by Tom Creed
St. John's University
published in Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, Vol. 7, No 1, 1996.
Of all of the cooperative learning techniques I promote with faculty in workshops and during individual consultations, the one that is adopted most quickly and widely is Think-Pair-Share. In the variant I promote, the instructor: 1) stops at a point where she would like to open the topic for discussion, 2) asks students to write for a minute or so on some fairly specific question that will be the opening class discussion question, 3) pairs students with others sitting near, and 4) asks student pairs to share their ides for a couple of minutes. Think-Pair-Share is so quickly accepted because it doesn't involve a major conceptual change on the part of the instructor (it makes intuitively good sense, even to those who haven't yet bought into the notion that classrooms should be student centered) and it is not very intrusive (it doesn't take that much time away from COVERING THE MATERIAL!).
As good a technique as Think-Pair-Share is, there is a magic moment when it either leads to the kind of discussion the instructor wants, or it fizzles out. The moment of truth comes when the instructor makes the transition from pairs conversation to a whole class discussion. This is where being aware of Think-Pair-Share's value as a Classroom Assessment Technique can make the difference between sizzle and fizzle--if the instructor is prepared to take advantage of the opportunity it provides.
The following E-mail I recently received from a faculty member is a case in point:
Tom:
I tried that discussion strategy we talked about -- quick write, quick discussion with neighbors into class discussion. They wrote well, they talked well with their neighbors (great, even) and then clamped up when we opened up the larger discussion. I think that it's partially the material (Romantic poetry is daunting), but it's also part of the personality of the class, I'm beginning to think. Anyway, just wanted to thank you for your good suggestion and to let you know that it--nearly-- worked!
Best, M
In discussing this with the instructor later, we decided that Think-Pair-Share did work--students thought about the material, and talked about it--that discussion by itself is going to make the content stick with them better. But the fact is the technique didn't do everything that the instructor had hoped. Moving from the one-on-one conversation (which even Minnesotans will do) to a whole-class discussion is always the hard part. The two minutes of paired discussion is the most important two minutes of the class--not only is it the time when they are most actively engaged in the material, but it is the instructor's prime opportunity to assess (albeit informally) where the class is at with the material. In additionthis activity helps set the transition to that most feared beast, the whole class discussion. What I do in my class while students are talking with neighbors is float around the room, listening for interesting comments. In two minutes of listening to student conversation, I'm likely to find three or four comments worth pursuing. I'll then start the whole class discussion, and if it doesn't take off, I'll call on someone who had made an insightful comment during the paired conversation, prefacing it by saying something like, "Jody, I found your comment [fill-in-the-blank] pretty interesting. What led you to that conclusion?" If you reinforce students' participation by letting them know that you found their observation interesting, they don't mind being called on.
The transition from passivity to active participation is a difficult step, and taking
advantage of Think-Pair-Share as a Classroom Assessment Technique can be invaluable in
that process.