be putting together language and content concepts. Next the teacher instructs the students,

"Now turn to the person next to you and tell them what you are thinking."

The ELL student has an opportunity to offer his/her idea in a relatively comfortable setting — perhaps with grammatical errors — or to get more information from his/her partner. This can reinforce the student's confidence in his/her thinking and provide modeling for how to say the idea correctly in English. The teacher lets students share for a couple of minutes and then brings their attention back.

"Okay, I heard lots of good ideas. Who would like to share what you talked about?"

At this point, when students offer an answer, they have had some time to work with the concepts and also may feel that they are not offering the idea "on their own" but as part of a pair, which may not seem so intimidating.

A benefit of the think-pair-share is that the teacher has an opportunity to hear from many students — including the "quiet" ones. I have seen some of my shyest students offer wonderful answers after they had an opportunity to do a think-pair-share. It also gives the teacher the opportunity to observe all the students as they interact in pairs and get an idea of whether all students understand the content or if there are areas that need to be reviewed.

A "circle chat" is another activity for student-to-student interaction that is a little more involved, but always fun and informative. In this activity every student speaks with a variety of partners, which allows for greater exposure to other thoughts and students. I have often used this as a pre-writing exercise to really get my students' imaginations going. Here is a step-by-step guide to the activity. It may be a bit confusing the first time you try it, but once the students get the hang of it, you'll be able to start it easily. For younger students the teacher may want to ask simple questions and make the discussion time much shorter.

Clear a space in the room large enough for all the students to stand together in two concentric circles.
Take the total number of students in the room and divide it by half. This is the number of students you will call forward. Let's say in this example it is 10 students.
The 10 students stand in a circle.
Call the next 10 students to come forward and form a circle around the first circle of students.
Tell the students in the inside circle to turn around and face their new partner in the outside circle. Everyone should have a partner. (If there is an odd number of students the teacher may form one group with three students).
The students will have two minutes to talk to their partners about the question they are asked. The teacher will want to use a bell or another sign to get the students' attention when the two minutes are up .
At the two minute signal, the teacher asks student in the outside circle (make sure students understand that only the "outside" circle moves) to take one step to the left. Now each student has a new partner to talk to.
Continue this process — asking a new question each time new pairs are formed — until the students have worked their way around the circle.

This activity is quite noisy and usually generates energy and laughter. For some pairs — quieter students, emerging English speakers, or those without much to share on the question — the conversation may be short and teachers may observe them standing quietly waiting for the bell to signal a change to a new partner. This is okay, because new partners and new questions bring new opportunities to interact. Teachers may also enjoy circulating among pairs as they talk in order to hear what great ideas students are sharing.

Creating an interactive classroom environment is very important to the success of ELL students. Just as it would be difficult to become a good piano player by listening to someone play, with no opportunity of your own to practice, ELL students need more opportunities to practice language skills in an academic environment in order to become more successful students. When teachers create a variety of opportunities for students to interact and use English, language and content learning is accelerated.

Icebreakers for Students

On About.com's Secondary Education website, you can find many icebreaker ideas for starting the school year and new classes. Many activities can be used for the elementary level, as well.

National Geographic Photography

This site offers many intriguing photos, including a photo of the day, news photos, photo gallery, and short video clips. These can be useful for supporting content instruction, fostering dialogue with emerging English speakers, and creating writing prompts.

Interactive Classroom Activities

Provides ideas for a variety of interactive student activities, such as information gap, ordering and sorting, problem-solving, and conversation grids.

More by this author

12 ways classroom teachers can support ells.

20 Strategies for School Leaders
Addressing ELLs’ Language Learning and Special Education Needs: Questions and Considerations
An ELL Teacher's Back-to-School Checklist
Bilingual Family Night for ELL Families
Communicating Important Information with ELL Families: Strategies for Success
Connecting with ELL Families: Strategies for Success
Creating a Plan of Action for ELL Family Engagement
Distance Learning for ELLs: Challenges and Opportunities
Distance Learning for ELLs: Lessons Learned About Family Partnerships
Distance Learning for ELLs: Planning Instruction
Distance Learning Strategies for ELLs: What You Need to Know
Eight English Learner Myths for Administrators
ELLs in Early Childhood Education: Recruiting Immigrant Families
Encouraging and Sustaining ELL Parent Engagement
Engaging ELL Families Through Community Partnerships
Engaging ELL Parents as Leaders
Essential Actions: 15 Research-based Practices to Increase ELL Student Achievement
Fifteen Things Teachers Can Do to Support ELL Success in the New Year
Final Thoughts
Finding Answers for Our Immigrant Students and Families: An ELL District Leader's Perspective
Gear Up for a New School Year!
Getting Ready for College: What ELL Students Need to Know
How to Connect ELLs' Background Knowledge to Content
How to Support ELL Students with Interrupted Formal Education (SIFEs)
How to Support Refugee Students in Your School Community
Improving Writing Skills: ELLs and the Joy of Writing
Increasing Academic Language Knowledge for English Language Learner Success
Increasing ELL Student Reading Comprehension with Non-fiction Text
Introduction: Strategies for Engaging ELL Families
Language Acquisition: An Overview
Math Instruction for English Language Learners
Motivating ELL Student Readers
Music and Language Learning
No Child Left Behind and the Assessment of English Language Learners
Phonics Instruction for Middle and High School ELLs
Preparing an Engaging Social Studies Lesson for English Language Learners
Preparing ELLs to be 21st-Century Learners
Reader's Theater: Oral Language Enrichment and Literacy Development for ELLs
Reading 101 for English Language Learners
Successful Field Trips with English Language Learners
Successful Parent-Teacher Conferences with Bilingual Families
Summer Reading: English Language Learners at the Library
Tales of a Fourth Grade Slump: How to Help ELL Students Leap to Success
Teaching and Reading Poetry with English Language Learners
Tips for Successful Parent-Teacher Conferences with Bilingual Families
Visual Thinking Strategies for Improved Comprehension
Writing a Winning Essay
Writing Poetry with English Language Learners

