CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 65Innovative Teaching MethodsInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsProblem and Project Based Learning

Reconsidering the Share of a Think–Pair–Share: Emerging Limitations, Alternatives, and Opportunities for Research

Open access
Cooper, Katelyn M., Schinske, Jeffrey N., Tanner, Kimberly D.·2021·CBE—Life Sciences Education
DOI 10.1187/cbe.20-08-0200PMC PMC8108495
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The think–pair–share is a common teaching tool, but how critical is the “share” step in helping students achieve learning goals? This feature examines assumptions that instructors may make about the share, explores unanticipated impacts of the share, and provides alternatives to having students share their thoughts in front of the class.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1187/cbe.20-08-0200

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • TPS involves three main steps: think individually, pair to discuss and compare ideas, and share validated ideas with the class.

    “TPS involves three main steps, namely 'think' students are required to think individually about the problem, and then 'pair' students will be organized in pairs to discuss and compare their ideas, and 'share' students will share their results of their ideas that have been validated to all class participants (Cooper et al., 2021; Mundelsee & Jurkowski, 2021).”

    From EFFECTIVENESS OF USING THINK PAIR SHARE MODEL IN INCREASING STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN ECONOMIC SUBJECTS FROM GENDER PERSPECTIVES (2025) · cites this paper as Cooper et al., 2021

