Formative Value of an Active Learning Strategy: Technology Based Think-Pair-Share in an EFL Writing Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Think-Pair-Share (TPS) activities in classrooms provide an opportunity for students to revise, practice and reproducepreviously learned knowledge. Teachers also benefit from this active learning strategy by exploiting new learningmaterials, saving time by minimizing presentations and using it as a formative assessment tool. This article exploreshow a teacher can employ the strategy to both promote active learning and conduct formative assessment in atime-efficient way. To do this, a TPS activity was designed on an online platform along with an assessment rubric forstudent products. In 60 minutes, students thought individually on the topic provided, discussed and collaborated ingroups and finally wrote down their paragraphs on the online tool. Each group shared paragraphs simultaneously.The teacher examined the paragraphs in terms of the predefined learning outcomes and determined the points to berevised. The students answered an open-ended online questionnaire a day later and the qualitative data were analyzedthrough a coding system. The assessment results successfully showed the learning points to be revisited and theresults of the questionnaire supported the assessments of the teacher. The majority of the students revealed that theywere satisfied and willing to do the activity again in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".