Most Popular

Culturally Responsive Instruction for Holiday and Religious Celebrations

Language Objectives: The Key to Effective Content Area Instruction for English Learners

[email protected] replied on Sun, 2014-02-16 17:16 Permalink

think pair share information

More information about text formats

No HTML tags allowed.
Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

THINK-PAIR-SHARE: ITS EFFECT ON THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF ESL STUDENTS

This study delved on the effects of Think-Pair-Share, a cooperative learning approach in enhancing the academic performance of the English as Second Language (ESL) students. Forty six students enrolled in the English Communication Skills course in the Second Semester of the Academic Year 2009 – 2010, were used as subjects of the study. The Quasi-Experimental Design was utilized in the study. A pre-test was conducted, in which the pre-test mean scores are the bases in identifying the initial learning framework of the participants. After the conduct of the selected lessons employing the Think-Pair-Share approach, the students were given a post-test. Results showed the students who were subjected to the Think-Pair-Share approach had enhanced performance in the English Communication Skills course. Apparently, ANCOVA results on the post-test mean scores of the participants reported that there is a significant effect on the academic performance of the experimental group in which the Think-Pair-Share approach had been used. Findings also reveal that there is a significant relationship between the motivational orientations in learning English and students’ academic performance in English.

Related Papers

Shintya Sirait

yaseen ismail

This study aims at finding whether Think-Pair Share Cooperative Learning strategy can improve EFL University Students' Achievement. The sample of this study is chosen from the first year students in the Department of English Language in The College of Education for Humanities at Tikrit University in the Academic year (2017/ 2018) and it consists of (80) students in which (40) students are experimental group and the others (40) students are control group .The two groups are equalized according to certain variables. This study adopted experimental design and the results are collected through pre-post achievement test. The students in the experimental group are taught according to Think-Pair Share cooperative learning strategy, while those in the control group are taught according to traditional method. Statistical formula is used to analyze the results. The results showed that there are statistically significant differences between experimental and control groups in the results of...

Iin Baroroh

ASBTRACT Harmonious communication has an important role in teaching and learning process, especially in encouraging the success of teaching and learning process in the classroom. This research was conducted to know the student's response to the implementation of Think Pair Share strategy in Speaking course. This strategy emphasizes how students are more active in communicating using English in the classroom. The purpose of this research is 1) how the implementation of Think Pair Share strategy in class; 2) how students respond to the Think Pair Share strategy in the classroom; The design of this study is descriptive-qualitative to answer these questions. In this study, researchers themselves are the main instrument. In collecting data, researchers used observation sheets, and field notes. A. INTRODUCTION English is the current international language. English plays an important role in this modern world. English functions not only as a language of science and technology, but also...

Ideas: Journal on English Language and Learning, Linguistics and Literature

Ardhy Supraba

Dr. Ahmed A A M Raba'

This research aimed to investigate the influence of think-pair-share (TPS) on improving students' oral communication skills in EFL classrooms. For this purpose, the researcher interviewed the EFL teachers who taught " English for Workplace " at the ELC An-Najah National University and observed students' classroom interaction. After the analysis of the collected data of the study, it was obviously noticed that think-pair-share strategy plays a positive role in improving students' oral communicative skills, creating a cooperative learning environment and enhancing students' motivation to learn better. Furthermore , students enrolled in the faculties of applied sciences responded better than students enrolled the faculties of human sciences; similar responses were shown from students of higher academic level. In the light of these findings, the researcher recommended increasing the number of activities related to think-pair—in the English textbooks and in the teaching pedagogies for the sake of improving students' oral communication skills.

Ahmad Syukri

This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of the Think-Pair-Share strategy towards English teaching and learning. This research used a meta-analysis study. The technique of collecting data was coding datasheets. The researcher has to code the information of the research articles of journals about using the Think-Pair-Share strategy in English teaching and learning. The measurement of effect size analyzed the data. The research findings revealed that the overall effect size of the Think-Pair-Share strategy in English teaching and learning was calculated at 1.41 or in the category of large effect. The Think-Pair-Share is an influential and effective language teaching strategy in terms of the region in Indonesia, with an effect size of 1.67 in Sumatra, 1.2 in Java, and 1.18 in Sulawesi. Besides, based on educational level, the effect size is 1.25 in Junior High School, 1.61 in Senior High School, and 0.98 in university. Meanwhile, the effect size on students' English skills is ...

JR-ELT (Journal of Research in English Language Teaching)

Shynta Amalia

The objective of this study is to determine whether the Think-Pair-Share (TPS) technique can significantly improve students' speaking abilities. The researcher employed a quasi-experimental study design with a pre- and post-testing control group. This study included participation from forty students. Twenty students were assigned to the experimental group, while the remaining 20 were assigned to the control group. The result of the pair sample t-test indicates that there was a statistically significant improvement in the speaking performance of students before and after the adoption of the Think-Pair-Share approach (M = 11.98, T = -8.839), P 0.05. The overall findings of the study indicate that the Think-Pair-Share technique can improve the performance of the students. In addition, Think- Pair-Share provided the students with extra opportunities to communicate English. The students‟ English speaking confidence increased. They also contributed actively to the teaching and learnin...

