ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 19
Think-Pair-Share
| Complexity involved in | |
| Planning | LOW |
| Developing Materials | LOW |
| Implementing in Class | LOW |
Description and Purpose
In Think-Pair-Share, the instructor develops and poses a question and gives students a few minutes to think about a response individually. The instructor then asks students to pair up with another student before sharing the information with the class.
The Think component requires students to stop and reflect before speaking, thus giving them an opportunity to collect and organize their thoughts before sharing with a larger group. The Pair and Share components encourage learners to compare and contrast their understandings with those of another and to rehearse their response first in a low-risk situation before going public with the entire class. This opportunity to practice comments first with a peer tends to improve the quality of student contributions and generally increases willingness and readiness to speak in a larger group.
Preparation
- Prior to coming to class, spend time developing an engaging question or problem that has many potential responses. Try responding to the question yourself. Decide how you are going to present the question (e.g., worksheet, presentation slide, or whiteboard) and how you are going to have students report out.
Procedures
- Pose the question to the class, giving students a few minutes to think about the question and devise individual responses.
- Ask students to pair up with another student nearby.
- Ask student A to share his or her responses with student B and then student B to share ideas with student A. Suggest that if the two students disagree, they clarify their positions so that they can explain how and why they disagree. If useful, request that pairs create a joint response by building on each other's ideas.
- Ask for volunteers to share the pair responses with the full class.
| Online Lecture | Large Lecture |
| Implementing this technique online provides students with the opportunity to practice online communication skills and enables two students to make a direct connection with each other, which can improve their experience in online courses. Two advantages to online Think-Pair-Share implementation are that (1) students have a greater opportunity for reflective thought before responding to each other and that (2) archived written transcripts of students' responses to each other are readily available. However, in an online course, there is the absence of the synchronous, physical proximity that makes this technique such an easy impromptu strategy in an on-site class. Effective implementation in an online class requires preassigned peers who work together frequently and over an extended period of time. Ask students to share their initial ideas first with their work partners by way of instant messaging (IM), texting, or a telecommunications tool such as Skype. Then, one student posts the joint response to a discussion board used by the full class or a student blog. |
This technique is frequently used to good effect in large lecture classes. A challenge, however, is that the noise level can get high with all of the students talking at once. Keep the sharing time short to keep the decibel level low. Also consider using Tip 39: Silent Signals to indicate the end of the talk time. |
Examples
African Art and the Diaspora (Lecture)
In this seminar for art majors, the professor lectured on themes such as abundance, status, royalty, and prestige. To provide an engaging learning exercise as a break to her lectures, she often used a modified form of Think-Pair-Share. She projected an image on the screen, such as a pottery bowl, and asked student to think about what the object conveys about the lecture themes. She thus used the object as a tool to help students think about larger social and political issues. She then asked students to partner with another student sitting nearby to share their ideas. Afterward, pairs shared their thoughts with the full class. She ended the exercise with a brief discussion before her closing lecture remarks.
Inquiry in the Natural World (Large Lecture)
The professor in this large lecture class decided to use Think-Pair-Share to begin a lecture session. He felt that it would help students draw on their prior knowledge, focus their attention, and maintain interest in the lecture. After a few morning announcements, he asked the following question: “What is matter?” He also displayed a slide with the question so that all students could see it, and then he asked students to think about a response. After a minute, he suggested that students turn to a neighbor and share information. He used Tip 39: Silent Signals and clapped once, twice, and three times, with students joining in clapping as they heard him. When the class had quieted down, he asked for volunteers to share.
English Composition (Video Lecture)
An instructor of English composition to first-year students planned to have students write argument essays throughout the semester. He wanted students to work together in pairs and in larger teams, so he first formed base pairs and then combined the base pairs into base teams.
