Volume 27, Issue 1 (March 2023)                   Physiol Pharmacol 2023, 27(1): 28-33 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Manasa M R, Karant C, Bhimalli S. A comparative study of the efficacy of “Think-Pair- Share” method over tutorials in Pharmacology forundergraduates. Physiol Pharmacol 2023; 27 (1) :28-33
URL: http://ppj.phypha.ir/article-1-1891-en.html
Abstract:   (1030 Views)
Introduction: “Think–Pair–Share” (TPS) is an active cooperative teaching-learning method that encourages as well as allows for individual thinking, collaboration, and presentation. It offers the benefits of small group learning and the development of higher-order thinking skills. It provides immediate feedback to students on their understanding and teachers on the extent of pupil understanding. Thus it helps in modifying both teaching and learning. Hence the current study aimed at comparing the efficacy of TPS with tutorials and assessing the perception of students towards TPS.
Methods: 42 students who met the eligibility criteria and consented to participate in the study were included after obtaining Institutional ethics committee clearance and written informed consent. There were 2 test groups. TPS was employed to teach Group 1 while Group 2 was taught by Tutorials simultaneously for 6 sessions. A pre-test and post-test were conducted for each session. A final Multiple choice question test was conducted at the end of the study. The perception of the participants towards TPS was also obtained.
Results: Our study did not show a significant difference between the post-test, change in mean post-test over pre-test scores, and final test scores. The participants had a good perception regarding TPS and agreed that it was engaging and improved communication with the teacher. They felt that it also should be used in the future.
Conclusion: Although TPS failed to exhibit an improved efficacy, it can be used in the future because it promotes active learner participation, individual thinking, and communication skills as well as provides immediate feedback.
Full-Text [PDF 2488 kb]   (322 Downloads)    

References
1. Ariana S. Finding the effects of think-pair-share on student confidence and participation. Honors Projects 2013; 28.
2. Black P, William D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ.: Princ Policy Pract 1998; 51: 7-74. [DOI:10.1080/0969595980050102.]
3. Bonwell CC, Eison JA. Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development. George Washington University, 1991.
4. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2014; 111(23): 8410-15. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1319030111]
5. Gok T. A comparison of students’ performance, skill and confidence with peer instruction and formal education. J Balt Sci Educ 2013; 12(6), 747-58. [DOI:10.33225/jbse/13.12.747]
6. Giancarlo CA, Facione PA. A look across four years at the disposition toward critical thinking among undergraduate students. J Gen Educ 2007; 5(91):29-55. [DOI:10.1353/jge.2001.0004]
7. Hamdan RKA. The Effect of (Think - Pair - Share) strategy on the achievement of third grade student in sciences in the educational district of irbid. J educ pract 2017; 8(9): 88-95.
8. Kaddoura M. Think Pair Share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students’ critical thinking. Educ Res Quart 2013; 36(4):3-24.
9. Karge BD, Phillips KM, Jessee T, McCabe M. Effective strategies for engaging adult learners. J Coll Sci Teach 2011; 8:53-6. [DOI:10.19030/tlc.v8i12.6621]
10. Kumar R, Upadhyay AK. Effectiveness of think-pair-share technique over conventional technique in promoting science education at upper primary standard. Int J Educ Res 2016, 2(11): 89-90.
11. Ledlow S. Using think-pair-share in the college classroom. center for learning and teaching excellence, Arizona State University, 2001.
12. Lujan H, DiCarlo SE. Too much teaching, not enough learning: what is the solution? Adv Physiol Educ 2005; 30(1):17-22. [DOI:10.1152/advan.00061.2005.]
13. MacDougall C. A novel teaching tool combined with active-learning to teach antimicrobial spectrum activity. Am J Pharm Educ 2017; 81: 25. [DOI:10.5688/ajpe81225]
14. McDermott LC. Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned-Closing the gap. Am J Phys, 1991; 59(4), 301-15. [DOI:10.1119/1.16539.]
15. Medical council of India, 2017, http://www.mciindia.org/tools/announcement/ MCI_booklet.pdf (accessed 21.5.17).
16. Nagel P. Moving beyond lecture: Cooperative learning and the secondary social studies classroom. Education Chula Vista, 2008; 128(3):363-8.
17. Nwaubani OO, Ogbueghu SN, Adeniyi KD, Eze DM. Effects of think-pair-share (TPS) and student-teams-achievement divisions (STAD) instructional strategies on senior secondary school students’ achievement in economics. Austr J Basic Appl Sci 2016; 10(13):1-9.
18. Sapsuha S, Bugis R. Think pair share technique to improve students’ reading comprehension. ICE-Ed conference. ICE-Ed conference. ELT Practices in Asia: Challenges and Opportunities, 2013.
19. Sumekto DR. Investigating the influence of think-pair-share approach toward students’ reading achievement. Lingua Cultura 2018; 12(2):195-202. [DOI:10.21512/lc.v12i2.4011]
20. Zaini RG. Student’s feedback regarding the think pair share strategy in haematology class. Educ Res Rev 2020; 8(1): 16-20.

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.