English Education Journal

Yuliana Natsir

This study aims to find out whether the use of Think Pair Share technique can improve students’ speaking skill. This research was conducted at the second grade students of SMA Negeri 1 Simpang Ulim, Aceh Timur, Indonesia. The method of this study was quantitative research (experimental study) with one group pre-test and post test design. The sample of this research was one class at XI MIPA 1 which consists of 20 students. The researcher used an oral test about giving opinion (analytical exposition text) as an instrument in collecting the data. In analyzing the data, the researcher used statistical formula. The calculation result showed that the mean score of students pre-test was 33.75 and the mean score of post-test was 55. Furthermore, the t-score was 8.23 and t-table was 2.093. Thus, the t-score was higher than t-table. It means that the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted and null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected. In this case, applying Think Pair Share technique in learning En...

Cicih Ratnaningsih

Victor Laoli

DOI: 10.21276/sjahss.2017.5.9.24 Abstract: The main purpose of the learning process is the achievement of learning outcomes according to the learning objectives. In this study conducted experiments to prove whether the model of learning Think Pair Share in Improving Results Learning and Communication Skills. Taking location in SMKN 1 Gunung Sitoli by taking 2 classes as a test, this research use test and questionnaire as instrument of research and t-test as technique of data analysis. The result of learning of business communication and communication ability of student on presentation material taught using think pair share learning model significantly higher than result of learning of business communication and communication ability of student taught by conventional method student of class XII SMKN 1 Gunungsitoli. Innovation learning by using cooperative learning models should be developed in order to improve learning outcomes.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Sarrah Hamad

Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning

Mutiara Ayu , Dian Aprianti

Permana Putra

Didik R Sumekto

neni oktaviani

vida shatalebi , Mehdi Nasri , Ehsan Namaziandost

The Journal of English Literacy Education: The Teaching and Learning of English as a Foreign Language

Melikhah Nur Maulani

Edukatif: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan

Tono SUWARTONO , Ade Chusna

Vision: Journal of Language and Foreign Language Learning

Vision: Journal for Language and Foreign Language Learning , ida ubaidah

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

David Mulwa

Claudia Rubio Díaz

Indri Nastiti

Lutfiyanti Nurhidayah

hamed barjesteh

Journal of English Education and Teaching

rizky amelia

Desty Manik

Hamid Marashi , Homayra Khatami

International Journal of Linguistics

Associate Professor Dr. Manvender Kaur Singh

Mounia Benjelloun

Proceedings of the International Conference on Language, Literature, and Education (ICLLE 2018)

Syahrul Ramadhan

J-SHMIC : Journal of English for Academic

Olyvia Revalita Candraloka

Kashere Journal of Education

Hadiza Hussaini

Dewi Rochsantiningsih

Exclusive: OpenAI working on new reasoning technology under code name ‘Strawberry’

Medium Text

AI CHALLENGES

Reporting by Anna Tong in San Francisco and Katie Paul in New York; editing by Ken Li and Claudia Parsons

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Anna Tong is a correspondent for Reuters based in San Francisco, where she reports on the technology industry. She joined Reuters in 2023 after working at the San Francisco Standard as a data editor. Tong previously worked at technology startups as a product manager and at Google where she worked in user insights and helped run a call center. Tong graduated from Harvard University.

New regulatory license for social media platforms in Malaysia to fight cyber offences

Malaysia will require social media services to apply for a license if they have more than 8 millon users in the country from August 1, in an attempt to combat increasing cyber offences, said the government.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump attends the crypto conference in Nashville

The Effectiveness of Using Think-Pair-Share (TPS) Strategy in Developing Students' Critical Thinking Skills

Conference: ISER International Conference on Education and Social Science (ICESS-2019)
At: OSAKA , JAPAN

UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA SINTOK MALAYSIA

Universiti Utara Malaysia
This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Universiti Utara Malaysia Sintok KEDAH MALAYSIA

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations

Kholilur Rohman
Hanif Maulaniam Sholah

L.K. Silverman

Nancy J. McCormick
Linda M. Clark
Joan M. Raines

Ying-Qing Zhou
Hui-Ming Gao
Tanya Yerigan
Richard Paul
Linda Elder
Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What the data says about immigrants in the U.S.

About 200 people wave American flags after being sworn in at a naturalization ceremony in Boston on April 17, 2024. (Danielle Parhizkaran/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

The United States has long had more immigrants than any other country. In fact, the U.S. is home to one-fifth of the world’s international migrants . These immigrants have come from just about every country in the world.

Pew Research Center regularly publishes research on U.S. immigrants . Based on this research, here are answers to some key questions about the U.S. immigrant population.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to answer common questions about immigration to the United States and the U.S. immigrant population.

The data in this analysis comes mainly from Center tabulations of Census Bureau microdata from decennial censuses and American Community Survey (IPUMS USA). This analysis also features estimates of the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population . The estimates presented in this research for 2022 are the Center’s latest.

How many people in the U.S. are immigrants?

The U.S. foreign-born population reached a record 46.1 million in 2022. Growth accelerated after Congress made U.S. immigration laws more permissive in 1965. In 1970, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. was less than a quarter of what it is today.

Immigrants today account for 13.8% of the U.S. population. This is a roughly threefold increase from 4.7% in 1970. However, the immigrant share of the population today remains below the record 14.8% in 1890 .

A chart showing the immigrant share of the U.S. population, 1850 to 2022.

Where are U.S. immigrants from?

A bar chart showing that Mexico, China and India are among top birthplaces for U.S. immigrants.

