American Journal of Educational Research
ISSN (Print): 2327-6126 ISSN (Online): 2327-6150 Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/education Editor-in-chief: Ratko Pavlović
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
American Journal of Educational Research. 2019, 7(3), 244-248
DOI: 10.12691/education-7-3-9
Open AccessArticle

Think-Pair-Share Strategy Enhances the Understanding of High School Students in Physics: The Case of Japanese Stem Educators

Takekuni Yamaoka1, , Shinichi Okino2, Kimihito Takeno3, Tomokazu Yamamoto4 and Shinji Matsumoto5

1Science Teacher, Ehime University Senior High School, Matsuyama City, Japan

2Science Teacher, Kanazawa Nishikigaoka Upper Secondary School, Kanazawa City, Japan

3Faculty of Education, Shiga University, Otsu City, Japan

4Advanced Elementary Teacher Education, Hyogo University of Teacher Education, Kato City, Japan

5Curriculum Instruction Development for Expert Teachers, Hyogo University of Teacher Education, Kato City, Japan

Pub. Date: March 13, 2019

Cite this paper:
Takekuni Yamaoka, Shinichi Okino, Kimihito Takeno, Tomokazu Yamamoto and Shinji Matsumoto. Think-Pair-Share Strategy Enhances the Understanding of High School Students in Physics: The Case of Japanese Stem Educators. American Journal of Educational Research. 2019; 7(3):244-248. doi: 10.12691/education-7-3-9

Abstract

This research designed a lesson that allowed students to consider the principle of a magnetic top while utilizing the teaching method “Think-Pair-Share,” which promotes discussion. The purpose of this research is to practice lessons in high school science classes, analyze them, and evaluate “Think-Pair-Share.” This science class was conducted in December 2016 for 54 high school students in 11th grade in Japan. Two groups were formed among the students to enhance their understanding of electromagnets. The breakdown was as follows: from a total of 54 students, the stainless-steel group contained 27 students and the iron group contained 27 students. Each lesson was conducted over two hours. The stainless-steel group used stainless steel and iron bolts to promote discussion on the properties of an electromagnet and the iron group used iron bolts only. Apart from this teaching strategy to foster discussion, “Think-Pair-Share” was used. As a result, it was revealed that the discussion was deepened and promoted in the stainless-steel group for which the experiment was not successful the first time, rather than the iron group for which the experiment succeeded the first time. Therefore, the “Think-Pair-Share” strategy was effective in encouraging discussion that was wide-ranging and conducted from various perspectives. It was considered that discussion between two people was an important factor. In particular, it became clear that Think-Pair-Share is effective under circumstances that generate cognitive conflicts.

Keywords:
magnetic top cognitive conflicts think-pair-share

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

Figure of 6

References:

[1]  Sawyer, R.K. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, 4-5.
 
[2]  Hammond, L.D., Barron, B.B., Pearson, P.D., & Schoenfeld, A.H. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. Jossey-Bass, 196-197.
 
[3]  Bloom, B.S., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, The classification of educational goals handbook 1. David McKay, 62-77.
 
[4]  Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing; A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison Wesley Longman, 27-37.
 
[5]  David, A.S. & Thomas, J.P. (2017).From stem to stem. (Munegumi, T., Trans). Gentosha Inc, 223-243. Corwin, a SAGE company.
 
[6]  Lyman, F. (1981). The Responsive Classroom Discussion. (Anderson, A.S., Ed), Mainstreaming Digest, 109-113. College Park, MD: University of Maryland College of Education.
 
[7]  Walsh, J.A., & Sattes, B.D. (2011). Thinking through quality questioning: Deeping student engagement. Corwin Press, 169-170.
 
[8]  Pope, G. (2013). Questioning technique pocketbook. Teachers’ Pocketbooks, 84-85.
 
[9]  National Research Council of the National Academies. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, 41-82.
 
[10]  Myers, A., & Berkowicz, J. (2015). The STEM Shift: A Guide for School Leaders, Corwin Press, 14-24.
 
[11]  Higuchi, K. (2014). Quantitative text analysis for social research toward the inheritance and development of content analysis. Nakanishiya publication, 1-16.
 
[12]  Yamaoka, T., Takeno, K., Okino, S., & Matsumoto, S. (2017). Developing and evaluating elementary-level teaching materials “magnetic top”: An analysis of questionnaire using text mining. American Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 189-195.