At the beginning of the term, the professor shared several passages from arguments for students to read, and he used Think-Pair-Share in conjunction with the writings to help students examine features of a compelling written argument. The professor began by posting the following question to the class discussion forum: “What makes a written argument effective?” He asked students to think about the assigned passages individually and to consider the features that made those arguments effective. He then asked individuals to communicate their answers with their partners in the base pair and develop a consensus answer.
Base pairs were then asked to share their answers with their base teams. The instructor called on each team to post its responses to the discussion forum. He then posted his own list of features of effective arguments against which students compared their lists. Overall, the lists were similar, and the instructor commended the students for their ability to identify qualities of a good argument. The students and the instructor then worked together to combine and refine a set of criteria, with the instructor guiding the discussion by asking questions on the forum. Together, they developed a strong set of argument evaluation criteria used by students in peer assessment of each other's writing and the instructor in grading.
Variations and Extensions
- Export the Think step by posing a question for students to consider outside of class. When they return to class, ask students to pair up and share their homework responses.
- Give students time to write their responses down before pairing; this variation is called Write-Pair-Share (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2014; Lyman, 1981).
- Ask each pair to share and compare their ideas with those of another pair before, or instead of, the whole-class discussion; this variation is called Think-Pair-Square (Lyman, 1981).
- Think-Tweet-Share: Students think of a response and then generate a tweet or a 140-character representation of a tweet (Perret, 2012).
- Think-Text-Share: If students are allowed to use cell phones in class, they could text each other rather than verbally pairing their ideas and then share with the full group (Perret, 2012).
Observations and Advice
Give students sufficient time to think before pairing and responding; the time required will depend on the nature, scope, and complexity of the question as well as on the students' level of familiarity with the topic. For a conceptual question, allow at least a minute for individual responses.
Be sure to allow students time to formulate and rehearse ideas before sharing them. In addition to Think time, plan enough time for students to express and compare their responses. This Share time will give students the opportunity to discuss well-thought-out answers with peers and to refine their answers before speaking to the whole class.
Announce a time limit but gauge time needed by decibel levels as well. If the pairs are all still actively engaged, consider extending that limit by a minute or two. If one student seems to be dominating the other in the pair, set time limits for each student response.
The simplest reporting-out strategy is to have each pair share its most important point with the whole class. Limit the number of responses, repetition, and time required in the report out by asking each pair to share only ideas not yet mentioned. Following the reports, conclude with a synthesis to validate student responses by highlighting the good points that students brought out. Gently correct any responses that are incorrect and add any points that weren't covered. If appropriate, provide learners with an expert response, allowing them to check and revise their individual and pair responses. If time is limited or the class is large, randomly call on student pairs or collect a written version of the pair responses and review them outside of class.
To promote active listening during the report-out phase, randomly call on students and ask them to summarize what the reporting student just said. The reporting out usually provides instructors with sufficient feedback to assess student understanding. However, in cases when student pairs have exhibited a great deal of difficulty or confusion in their responses, it may be useful to do additional assessment. Consider using minute papers (Angelo & Cross, 1993, CAT 6, pp. 148–153), and ask students to write a half-sheet response to a question, such as, “What aspect of the prompt question was most difficult for you to answer?” or “On what points did you and your partner agree or disagree?”
Think-Pair-Share is typically used as an informal strategy to stimulate discussion and is not generally used for grading purposes.
Key References and Resources
- Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H., & Cross, K. P. (2014). CoLT 1. Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty (pp. 153–158). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Adapted with permission of publisher.
- Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3–4), 85–118.
- Lyman, F. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion. In A. S. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming digest. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, College of Education.
- Lyman, F. T. (1992). Think-pair-share, thinktrix, thinklinks, and weird facts: An interactive system for cooperative learning. In N. Davidson & T. Worsham (Eds.), Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning (pp. 169–181). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
- Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. American Council on Education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
- Perret, K. (2012, March 21). Think-pair-share variations [Web log post]. Retrieved July 27, 2017, from www.kathyperret.net/2012/03/think-pair-share-variations/