Mexico is the top country of birth for U.S. immigrants. In 2022, roughly 10.6 million immigrants living in the U.S. were born there, making up 23% of all U.S. immigrants. The next largest origin groups were those from India (6%), China (5%), the Philippines (4%) and El Salvador (3%).

By region of birth, immigrants from Asia accounted for 28% of all immigrants. Other regions make up smaller shares:

Latin America (27%), excluding Mexico but including the Caribbean (10%), Central America (9%) and South America (9%)
Europe, Canada and other North America (12%)
Sub-Saharan Africa (5%)
Middle East and North Africa (4%)

How have immigrants’ origin countries changed in recent decades?

A table showing the three great waves of immigration to the United States.

Before 1965, U.S. immigration law favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe and mostly barred immigration from Asia. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act opened up immigration from Asia and Latin America. The Immigration Act of 1990 further increased legal immigration and allowed immigrants from more countries to enter the U.S. legally.

Since 1965, about 72 million immigrants have come to the United States from different and more countries than their predecessors:

From 1840 to 1889, about 90% of U.S. immigrants came from Europe, including about 70% from Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom.
Almost 90% of the immigrants who arrived from 1890 to 1919 came from Europe. Nearly 60% came from Italy, Austria-Hungary and Russia-Poland.
Since 1965, about half of U.S. immigrants have come from Latin America, with about a quarter from Mexico alone. About another quarter have come from Asia. Large numbers have come from China, India, the Philippines, Central America and the Caribbean.

The newest wave of immigrants has dramatically changed states’ immigrant populations . In 1980, German immigrants were the largest group in 19 states, Canadian immigrants were the largest in 11 states and Mexicans were the largest in 10 states. By 2000, Mexicans were the largest group in 31 states.

Today, Mexico remains the largest origin country for U.S. immigrants. However, immigration from Mexico has slowed since 2007 and the Mexican-born population in the U.S. has dropped. The Mexican share of the U.S. immigrant population dropped from 29% in 2010 to 23% in 2022.

Where are recent immigrants coming from?

A line chart showing that, among new immigrant arrivals, Asians outnumbered Hispanics during the 2010s.

In 2022, Mexico was the top country of birth for immigrants who arrived in the last year, with about 150,000 people. India (about 145,000) and China (about 90,000) were the next largest sources of immigrants. Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil and Canada each had about 50,000 to 60,000 new immigrant arrivals.

The main sources of immigrants have shifted twice in the 21st century. The first was caused by the Great Recession (2007-2009). Until 2007, more Hispanics than Asians arrived in the U.S. each year. From 2009 to 2018, the opposite was true.

Since 2019, immigration from Latin America – much of it unauthorized – has reversed the pattern again. More Hispanics than Asians have come each year.

What is the legal status of immigrants in the U.S.?

A pie chart showing that unauthorized immigrants are almost a quarter of U.S. foreign-born population.

Most immigrants (77%) are in the country legally. As of 2022:

49% were naturalized U.S. citizens.
24% were lawful permanent residents.
4% were legal temporary residents.
23% were unauthorized immigrants .

From 1990 to 2007, the unauthorized immigrant population more than tripled in size, from 3.5 million to a record high of 12.2 million. From there, the number slowly declined to about 10.2 million in 2019.

In 2022, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. showed sustained growth for the first time since 2007, to 11.o million.

As of 2022, about 4 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. are Mexican. This is the largest number of any origin country, representing more than one-third of all unauthorized immigrants. However, the Mexican unauthorized immigrant population is down from a peak of almost 7 million in 2007, when Mexicans accounted for 57% of all unauthorized immigrants.

The drop in the number of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico has been partly offset by growth from other parts of the world, especially Asia and other parts of Latin America.

The 2022 estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population are our latest comprehensive estimates. Other partial data sources suggest continued growth in 2023 and 2024 .

Who are unauthorized immigrants?

Virtually all unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. entered the country without legal permission or arrived on a nonpermanent visa and stayed after it expired.

A growing number of unauthorized immigrants have permission to live and work in the U.S. and are temporarily protected from deportation. In 2022, about 3 million unauthorized immigrants had these temporary legal protections. These immigrants fall into several groups:

Temporary Protected Status (TPS): About 650,000 immigrants have TPS as of July 2022. TPS is offered to individuals who cannot safely return to their home country because of civil unrest, violence, natural disaster or other extraordinary and temporary conditions.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA): Almost 600,000 immigrants are beneficiaries of DACA. This program allows individuals brought to the U.S. as children before 2007 to remain in the U.S.
Asylum applicants: About 1.6 million immigrants have pending applications for asylum in the U.S. as of mid-2022 because of dangers faced in their home country. These immigrants can stay in the U.S. legally while they wait for a decision on their case.
Other protections: Several hundred thousand individuals have applied for special visas to become lawful immigrants. These types of visas are offered to victims of trafficking and certain other criminal activities.

In addition, about 500,000 immigrants arrived in the U.S. by the end of 2023 under programs created for Ukrainians (U4U or Uniting for Ukraine ) and people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela ( CHNV parole ). These immigrants mainly arrived too late to be counted in the 2022 estimates but may be included in future estimates.

Do all lawful immigrants choose to become U.S. citizens?

Immigrants who are lawful permanent residents can apply to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements. In fiscal year 2022, almost 1 million lawful immigrants became U.S. citizens through naturalization . This is only slightly below record highs in 1996 and 2008.

Most immigrants eligible for naturalization apply for citizenship, but not all do. Top reasons for not applying include language and personal barriers, lack of interest and not being able to afford it, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey .

Where do most U.S. immigrants live?

