Determining the Most Effective Stage of the Think-Pair-Share Teaching Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation was carried out to examine the effect of think-pair-share on high school learners’ academic attainment in fractions and the most effective stage of the think-pair-share. Two research questions and five hypotheses guided this study. An explanatory sequential mixed method design was used. Purposive and convenience sampling techniques were used to select the first-years and the 78 participants, respectively. Teacher-made fractions achievement tests and interviews were used as the data-gathering instruments. Students’ academic achievement was analysed using independent and paired samples t-tests whilst the interview data was analysed thematically. The study found that learners who received fractions instructions using the think-pair-share model outperformed their colleagues who were taught fractions without think-pair-share. Also, the performance of students at the pair stage was higher than the performance of the same students at the think stage on the same test items. It was again found that intolerance, lack of self-confidence and inability to build consensus on the part of some students affected their performances at the pair stage. It was, therefore, concluded that Think-Pair-Share is effective in teaching fractions and that the most effective stage of the Think-Pair-Share strategy is the pair stage. It was therefore recommended that teachers be encouraged to use the think-pair-share teaching strategy in their teaching and that think-pair-share should be made to form an integral part of the Senior High School mathematics curriculum. Again, teachers and the Ghana education service should consider assessing students in pairs. Also, teachers should encourage students to be tolerant and confident in themselves.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".