    The “Reintroducing the Think–Pair–Share Pedagogical Strategy” section and Table 1 describe individual thinking, discussion in pairs or small groups, and sharing with the class. They do not say that ideas must be validated before they are shared; the discussion of real-time synthesis notes that students may share misconceptions. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Allen, D. Tanner, K. (2002). Answers worth waiting for: One second is hardly enough. Cell Biology Education, 1(1), 3– 5.12587024
  2. Auerbach, A. J. J. Andrews, T. C. (2018). Pedagogical knowledge for active-learning instruction in large undergraduate biology courses: a large-scale qualitative investigation of instructor thinking. International journal of STEM education, 5(1), 19. 30631709 PMC6310404
  3. Auerbach, A. J. Higgins, M. Brickman, P. Andrews, T. C. (2018). Teacher knowledge for active-learning instruction: Expert–novice comparison reveals differences. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar12. 29420184 PMC6007764
  4. Bailey, E. G. Greenall, R. F. Baek, D. M. Morris, C. Nelson, N. Quirante, T. M.,... & Williams, K. R. (2020). Female in-class participation and performance increase with more female peers and/or a female instructor in life sciences courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(3), ar30. 32644001 PMC8711806
  5. Ballen, C. J. Aguillon, S. M. Awwad, A. Bjune, A. E. Challou, D. Drake, A. G.,... & Goldberg, E. E. (2019). Smaller classes promote equitable student participation in STEM. BioScience, 69(8), 669– 680.
  6. Broeckelman-Post, M. Johnson, A. Schwebach, J. R. (2016). Calling on students using notecards: Engagement and countering communication anxiety in large lecture. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(5), 27.
  7. Buzinski, S. G. Armstrong-Carter, E. Clark, J. (2020). Think, pair, freeze: The association between social anxiety and student discomfort in the active learning environment. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 5(4), 265– 277. 10.1037/stl0000147 · DOI
  8. Carter, A. J. Croft, A. Lukas, D. Sandstrom, G. M. (2018). Women’s visibility in academic seminars: Women ask fewer questions than men. PLoS ONE, 13(9), e0202743. 30260980 PMC6159863
  9. Cavanagh, A. J. Aragón, O. R. Chen, X. Couch, B. A. Durham, M. F. Bobrownicki, A.,... & Graham, M. J. (2016). Student buy-in to active learning in a college science course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar76. 27909026 PMC5132373
  10. Cavender, J. F. Rutter, S. M. (1997). Multimedia: Bringing the sciences to life—Experiences with multimedia in the life sciences [Conference presentation]. In Association of Small Computer Users in Education (ASCUE) Summer Conference, North Myrtle Beach, SC.
  11. Chi, M. T. Kang, S. Yaghmourian, D. L. (2017). Why students learn more from dialogue-than monologue-videos: Analyses of peer interactions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 10– 50.
  12. Cohen, E. G. Lotan, R. A. Scarloss, B. A. Arellano, A. R. (1999). Complex instruction: Equity in cooperative learning classrooms. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 80– 86.
  13. Coley, J. D. Arenson, M. Xu, Y. Tanner, K. D. (2017). Intuitive biological thought: Developmental changes and effects of biology education in late adolescence. Cognitive Psychology, 92, 1– 21. 27865155
  14. Cooper, K. M. Brownell, S. E. (2020). Student anxiety and fear of negative evaluation in active learning science classrooms. In Walter, E. Mintzes, J. J. (Eds.), Active learning in college science. (pp. 909– 925). Switzerland: Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_56 · DOI
  15. Cooper, K. M. Downing, V. R. Brownell, S. E. (2018). The influence of active learning practices on student anxiety in large-enrollment college science classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 23. 30631713 PMC6310416
  16. Dallimore, E. J. Hertenstein, J. H. Platt, M. B. (2013). Impact of cold-calling on student voluntary participation. Journal of Management Education, 37(3), 305– 341.
  17. Downing, V. R. Cooper, K. M. Cala, J. M. Gin, L. E. Brownell, S. E. (2020). Fear of negative evaluation and student anxiety in community college active-learning science courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(2), ar20. 32453679 PMC8697658
  18. Eddy, S. L. Brownell, S. E. Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Gender gaps in achievement and participation in multiple introductory biology classrooms. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 478– 492. 25185231 PMC4152209
  19. England, B. J. Brigati, J. R. Schussler, E. E. (2017). Student anxiety in introductory biology classrooms: Perceptions about active learning and persistence in the major. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0182506. 28771564 PMC5542638
  20. England, B. J. Brigati, J. R. Schussler, E. E. Chen, M. M. (2019). Student anxiety and perception of difficulty impact performance and persistence in introductory biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2), ar21. 31120397 PMC6755222
  21. Ernest, J. B. Reinholz, D. L. Shah, N. (2019). Hidden competence: Women’s mathematical participation in public and private classroom spaces. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(2), 153– 172.
  22. Gomez, A. M., Arai, M. J. Lowe, H. (1995). When does a student participate in class? Ethnicity and classroom participation [Conference presentation]. Annual Speech Communication Association Conference, San Antonio, TX.
  23. Gould, R. A. Buckminster, S. Pollack, M. H. Otto, M. W. Massachusetts, L. Y. (1997). Cognitive-behavioral and pharmacological treatment for social phobia: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 4(4), 291– 306.
  24. Gray, J. A. McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar].
  25. Grunspan, D. Z. Eddy, S. L. Brownell, S. E. Wiggins, B. L. Crowe, A. J. Goodreau, S. M. (2016). Males under-estimate academic performance of their female peers in undergraduate biology classrooms. PLoS ONE, 11(2): e0148405. 10.1371/journal.pone.0148405 26863320 PMC4749286 · DOI
  26. Harrison, C. D. Nguyen, T. A. Seidel, S. B. Escobedo, A. M. Hartman, C. Lam, K.,... & Akana, S. F. (2019). Investigating Instructor Talk in novel contexts: Widespread use, unexpected categories, and an emergent sampling strategy. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(3), ar47. 31469624 PMC6755320
  27. Heimberg, R. G. Brozovich, F. A. Rapee, R. M. (2010). A cognitive behavioral model of social anxiety disorder: Update and extension. In Social Anxiety: Clinical, Developmental, and Social Perspectives (pp. 395– 422). New York, NY: Elsevier.
  28. Hsi, S. Hoadley, C. M. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23– 36.
  29. Knight, J. K. Wise, S. B. Sieke, S. (2016). Group random call can positively affect student in-class clicker discussions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar56. 27856544 PMC5132353
  30. Lederman, N. G. Abd-El-Khalick, F. Bell, R. L. Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497– 521.
  31. Leupen, S. M. Kephart, K. L. Hodges, L. C. (2020). Factors influencing quality of team discussion: Discourse analysis in an undergraduate team-based learning biology course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(1), ar7. 32058832 PMC8697641
  32. O’Sullivan, P. B. Hunt, S. K. Lippert, L. R. (2004). Mediated immediacy: A language of affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(4), 464– 490.
  33. Owens, M. T. Seidel, S. B. Wong, M. Bejines, T. E. Lietz, S. Perez, J. R.,... & Tanner, K. D. (2017). Classroom sound can be used to classify teaching practices in college science courses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 114(12), 3085. 10.1073/pnas.1618693114 PMC5373389 28265087 · DOI
  34. Rowe, M. B. (1972). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables: Their influence on language, logic, and fate control [Conference presentation]. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL.
  35. Schunk, D. H. Hanson, A. R. Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer-model attributes and children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 54.
  36. Seidel, S. B. Tanner, K. D. (2013). “What if students revolt?”—Considering student resistance: Origins, options, and opportunities for investigation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 586– 595. 24297286 PMC3846509
  37. Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis of findings. Anxiety Research, 4(1), 27– 41.
  38. Sherman, L. W. (1991). Cooperative learning in post secondary education: Implications from social psychology for active learning experiences [Conference presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
  39. Smith, M. K. Wood, W. B. Adams, W. K. Wieman, C. Knight, J. K. Guild, N. Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122– 124. 19119232
  40. Tanner, K. D. (2009). Talking to learn: Why biology students should be talking in classrooms and how to make it happen. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(2), 89– 94. 19487494 PMC2689152
  41. Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 322– 331. 24006379 PMC3762997
  42. Waugh, A. H. Andrews, T. C. (2020). Diving into the details: Constructing a framework of random call components. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(2), ar14. 32357096 PMC8697661

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cooper, K. M., Schinske, J. N., & Tanner, K. D.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Foothill College (US)
  • San Francisco State University (US)
Corresponding author
Tanner, Kimberly D.
ORCID
Cooper, Katelyn M.
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2021-03
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
fe1
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1187/cbe.20-08-0200
PMC
PMC8108495
OpenAlex
W3118809854
Cited by
65
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7
FWCI
19.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
Keywords
Think Pair Share, classroom discussion, cooperative learning, active learning, learning outcomes
MeSH terms
Humans, Learning, Students, Teaching

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review