In 2022, most of the nation’s 46.1 million immigrants lived in four states: California (10.4 million or 23% of the national total), Texas (5.2 million or 11%), Florida (4.8 million or 10%) and New York (4.5 million or 10%).

Most immigrants lived in the South (35%) and West (33%). Another 21% lived in the Northeast and 11% were in the Midwest.

In 2022, more than 29 million immigrants – 63% of the nation’s foreign-born population – lived in just 20 major metropolitan areas. The largest populations were in the New York, Los Angeles and Miami metro areas. Most of the nation’s unauthorized immigrant population (60%) lived in these metro areas as well.

A map of the U.S. showing the 20 metropolitan areas with the largest number of immigrants in 2022.

How many immigrants are working in the U.S.?

A table showing that, from 2007 to 2022, the U.S. labor force grew but the unauthorized immigrant workforce did not.

In 2022, over 30 million immigrants were in the U.S. workforce. Lawful immigrants made up the majority of the immigrant workforce, at 22.2 million. An additional 8.3 million immigrant workers are unauthorized. This is a notable increase over 2019 but about the same as in 2007 .

The share of workers who are immigrants increased slightly from 17% in 2007 to 18% in 2022. By contrast, the share of immigrant workers who are unauthorized declined from a peak of 5.4% in 2007 to 4.8% in 2022. Immigrants and their children are projected to add about 18 million people of working age between 2015 and 2035. This would offset an expected decline in the working-age population from retiring Baby Boomers.

How educated are immigrants compared with the U.S. population overall?

A horizontal stacked bar chart showing educational attainment among U.S. immigrants, 2022.

On average, U.S. immigrants have lower levels of education than the U.S.-born population. In 2022, immigrants ages 25 and older were about three times as likely as the U.S. born to have not completed high school (25% vs. 7%). However, immigrants were as likely as the U.S. born to have a bachelor’s degree or more (35% vs. 36%).

Immigrant educational attainment varies by origin. About half of immigrants from Mexico (51%) had not completed high school, and the same was true for 46% of those from Central America and 21% from the Caribbean. Immigrants from these three regions were also less likely than the U.S. born to have a bachelor’s degree or more.

On the other hand, immigrants from all other regions were about as likely as or more likely than the U.S. born to have at least a bachelor’s degree. Immigrants from South Asia (72%) were the most likely to have a bachelor’s degree or more.

How well do immigrants speak English?

A line chart showing that, as of 2022, over half of immigrants in the U.S. are English proficient.

About half of immigrants ages 5 and older (54%) are proficient English speakers – they either speak English very well (37%) or speak only English at home (17%).

Immigrants from Canada (97%), Oceania (82%), sub-Saharan Africa (76%), Europe (75%) and South Asia (73%) have the highest rates of English proficiency.

Immigrants from Mexico (36%) and Central America (35%) have the lowest proficiency rates.

Immigrants who have lived in the U.S. longer are somewhat more likely to be English proficient. Some 45% of immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for five years or less are proficient, compared with 56% of immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for 20 years or more.

Spanish is the most commonly spoken language among U.S. immigrants. About four-in-ten immigrants (41%) speak Spanish at home. Besides Spanish, the top languages immigrants speak at home are English only (17%), Chinese (6%), Filipino/Tagalog (4%), French or Haitian Creole (3%), and Vietnamese (2%).

Note: This is an update of a post originally published May 3, 2017.

Immigrant Populations
Immigration & Migration
Unauthorized Immigration

Mohamad Moslimani is a research analyst focusing on race and ethnicity at Pew Research Center .

Jeffrey S. Passel is a senior demographer at Pew Research Center .

How the origins of America’s immigrants have changed since 1850

Facts on u.s. immigrants, 2018, building outpaces population growth in many of china’s urban areas, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Português Br
Journalist Pass

Demystifying my diagnosis of autism

Mayo Clinic Staff

Taking steps to adapt

When I finally received a diagnosis, I was empowered to take steps to adapt. As a Ph.D. student in the Clinical and Translational Sciences track at Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences , I needed to find the right equipment that would enable me to work comfortably in a laboratory. I reached out to Mayo Clinic’s Office of Wellness and Academic Support — Disability Access Services , which assists Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science students who have a need for any type of disability accommodation. The office can help address accessibility issues in classrooms and lab spaces.

Within the office, a disability resource specialist met with me, provided information and offered several suggestions. I made arrangements to take periodic breaks from the lab to mitigate the effect of the bright, overhead lights. I learned about headphones I now wear at work to block out the sound of the dreaded Beeper. Among the suggested accommodations, I had the opportunity to choose those that would be helpful. Some of them, like extra time for exams, I don’t feel I need.

A new scientific goal

Importantly, my diagnosis steered my research focus. My scientific goal is to enable earlier diagnosis for ASD. I aim to develop an objective diagnostic test for autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. I hope to help other children and families receive a diagnosis as early as possible so they can seek supportive care and adaptive equipment to improve their lives.

As I chose a dissertation advisor, I was excited to join the laboratory of reproductive immunologist Sylvie Girard, Ph.D. , in the Department of Immunology. Dr. Girard valued my life experiences and my desire to identify a practical biomarker that could be used in the clinic to identify infants at high risk of developing neurodevelopmental disorders.

We decided on the placenta as a place to begin looking for biomarkers. Pregnancy always involves inflammation, but too much inflammation can be detrimental to a growing fetus. The placenta, which is typically discarded after a baby is born, can serve as a proxy for the biological influences on childhood development, providing a window into the prenatal environment and fetal exposures.

