You may be thinking, \u201cReally?<\/em> Isn’t the process fully explained in the name?\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Sort of, but there is surprising nuance involved in well-executed think-pair-share, especially the highly effective version used in Peer Instruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In the traditional conception of think-pair-share (originally proposed by Frank Lyman (1981), though I\u2019ve never found a copy of that piece):<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Peer Instruction, the steps are similar, but the approach is more regimented (Crouch & Mazur, 2001):<\/p>\n\n\n\n Think-pair-share works best when the questions are very carefully crafted<\/em>. Mazur calls his questions ConcepTests<\/em> (conceptual tests), and they require higher-order thinking and\/or application of recently learned ideas. These are multiple choice questions with plausible distractors that often target students\u2019 misconceptions. Mazur suggests question difficulty such that ~50% of students get the correct answers on the first poll.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I have done this. I toss out a question to students (often spontaneously) and ask them to discuss it in pairs or small groups. This isn\u2019t a complete failure, but if students immediately start discussing in small groups, it is easy for some students to remain cognitively disengaged. They can simply listen to a classmate\u2019s answer without ever thoughtfully considering the question themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similarly, committing to an answer increases the likelihood of engagement, and students also become more emotionally invested in the result (\u201cDid I get it right?!\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n If a question isn\u2019t relevant, intriguing, puzzling, or exciting, it will feel like busywork or just a waste of time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If a question is too hard, say only 10% get the correct answer, then peer discussion is unlikely to improve students\u2019 understanding. Likewise, with an easy question, students won\u2019t benefit from discussing something they all agree on. Though the target is 50% correct answers, Mazur suggests that a range of 30% to 70% is suitable (Lasry et al., 2008), though an instructor can make adjustments on the fly if results are outside this range. If fewer than ~30% get the question correct initially, the instructor can revisit the concept and have students choose an answer again before proceeding with the normal approach. If more than ~70% of students are correct, the peer discussion step can simply be skipped (Lasry et al., 2008).<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019ve written a few times about effective learning strategies<\/a>, especially retrieval practice<\/a> and spaced practice<\/a>, but there are others. In self-explanation<\/em>, a student explains the reasoning behind the steps they took to solve a problem (Berry, 1983). In their review of learning strategies, Dunlosky et al. (2013) rated self-explanation as having medium utility (only retrieval practice and spaced practice were rated high utility). It should be immediately apparent that if students in the classroom are thoughtfully discussing and justifying their answers with peers, they are likely engaging in some variation of self-explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In introductory college physics courses, peer instruction has improved conceptual reasoning and quantitative problem solving (Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Fagen et al., 2002) and reduced rates of student attrition (Lasry et al., 2008). If think-pair-share is graded only for participation, then as Ken Bain (2021) observes, \u201cThe whole process employs formative assessment for as long as possible, giving people plenty of opportunity to try, fail, get feedback, and try again before anyone makes a judgment about their progress.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n While applications of think-pair-share are often considered in STEM fields, this can also be used in the humanities. I\u2019ve referred to \u201ccorrect answers\u201d for simplicity, but in Mazur\u2019s talk, he used the term \u201cpreferred answer\u201d to clarify that the approach can still be used even when there may not be a single, objectively correct answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In summary, think pair share is most effective if you follow a few key practices:<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you already use think-pair-share, think about whether you could improve your implementation. If you don\u2019t use of it, it is a relatively straightforward approach to improving student engagement in the classroom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Think-pair-share is a relatively straightforward, highly effective approach to improving student engagement, even in a large lecture setting. There is some hidden nuance though. For best results, implementation needs to be quite deliberate, and questions must be thoughtfully crafted. If you already use think-pair-share, take some time to reflect on your implementation. Are you meeting all the key requirements? Are your questions exciting? Do they engage your students in higher-order reasoning? Where could you make improvements? If you haven\u2019t used this approach before, it\u2019s a good one to add to your repertoire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bain, K. (2021). Super Courses: The Future of Teaching and Learning<\/em>. Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Berry, D. C. (1983). Metacognitive Experience and Transfer of Logical Reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A<\/em>, 35<\/em>(1), 39\u201349. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/14640748308402115<\/p>\n\n\n\n Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics<\/em>, 69<\/em>(9), 970\u2013977. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1119\/1.1374249<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving Students\u2019 Learning With Effective Learning Techniques Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest<\/em>, 14<\/em>(1), 4\u201358. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1529100612453266<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer Instruction: Results from a Range of Classrooms. The Physics Teacher<\/em>, 40<\/em>(4), 206\u2013209. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1119\/1.1474140<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Journal of Physics<\/em>, 76<\/em>(11), 1066\u20131069. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1119\/1.2978182<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lyman, F. (1981). The Responsive Classroom Discussion. In A. S. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming Digest<\/em> (pp. 109\u2013113). University of Maryland College of Education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User\u2019s Manual<\/em>. Prentice Hall. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Do you use think-pair-share in your classes? Are you doing it right? Recently, I (virtually) saw Eric Mazur speak on Peer Instruction, his teaching technique that incorporates a variation of traditional think-pair-share (Mazur, 1997). This reminded me of key aspects of think-pair-share that I had either forgotten or haven\u2019t always implemented. Thinking back to my […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":55423,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[546588,3521160,313372],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-795","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-classroom-practice","category-evidence-based-teaching","category-teaching-techniques"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/teachingamongtrees\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/795","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/teachingamongtrees\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/teachingamongtrees\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/teachingamongtrees\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/55423"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/teachingamongtrees\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=795"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/teachingamongtrees\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/795\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":819,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/teachingamongtrees\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/795\/revisions\/819"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/teachingamongtrees\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=795"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/teachingamongtrees\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=795"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/teachingamongtrees\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Think-Pair-Share<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Peer Instruction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Questions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Where can implementation of think-pair-share go astray?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1. Skipping the \u201cThink\u201d<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2. Not requiring students to commit to an answer<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3. Uninteresting question<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
4. Question too easy or too hard<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/teachingamongtrees\/files\/2021\/10\/Flow_Chart_Adapt_Lasry_2018-1024x659.jpg\")
Other Benefits of Peer Instruction \/ Think-Pair-Share<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Effective Use of Think-Pair-Share<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
References<\/h2>\n\n\n\n