At Mayo Clinic, we have the opportunity to study donated placental tissue samples for inflammatory markers. In addition, we can obtain consent from mothers to review data from their children’s medical charts as the children grow up. We then can correlate findings in the placenta with physicians’ clinical notes from routine pediatric appointments, observing children’s delays in hitting developmental milestones, up to age 24 months. The laboratory and clinical information may help us identify key molecules that could serve as early indicators of ASD risk.

Demystifying a diagnosis

For me, having information about my own ASD has been liberating and inspiring. However, as one ASD expert has explained about the variety of experiences that exist on the spectrum, “When you meet one person with autism — you’ve met one person with autism.” Often, when I disclose my diagnosis to others, a common response is, “You seem fine. Your autism must be very mild.” But autism can present challenges that others can’t see. My autism affects my life daily.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to modify my work environment so I can bring my expertise and enthusiasm to the important issue of neurodiversity. Through honest conversations and my laboratory research, I hope to continue demystifying ASD. —Lizz Cervantes

Mayo Clinic Minute: Role of the larynx and how to protect it In case you missed it: This week’s Top 5 stories on social media

Why the Fed won't cut rates until December, according to Bank of America

The Federal Reserve will wait until December to cut interest rates, Bank of America economists say.
The forecast runs counter to consensus, with 90% of investors expecting a first cut in September.
"We think the Fed can be patient," BofA wrote in new research.

In a Thursday research note, Bank of America reiterated its prediction for rate cuts to begin in December, even with a majority of investors expecting one in September.

The firm's economists say that while some officials have appeared dovish in recent remarks, the Fed will likely wait until more data shows slowing inflation or a cooling economy.

Meanwhile, 90% of investors expect a cut in September, according to the CME FedWatch tool . That number has been on the rise, increasing 2 percentage points in the last day amid encouraging inflation data.

BofA says that Fed Chair Jerome Powell's decision rests on a dual mandate: "Cuts can happen because the economy cools, because inflation slows, or both."

With inflation closer to the Fed's respective targets , the Fed can now give more balanced attention to both inflation and employment . It continues to seek a 2.0% level.

The economists note, too, that with so much consensus around rate cuts happening in September, markets are already pricing it in. They say that gives the Fed less reason to cut rates as the market adjusts favorably.

Watch: What Happens If The US Hits The Debt Ceiling And Defaults

Main content

Share full article

Supported by

Pamela Paul

Why Is the U.S. Still Pretending We Know Gender-Affirming Care Works?

A black stethoscope hangs on a gray rock.

By Pamela Paul

Opinion Columnist

Imagine a comprehensive review of research on a treatment for children found “remarkably weak evidence” that it was effective. Now imagine the medical establishment shrugged off the conclusions and continued providing the same unproven and life-altering treatment to its young patients.

This is where we are with gender medicine in the United States.

It’s been three months since the release of the Cass Review, an independent assessment of gender treatment for youths commissioned by England’s National Health Service . The four-year review of research, led by Dr. Hilary Cass, one of Britain’s top pediatricians, found no definitive proof that gender dysphoria in children or teenagers was resolved or alleviated by what advocates call gender-affirming care, in which a young person’s declared “gender identity” is affirmed and supported with social transition, puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones. Nor, she said, is there clear evidence that transitioning kids decreases the likelihood that gender dysphoric youths will turn to suicide, as adherents of gender-affirming care claim. These findings backed up what critics of this approach have been saying for years.

“The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress,” Cass concluded. Instead, she wrote, mental health providers and pediatricians should provide holistic psychological care and psychosocial support for young people without defaulting to gender reassignment treatments until further research is conducted.

After the release of Cass’s findings, the British government issued an emergency ban on puberty blockers for people under 18. Medical societies, government officials and legislative panels in Germany, France, Switzerland, Scotland , the Netherlands and Belgium have proposed moving away from a medical approach to gender issues , in some cases directly acknowledging the Cass Review. Scandinavian countries have been moving away from the gender-affirming model for the past few years. Reem Alsalem, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, called the review’s recommendations “seminal” and said that policies on gender treatments have “ breached fundamental principles ” of children’s human rights, with “devastating consequences.”

But in the United States, federal agencies and professional associations that have staunchly supported the gender-affirming care model greeted the Cass Review with silence or utter disregard.

There’s been no response from the Department of Health and Human Services , whose website says that “gender-affirming care improves the mental health and overall well-being of gender diverse children and adolescents” and which previously pushed to eliminate recommended age minimums for gender surgery . Nor has there been a response from the American Medical Association , which also backs gender-affirming care for pediatric patients .

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

COMMENTS

Reconsidering the Share of a Think-Pair-Share: Emerging Limitations
Think back to what you have noticed about the share portion of the think-pair-share approach as an observer, participant, instructor, or presenter in classrooms, workshops, meetings, and seminars. As an observer, what have you noted about the number and types of students who participate in the share part of a think-pair-share? In what ...
Think and pair before share: Effects of collaboration on students' in
In the think phase, students were given 1 min to think about the relation between the two presented keywords and worldwide hunger and to take notes.We collected these notes after the experiment. In the two-minute pair phase, the dyads exchanged and discussed their ideas.Each share phase started with the following trainer question: "So what does … have to do with worldwide hunger?"
(PDF) Reconsidering the Share of a Think-Pair-Share: Emerging
The think-pair-share is a common teaching tool, but how critical is the "share" step in helping students achieve learning goals? This feature examines assumptions that instructors may make about ...
Think-Pair-Share: Promoting Equitable Participation and In-Depth
The increased participation and improved quality of discussion were likely due to two factors: (1) the students were given time to think before responding; and (2) the students had opportunities to check their thinking and ask questions in pairs. Student responses on the surveys support these conclusions.
Reconsidering the Share of a Think-Pair-Share: Emerging ...
The think-pair-share is a common teaching tool, but how critical is the "share" step in helping students achieve learning goals? ... Alternatives, and Opportunities for Research CBE Life Sci Educ. 2021 Mar;20(1):fe1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.20-08-0200. Authors Katelyn M Cooper 1 , Jeffrey N Schinske 2 , Kimberly D Tanner 3 Affiliations 1 School of ...
Think and pair before share: Effects of collaboration on students' in
Think-Pair-Share (TPS) is a teaching strategy thought to increase in-class participation, especially with shy. students. After thinking for themselves, students talk to their seatmate to exchange ...
Perceived Effectiveness and Applicability of Think-Pair-Share ...
Problem: Think-pair-share (TPS) is a teaching strategy that promotes active and collaborative learning; however, the effectiveness and applicability of this strategy in its original or altered form remain to be established, especially in health professions education. As a first step in this direction, the objective of our study was to examine the perceived effectiveness and applicability of ...
Effects of Guided Discovery and Think-Pair-Share Strategies on
Think-pair-share is a cooperative learning strategy that includes three components, namely, time for thinking, time for sharing with a partner, and time to share among pairs to a larger group. The use of the strategy unites the cognitive and social aspects of learning, promoting the development of thinking and the construction of knowledge.
PDF Think Pair Share: A teaching Learning Strategy to Enhance Students ...
Share (TPS) or an equivalent Non-Think-Pair-Share (Non-TPS) teaching method. Critical thinking has been an essential outcome of nursing students to prepare them to provide effective and safe quality care for patients. Think-Pair-Share is a cooperative discussion strategy that provides students with adequate time to think in order to increase their
Teaching as Brain Changing: Exploring Connections between Neuroscience
A NEUROBIOLOGICAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE THINK-PAIR-SHARE. Each of our students arrives in class with a human brain, which on average has 86 billion neurons arranged in hundreds of brain regions, each with different functions (Azevedo et al., 2009).These neurons connect with one another to form neural circuits, making an estimated 100 trillion contacts with one another, called synapses ...
(PDF) Think-Pair-Share: A Strategy for Effective Student-Engaged
Abstract and Figures. This study investigated the effectiveness of the Think-Pair-Share strategy in improving students' writing performances in literature classes. The researcher used a quasi ...
PDF DISCOVERY LEARNING STRATEGY: INTEGRATING THINK-PAIR-SHARE AND ...
ht by integrating Think-Pair-Share and Teacher's Corrective Feedback within Dis. overy Learning Strategy. In addition, each of the student's writing accuracy aspect improved constantly. However, although grammar is shown with the lowest score in each pre-test and p. st-test, Table 3 reveals that grammar accuracy improved the most while ...
Think-Pair-Share: Promoting Equitable Participation and In-Depth Discussion
Think-pair-share (TPS) is an instructional strategy that can be used to promote and support student participation and enhance learning. Our study aimed to investigate the use of this strategy in early medical education. ... Due to a small sample size, further research using a larger sample size could be used to confirm these results and provide ...
Improving student learning outcomes using research-based think pair and
Research-based learning trains students to solve problems, and make decisions and develop critical thinking skills by connecting existing theories. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of research-based Think Pair and Share (TPS) learning on student learning outcomes. The research method uses the correct experimental design ...
Think-pair-share in a large CS1 class
Think-pair-share (TPS) is a classroom active learning strategy in which students work on activities, first individually, then in pairs and finally as the whole class. TPS allows students to express their reasoning, reflect on their understanding and obtain prompt feedback on their learning.
Pair and Share
Pair and Share. A typical technique to foster collaborative learning, "pair and share" can take various forms in classrooms. The most commonly practiced and studied is Think-Pair-Share, developed by Frank Lyman of the University of Maryland (Lyman, 1981), where students take approximately a minute to think through a response to a question ...
PDF Using the Think-Pair-Share Strategy to Improve Students ...
s' speaking ability after being treated by using the think-pair-share strategy in Cycle 1. This figure can be one of the considerations to j. e whether the implementation the think-pair-share strategy in Cycle 1 is effective or not. It was recorded by the field notes that not all students were actively involved.
Is "Think-Pair-Share" the Best Approach to Learning?
But is the share a building block of the think-pair-share? In a recent article, Cooper, Schinske, and Tanner (2021) say no. ... Cooper et al. cite research to show that "whole-group discussions ...
Is "Think-Pair-Share" the Best Approach to Learning?
The "think-pair-share" learning technique asks students to think individually, confer with a partner, and then share their ideas with the class if called on. A new paper, however, argues that the ...
Using the Think-Pair-Share Technique
The Think-Pair-Share strategy is designed to differentiate instruction by providing students time and structure for thinking on a given topic, enabling them to formulate individual ideas and share these ideas with a peer. This learning strategy promotes classroom participation by encouraging a high degree of pupil response, rather than using a ...
Increase Student Interaction with "Think-Pair-Shares" and "Circle Chats
The think-pair-share is a very simple, yet effective technique that allows ELL students time to process their thoughts — often in two languages — which takes more time. ... Colorín Colorado is a national multimedia project that offers a wealth of bilingual, research-based information, activities, and advice for educators and families of ...
(PDF) THINK-PAIR-SHARE: ITS EFFECT ON THE ACADEMIC ...
The research findings revealed that the overall effect size of the Think-Pair-Share strategy in English teaching and learning was calculated at 1.41 or in the category of large effect. The Think-Pair-Share is an influential and effective language teaching strategy in terms of the region in Indonesia, with an effect size of 1.67 in Sumatra, 1.2 ...
Active and Collaborative Learning Strategies
Beyond think-pair-share. While the think-pair-share template remains a trusted staple, the repertoire of active learning strategies is endless. Below are some examples of in-class activities that can be customized across fields and course modalities: Puzzles: human attention is readily captured by puzzles. Consider adding curiosity-stimulating ...
Exclusive: OpenAI working on new reasoning technology under code name
ChatGPT maker OpenAI is working on a novel approach to its artificial intelligence models in a project code-named "Strawberry," according to a person familiar with the matter and internal ...
The Effectiveness of Using Think-Pair-Share (TPS) Strategy in
The results of this study indicate that think-pair-share (TPS) technique has helped students to be confident in conveying their ideas and content delivery accompanied by critical thinking.
Key findings about U.S. immigrants
Pew Research Center regularly publishes research on U.S. immigrants. Based on this research, here are answers to some key questions about the U.S. immigrant population. How we did this. ... The share of workers who are immigrants increased slightly from 17% in 2007 to 18% in 2022. By contrast, the share of immigrant workers who are unauthorized ...
Demystifying my diagnosis of autism
The diagnosis also explained some of the frustrations I experienced as a student in a research lab. The bright lights overhead often gnawed at my nerves. One pipette that makes a repetitive piercing sound (other students affectionately call it "The Beeper") made me want to run out of the room.
Fed's First Interest-Rate Cut Won't Happen Until December: Bank of
The Federal Reserve will wait until December to cut interest rates, Bank of America economists say. The forecast runs counter to consensus, with 90% of investors expecting a first cut in September ...
PDF Table of Contents
The Committee found evidence that PBMs share patient information and data across their many integrated companies for the specific and anticompetitive purpose of steering patients to pharmacies a PBM owns. Furthermore, the Committee found that PBMs have sought to use their position to artificially reduce reimbursement rates for competing pharmacies.
Opinion
Share full article. 823. ... Research has shown it tends to resolve with puberty and sexual maturation. Many kids who experience gender distress during childhood or adolescence grow out of it and ...

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Perceived Effectiveness and Applicability of Think-Pair-Share Including Storytelling (TPS-S) to Enhance Clinical Learning

Similar articles

LinkOut - more resources

Research Materials

Teaching as Brain Changing: Exploring Connections between Neuroscience and Innovative Teaching

A NEUROBIOLOGICAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE THINK–PAIR–SHARE

HOW DO TWO NEURONS COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER?

HOW DOES THE BRAIN CHANGE THROUGH SYNAPTIC PLASTICITY? NEURONS THAT FIRE TOGETHER, WIRE TOGETHER

HOW DOES SYNAPTIC PLASTICITY RELATE TO LEARNING AND MEMORY?

WHAT CAN AFFECT THE ABILITY OF NEURAL CONNECTIONS TO CHANGE?

HOW ARE MEMORIES STORED AND RETRIEVED?

HOW COMMON TEACHING TECHNIQUES MAY AFFECT THE NEUROBIOLOGY OF LEARNERS’ BRAINS

What Might Be the Effect of Frequent, Actively Engaging Homework?

What Might Be the Effects of Using Concept Maps?

What Might Be the Effects of Problem-Based Learning?

What Might Be the Effects of Using Culturally Diverse Examples?

NEUROBIOLOGICAL REANALYSIS OF THE THINK–PAIR–SHARE

WHAT MIGHT TEACHING AND LEARNING LOOK LIKE AS NEUROSCIENCE ADVANCES?

Acknowledgments

RESEARCH BRIEF

Results and Discussion

Acknowledgments

Lead Author

Corresponding Author

There are no comments for this article.

Search Results

Contact STFM

Improving student learning outcomes using research-based think pair and share models

Article metrics

Share this article

Author affiliations

Think-pair-share in a large CS1 class: does learning really happen?

New Citation Alert added!

New Citation Alert!

Information & Contributors

Index Terms

Recommendations

Promoting Student Engagement Using Flipped Classroom in Large Introductory Financial Accounting Class

Including Coding Questions in Video Quizzes for a Flipped CS1

Information

Publication History

Acceptance Rates

View Options

Full Access

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

GA4 Tracking Code

bok_logo_2-02_-_harvard_left.png

Bok Center Quick Tip: Think, Pair, Share

Is "Think-Pair-Share" the Best Approach to Learning?

Problems with the "Share" Part of Think-Pair-Share

Suggestions to Improve "Think-Pair-Share"

Using the Think-Pair-Share Technique

About this Strategy Guide

Research Basis

Explore Resources by Grade

Add new comment

Steps of a Think-Pair-Share

More by this author

Related Content

Most Popular

Culturally Responsive Instruction for Holiday and Religious Celebrations

Language Objectives: The Key to Effective Content Area Instruction for English Learners

THINK-PAIR-SHARE: ITS EFFECT ON THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF ESL STUDENTS

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Exclusive: OpenAI working on new reasoning technology under code name ‘Strawberry’

AI CHALLENGES

New regulatory license for social media platforms in Malaysia to fight cyber offences

The Effectiveness of Using Think-Pair-Share (TPS) Strategy in Developing Students' Critical Thinking Skills

Abstract and Figures

Regions & Countries

What the data says about immigrants in the U.S.

How many people in the U.S. are immigrants?

Where are U.S. immigrants from?

How have immigrants’ origin countries changed in recent decades?

Where are recent immigrants coming from?